Wherefore & whither the GOP? (Sept 2010)

Politics & Elections
41

Actually, I contend that the problem is the “no real hope,” business you mention. We should be privitizing Social Security, not continuing to shovel money into an entitlement program. I think we have a better chance of moving in the right direction with the GOP at the helm.

Reaganomics was a success. Not an unmixed success, but a success.

Pretty tenuous claim of “proof.” I completely disagree.

I disagree that this problem is more GOP than Democratic. Carter was no prize. And any party that’s running Alvin Greene for Senate can’t really stand for the proposition that they’re the party of weeding out lackluster candidates.

While I agree party discipline is tighter in the GOP, I disagree that it’s monolithic, and I disagree that this is a terrible thing.

Apparently, it’s not possible to have a good-faith difference of belief in what the role of government should be. You’re either in favor of these programs, or catering to bigots.

This post answers your question. You can no longer claim to be unaware of why some people are voting GOP.

42

I interpret that the exact opposite. “Should be” being the operative words in that sentence.

43

Reagan ran deficits, too. This is actually a Republican strategy that was invented in the 70s by conservative Jude Wanniski. It’s called the Two Santa Claus theory. Essentially, Wanniski pointed out that the liberal Democrats of the 60s and 70s always increased government benefits for people, making it difficult for Republicans to take the opposite side (since people would always see the Dems as giving them things, and Republicans as being stingy). Therefore, he proposed that Republicans push for tax cuts (“tax relief”) without regard for the deficit, and market the tax cuts toward the middle class. Then, once the Democrats took office, they would scream about the deficit, and maintain that all spending must be cut to balance the budget–thus, no increase in benefits could take place. You can see this strategy with Reagan/Bush to Clinton and now Bush to Obama.

44

Whom exactly is this “unorganized militia” supposed to fight, and why?

45

Bricker, explain this to me simply. Why is privatizing social security a good idea? Basically, you’d turn it over to private money-market managers? Or would you turn it into something individual people have to manage, and mostly won’t? I thought half the power in a large fund was that it was all together.

46

Could be a home invader, could be a rogue sheriff (it’s happened).

47

As I said above:

Gun rights advocates & right-to-lifers are the great sucker movements of the GOP. I came from the pro-life side (I was pro-gun-control) but it’s the same thing. Getting hung up on one “individual rights” issue & not seeing the big picture, or even taking the bargain that you’ll let the rentiers bleed the country–and now, even bankrupt the government–for that one issue. It’'s irresponsible.

Sure, why not? What possible reason do we have to base them on hand-cranked presses now?

And yet, “freedom of the press” did not appear in isolation–that would have been baldly plutocratic in the day–but alongside “freedom of speech.”

By contrast, the Constitution does not explicitly ensure both the right to bear arms and the right to bear them unlicensed & unorganized. And it does not explicitly define the right to bear arms as a right to use witchcraft, which today’s weapons are by 18th-Century standards.

It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. You have the right to a reasonable gun which you are provably able to handle & control; if you keep your nose clean & go through a licensing regimen. If we were really following the Constitution, you should have to also show up for citizen militia drills once in a while. Or do you think that a bunch of individuals keeping arms only for their personal protection &/or amusement are either the intent or the meaning of the Second?

48

The fact is every time someone says

**Originally Posted by Mozart1220 **
Democrats have no problem with the 2nd amendment

Invariably there is always a qualifier:

**Originally Posted by Mozart1220 **
they just don’t see the need for…

There is always a “but”.

The truth is collectively Democrats DO have a problem with the Second Amendment, as judged by their actions.

49

And the Republicans have an even bigger problem with the Second Amendment, as judged by their actions. When Democrat Brian Schweitzer tried to recall the Montana National Guard from Iraq, where were all the supposedly pro-Second-Amendment Republicans who were supporting him?

50

Cute, Bricker. I’ll start at the end of post #41.

I’m hardly unaware, considering I used to be one of you guys. I simply am frustrated at your (not* thy*, Bricker, but* y’all’s*) continued insolence, ignorance, & bullheaded insistence that your party’s policies are not responsible for the servility, corruption, & general fiscal insanity of government since 1981.

Since you apparently consider “entitlement program” an epithet, I hope, until we are able to make cuts in the extremely popular HHS programs, you will support raising taxes enough to gradually buy out T-bill holders, so we’re not continuing to shovel money to them. And let’s recall that Social Security & Medicare are so popular that when the GOP controlled Congress & the White House they failed to restructure SS & actually expanded Medicare. So now you can no longer claim to be unaware of why those still exist in their present form.

Of course, one of W Bush’s two great failures to lead the GOP Congress where he would have liked (the other being immigration reform) was SS privatization. Presumably this was in part because privatizing SS would have required a considerable tax increase, presumably on payroll & thus on all American businesses.

True. Reaganomics was a success at increasing the after-tax financial situation of a taxpayer constituency who have happily funded the GOP on the condition that they offer more of the same. Both times it was tried, it was a failure at balancing the budget, it was a failure at increasing the wealth of the lower 50% of Americans, & it was a failure at dealing with structural demand failures. Over time, the lack of regular demand-side stimulus led to long-term unemployment & homelessness for some, the return of 50-hour+ workweeks for others, & a consumer economy where the consumption base was only keeping the system alive on borrowed money.

Of course you do, you’re ignorant.

