If what you really think is different from what you say you think, I, for one, would be pleased to hear it.
Thank you.
The problem is, in part, that the GOP platform is from 2008. There has been some fundamental change in what the GOP appears to actually be about, and I think that is what is being asked about. For example, from the GOP Platform website:
But recent efforts in many states to restrict that right to collect bargaining would mean that this no longer applies. Or does it? So which way does it go?
Or again, from the GOP Platform:
Yet it seems many of the GOP, including at least 2 presidential candidates, were willing to default on the US debt in order to …something. Make a point? Punish holders of US savings bonds? I’m still not sure. So what is the actual GOP position now?
That, I think, is the core of this question. Not an attempt to sneer and point and laugh, at least not on my part.
Do you really need me to go pull all the examples of the platform that seem to contradict recent GOP behavior?
…and everyone else will continue to assume you don’t know what you think because you appear to be unable to explain it.
I don’t believe the democratic party has a strong or unified party. When the Iraq war came up tons of democrats voted for it. However now that the democratic party is in power the GOP is nearly unanimous in its opposition to the policies of the obama administration. The democratic party has never, from what I can tell, had that kind of unity.
Part of it is that republicans are more involved in primaries, and outside financial interest groups are more willing to fund primaries from the right. The base of the democratic party really doesn’t have that kind of influence or power. The GOP fears its base, the democratic party holds its base in contempt. Part of it is that the GOP has a lot to lose if it infuriates its base, the democrats do not.
Nationally, I really don’t see anything about the democratic power that would imply they have a strong organization.
Plus the dems have divisions. Liberals (who make up 20% of the electorate and 40% of the democratic party) are socially and economically liberal. Minorities and reagan democrats tend to be economically liberal but socially conservative, and minorities and reagan democrats are extremely easy to divide.
But there are divisions among the economically liberal. Some support anti-poverty efforts, some only support liberal economics as a way to empower the working middle class and view programs for the poor as a form of taking from those who work and giving it to those who don’t.
At the same time another group (known as disillusioned, among others) tend to be lower wage, lower education and less motivated. Getting them to bother to vote is a hassle, and they are the ones affected most by the voter suppression efforts the GOP have engaged in on a state by state basis. The only thing the democratic party really has going for it is demographics and the fact that their views are not popular among millennials and minorities.
Which is another point, groups like ALEC are pushing voter suppression laws on a state by state basis for a reason, because they make it easier for a pro-business government to thrive and flourish on a state level. The democratic party has no equivalent of ALEC.
In fact when the democracy alliance was created in Colorado (uniting gay rights groups, environmental groups, labor groups, poverty groups, wealthy benefactors, trial lawyers, etc) to pool their talent pool and financial resources that was considered a massive step forward. But that was a statewide Colorado initiative. The democratic party has nothing on the national level that is the equivalent from what I can tell.
Maybe it is a grass is greener thing. But I don’t think the democrats are organized the way the GOP is. The GOP, while I don’t agree with their policies, know how to unite and use their abilities well.
I would add to what John Mace outlined (which is largely correct, IMO) that if you want to consider the baseline GOP budgetary policy you could look at the budget they passed out of the House (sometimes called the “Ryan Budget”). It lays out what the current budgetary priorities of the GOP are, as well as their plans for entitlement reform.
I also agree that the GOP stance re: foreign policy is largely chaotic at this point, as the need to rhetorically oppose Obama have come up against much of the earlier rhetoric of promoting democracy in the Middle East. Most of the presidential candidates seem to be considerably more bellicose wrt Iran than Obama is (Paul being the noteworthy exception).
Do the majority of Republican run states fall in that category? If not, then I’m not seeing your point. No party is monolithic.
Again, not seeing what the issue is. They didn’t want to raise the debt limit. That would not have stopped “essential government services”. But the fact is, they did agree to raise the limit. Don’t confuse a negotiating tactic with a long term strategic goal. If I want to buy your house and offer you $200K, that doesn’t mean I won’t eventually settle for $225k.
Yep, it’s all there— nothing to be debated, questioned, or held up to the harsh light of reality.
Similarly, one wishing to completely understand the actions and motivations of, say, the government of North Korea need only check their website. If you’re a real stickler, they also have plenty of helpful and informative newscasts, billboards, murals, and parades to tell you everything you need to know.
Only if you are using “liberals” as a dishonest euphemism for “politically interested persons of all ideologies.” If so, the above is at least arguable, if not, then it’s pure damned bullshit.