Carter was indeed a harbinger of the idiotic politics to come. He was the first of the “outsider state governor” presidents. But he was outshone in the stupid by Reagan & W Bush. Carter at least tried to explain to the American people that grown-up reality is not the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Reagan & Bush played to & encouraged the overgrown two-year-old demographic.

Well, you’re right there. I’ll concede that point. Bush got his war in Iraq, but not Social Security privatization or legal status for guest workers. But why did he get his war?

Perhaps it was because, “politics stops at the water’s edge,” indicating that the POTUS has broad fascistic power to inflict violence on foreign territories; if so, that’s frightening.

Perhaps it’s simply that the legislators were (& in some cases still are) misled on the merits of this war; that’s perhaps forgivable.

But the disturbing possibility occurs to me that in fact the Iraq War went forward not because Bush wanted it, but because the GOP as a party actually was for it. That means scapegoating Bush is a lie, & the problem with the GOP is not that they are slavish followers but that they are bloodthirsty warmongers–not fascists, then, but imperialists. Hardly a recommendation.

51

Let me try & clarify what I said quickly, rashly, unclearly, &–to be honest–unfairly there. Any definition of “social issues” that does not address poverty, homelessness, & living wage laws, instead defining “social issues” as abortion, drug use, & homosexuality, is not actually addressing the issues of society. “Social issues” has become associated in the press with “morals issues.” “Morals issues” are what I meant by “bigot-baiting.” Which I’ll concede was unfair, but there is an ethnic/regional (rural against urban) undercurrent to the drug war & the anti-gay movement.

On the other hand, poverty, homelessness, wages, worker’s rights, the structure of American business, these are really social issues. But they are substantially ignored on the right, which sees them as matters for private initiative unless a sufficient outcry forces them to respond.

So, no, I was not calling you a caterer to bigots, & I certainly think one can in good faith support a low-tax low-service régime. But just because an opinion is held in good faith doesn’t mean it’s the right policy.

52

During the “Contract With America” days, I recall hearing pundits speculate that Democrats would need to spend their time out of office looking for ways to moderate their views and move to the center to recapture votes. Does anyone else find it odd that Republicans seem to be using their time in the minority to do just the opposite; to double down on their traditional rhetoric and put forward candidates that are more extreme than the ones who got voted out?

53

That’s because Democrats suck at framing the debate in terms that promote their current agenda. Remember 2004, the whole “Dean Scream” and how Republicans said America would never vote for an “angry” candidate? Fast forward to 2010, and now Republicans wear their righteous anger as a badge of honor, even suggesting “second amendment” solutions if their demands were not adopted. Republicans have no problem with cognitive dissonance of their messages, because they know their constituency hasn’t got the intellectual chops to say, “Wait a minute…”. They know there is a sizable population who are easily manipulated by emotional hot buttons, and who rarely ask questions when one message conflicts with another. The Democrats problem is they are too smart for their own good, and they are less willing to treat the electorate like idiots who are eager to be deceived.

54

You realize how condescending and patronizing this post sounds, don’t you? Liberals often bristle when being called elitist by the Rush’s and Sean’s of the world, but it’s attitudes like this that continue to extend the stereotype.

If a Republican were to say similar things about, say, the ‘Rev’ Sharpton’s stump speeches to his constituents, he/she would be instantly branded as a hater, rascist, wants to go back to the plantation days, etc. Even the more mainstream Dems appeal to emotion, Davis vs Goliath, let’s vote everyone more benefits without regard to the consequences, etc. And does the Dem electorate ask questions when one message conflicts with another? (“We need to get our deficit and debt under control… and we need to pass a new healthcare entitlement that has just used up most of the potential savings available to do so”).

The truth is, there are emotional Americans on both sides of the spectrum.

PS: I know that most of the folks on this board are so far left that they make Howard Dean look like Pat Buchanan, so I realize that I’m swimming upstream here. And I know it’s fashionable on this board to sneer at the mouthbreathing, knuckledragging 2nd amendment types who cling to their guns and religion.

55

I certainly hope so. If the shoe fits, and all that. No one ever lost money by underestimating the critical thinking of the average Republican voter. There. I said it. Now, react with faux shock and hand wringing.

56

Someone who claims to be in favor of small government, but advocates for government action to favor his preferred personal lifestyle and disfavor others, is either incapable of understanding the contradiction (i.e. too stupid to form any sort of coherent belief system) or deliberately attempting to obfuscate it (i.e. not arguing in good faith). In either case, the description “bigot-baiting” fits; the only difference is in whether or not it is being done intentionally.

It is, of course, possible to reject government activism to heal the ills of society without being a bigot, but only if one consistently rejects such activism whether or not it suits one’s personally preferred goals and outcomes.

57

Non Sequitur.

(emphasis added)

58

With some justification, you must admit . . . Heck, even the speaker’s putting “Rev.” in quotes would be fair grounds for imputing something of that sort of attitude.

59

You’d give people the option of investing their social security contributions in the market, just as the 401(k) systems do now.

60

Wow. Yes, that’s a useful clarification, and one I can hardly disagree with.

Again, agreed – more strong agreement with the statement as it applies to the anti-gay movement than the drug war, because I do think one can more readily identify principled support for various anti-drug measures.

True, of course. But it’s a defensible policy, one that can be discussed among reasonable people.