Paul is emphatically not an isolationist. Isolationism entails reducing or eliminating foreign trade, withdrawing from international bodies, reduced diplomacy; It’s anathema to anyone who champions free trade, which Paul does. Paul is a non-interventionist which basically means “no non-defensive wars.”
It’s not just a semantic nitpick: everyone knows isolationism is essentially impossible in the 21st century, which is why people supporting an aggressive foreign policy use it as a smear against anyone who wants a reduced military.
And much, more. The concept was what would the GOP do if they had a filibuster-proof majority and the presidency. Right now the GOP isn’t about “as much as possible” it’s about taking it to eleven.
What I initially wrote:
If the Republicans now in congress had the votes and the presidency they would do all of this. Except for perhaps the Newt thing about the children workers.
The voucher thing is in the Ryan budget. The Tax thing is in every presidential candidate’s proposals. As is the evolution thing and there is clear support for the “dang” fence. They are attacking planned parenthood at every chance. All the major candidates support a personhood amendment that would abolish most hormonal birth control. Allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines would make the health care system more profitable and less functional (by allowing all insurance companies to go to the state with the lowest regulations). Yada yada yada.
The most important thing though, is that they would: 1. reduce our credit rating by not increasing the debt limit. And 2. send us into a second recession / depression by slashing millions of government jobs on top of that. Their plan to lower taxes on the rich to as close to zero as possible isn’t something that will create significant jobs.
The overall idea was what could one person do to do the most damage to America. And I say, elect a Republican lock on government. The smoking wreckage our economy would be after four years of that would certainly make 911 pale in comparison. A world-wide depression and no desire to help the people they financially destroyed.
Well, sure, but I think the OP is looking for ways they differ from the Democrats.
I guess you can take two approaches here: Make an honest attempt to understand what the GOP platform is or try and paint the GOP in the worst light possible. I’m seeing a lot more of the latter than the former in this thread, so I shan’t waste any more time here. I’m not especially an expert on the GOP platform anyway, so maybe an actual Republican will be interested in helping out those who are genuinely interested. This isn’t rocket surgery.
But just one final note, which I already mentioned earlier: The GOP taking over does not equate to Tea Party America. In order for the GOP to do so, they have to get a number of moderates elected. That’s the same for the Dems. This is not a majority Tea Party country. If you want to discuss what a Tea Party America would be like, that’s another discussion-- a hypothetical that isn’t going to happen, though.
I realize we all look like Der Trihs when we paint the GOP as cartoonishly evil, but… you’re assuming that’s inaccurate nad we’re just zealouts. But the GOP really has been cartoonishly evil lately - it doesn’t take exaggeration.
The most common defense of that is essentially disbelief that half the politics in the US could be evil - but that’s not logically impossible or anything.
Really? You don’t think it’s worth speculating that the aftermath of state elections in 2010 shows the Republican Party to be rather more hostile to labor rights than their 2008 platform indicates? As for whether the national party would follow that lead, I’d go by what congressional Republicans have actually done as a batter guide than what the said in 2008 that their goals were. Does their platform indicate that they would shut down the National Labor Relations Board? Doubtful. But even in the minority, they’ve now actually done that. As of the Jan. 1st expiration of Craig Becker’s recess appointment, the board no longer has a quorum, and is prohibited from making decisions.
Basically, it’s now open season on anyone trying to unionize. Just fire them all. The government can’t do anything until the Republicans relent or Obama breaks with recent custom and uses the recess appointment power while the GOP is trying to keep the Senate in pro forma session.
You confuse lack of care for care with opposition. To us, unions are a neutral factor favoring some workers over others. If they conflict with the public interest, they may lose their privileged place. Note that Republicans took action against unions where economic and financial issues essentially required it.
Ah, that’s right. financial issues demanded that teachers but not firefighters lose their right to collectively bargain. There was no politics to that, of course.
And using the filibuster to stop the NLRB from functioning was entirely demanded by conditions, and the Republicans are merely disinterested with the right of employees to organize without getting fired.
Abortion is not as necessary for the GOP plutocrats for keeping the social conservatives fired up now that they have gay marriage to frighten them with.
I said they wanted to exercise the power they obtained. That means attempting their crazy ideas.
I don’t think they were motivated by finances. The GOP pushed various programs (tax cuts, stronger military) that cost money and didn’t blink on the subject. The real motivation of the GOP is political power. Labor unions are about the only well heeled source of financial support and political volunteers for progressive agendas (labor put about $400+ million and millions of volunteer hours in the 2008 election). Demolishing the public sector unions (private sector unions have for all intent and purposes already been abolished) will make it harder for progressives to win legislative victories. Republicans took action because the political environment gave them the capacity to take down a powerful ally of their political opposition.