I know this is a reasonably progressive board and I don’t want to jump on the ‘attack the GOP’ bandwagon. But…
I think there are too many factions of the GOP to really tie it down.
Religious fundamentalists
Angry white people
Wealthy corporate interests and wealthy individuals
Social and economic libertarians
Those seem like the 4 groups that make up the GOP (the libertarians are getting pissed though about the authoritarianism of the first 2 groups).
I really don’t think 1 person can fill all those criteria. Just like the democratic party is made up of
non-whites
white liberals
union members
socially conservative democrats who agree with economic policy
The socially conservative democrats (who are economically liberal) are usually at odds with the liberals (who are both socially and economically liberal).
Then within the GOP, according to Robert Altemeyer, you have two groups of authoritarians. Right wing authoritarians and social dominators.
Right wing authoritarians tend to be aggressive, dogmatic, fearful, entitled, poorly informed, hypocritical, etc. Aka the teabaggers.
Social dominators are people who are cynical and power hungry, and who just pretend to agree with the right wing authoritarians because they need to to get and keep power. Rove and Cheney are supposedly atheists, but both lead a party made of the religious right. Giuliani, Limbaugh and Gingrich have all had several affairs but still run on family values.
The face of the social dominator branch is probably Limbaugh, Rove or Cheney. The face of the right wing authoritarian branch is Palin. The face of the corporate branch is probably Romney.
Suffice it to say, I don’t know. But there are too many groups in the GOP for one person to represent them all.
There is no face of the Republicans, and I don’t think you really have a face when you don’t hold the Presidency.
We don’t have much in the way of leaders either right now, I expect to see someone rise up a bit during the mid-term elections however. The party is still in chaos, trying to decide what to do and what model to follow. A lot of people pulled away during the Bush years, and they have not been convinced to come back yet. Without their moderating influence, all of the activity is the fringe groups.
I didn’t pay much attention to the coverage of the Values Voters Summit this weekend, but this bit of news coming out got my attention- and I was not displeased…
Mike Huckabee led in the polling of VVS attendees at 24%, the next 3-4 hovered at 12%.
Mike’s a little too big gov’t for me & I didn’t like the shot he took at Romney’s Mormonism, but he’s the best of a bedraggled bunch. I think he & Romney should work together to control the conversation on the Right, and then they can duke it out in 2012. I’d eventually like to see a Huckabee-Romney (or vice versa) ticket.
I guess you could call it georgism, but having the state own various resources that are divvied up equally amongst citizens isn’t a far cry from socialism.
Nope - Socialism would have the state take all of the resources, including factories, etc. Oil was found on State Land. Rather than keep it all, they give the cash back to the residents of the State.
If Alaska was Socialist, there would be no Permanent Fund checks. Instead, that money would be spent on state projects for the betterment of all residents. By giving the proceeds back to the people and letting them spend it (hookers, blow, new rifle) - you keep from going into Socialism.
If you gave every single person the exact same amount, thanks to the benefit of having an abundance of a needed resource - I would not consider it Socialism.
There is no needs test for the Permanent Fund check. You prove that you live in Alaska for a period of time, and you get the money. It comes to every man, woman and child. Once upon a time it varied depending on how long you had lived there, but a lawsuit changed that.
It is not redistribution (which, IMHO, is part of socialism). It is pure equal distribution of something owned by the residents of the State. The assets were not seized, taken, or taxed - they are already owned by the residents and this is how the residents get their share.
You’ve got it backwards. The resources don’t belong to the state. The resources belong to the people. The state arranged for the harvesting and selling of the people’s resources on their behalf. Now, if the state had kept the money and used it to fund government projects to hand the money out selectively based on criterion the government set up, that would be closer to socialism. Instead, the government of Alaska chose to act merely as a middleman or broker, representing the people’s interests and turning the revenue over to them on an equal per-capita basis.
Libertarians support this mechanism, by and large. Given that the people own the public lands of their state, and that sometimes they wish to sell resources contained in those public lands, the way to do it with the least amount of government intrusion is to have government simply turn the proceeds over to the people directly. You want the lightest touch the government can possibly have while still maintaining the ability to have an agency which can bargain on behalf of the people.
The key difference here is that socialism is redistributive. If money is taxed from one person and given to another, it’s a redistribution of wealth.
Consider natural resources to be like a big savings bank. If you’re a citizen of Alaska, and your state is sitting on a hundred billion dollars in oil wealth, then you’ve got about $145,000 in wealth tied up in the state’s oil fields. Now the citizens vote to sell off 10% of it. As an equal owner, you should get a cheque for $14,500 from the government. It’s YOUR money and always was. You’re just moving it from one form to another. The state is acting as your agent.
Now, if the state sold off all that oil, and used it to fund social programs, then that’s an implicit tax on you, since the state took your mineral wealth, sold it off, and spent it on behalf of other people.
Sure, but the state is taking MY mineral wealth out of the ground now, and paying me a pittance, when what I want to do is leave it in the ground for a hundred years, and then have my grandkids sell it when it’s worth thousands more per barrel.
The GOP is about 20 percent of the voters nowadays. It has been for some time. That is why they try to cobble together a voting majority by appealing to single issue voters. They get gun nuts, anti-abortionists, anti black ,religious nuts and others to vote along with them. They never deliver one bit of legislation. They have no intention of doing so, They are interested in much bigger issues. They are the wealthy and powerful who are trying to cement themselves behind untouchable and moneyed international laws.
They do not require serious candidates. That is why Palin works. All they have to do is pour tons of money and expertise behind her and then she will follow orders. She certainly has no idea how to run a country. The other mainstream repubs have eliminated themselves. She is all that is left standing. That is why she is being slowly groomed to become a serious contender. That is why she is going so slowly. One step at a time. And stay away from the American electorate until she is a completely polished turd.
Face, as in agenda setter, I’d have to go with Rush. The other talking heads are just shrill, screaming for attention. They seem to go for the home run with each breathless revelation (or is it “Revelation”). Rush seems to just pound away on a set group of topics.
Leader for 2012, regrettably Palin. Every time I see a new thread it’s; “Must … not … look …”.
Face it, you just have to see what’s in there. I get dragged (drug??) in even if the same old arguments/slurs/compliments:) are going to surface. Like passing a car wreck on the highway, I just can’t turn away. Example is the latest Pit thread on her addressing a business group in Hong Kong. Closed meeting as she tiptoes out on to the international scene. No media, though I’m sure a grainy youtube video will come out or a scratchy recording. Speculation based on various sources who attended the meeting or knew someone who did attend. Lots of biased distortions. Regardless if she was supremely intuitive about international affairs or inane - it will become part of her resume. She checked off the international experience block without leaving any official evidence and pocketed a big bunch of change. I really didn’t have to read it - but I couldn’t stop myself. Her political life is scripted - and badly. It’s just blatant dog/beauty contestant poses.
I see Huckabee in second, most other options have too much baggage or an aptitude for foot-shooting. He just does not shout, “leader material” to me.
I feel the need to self-identify; I’m a disgruntled 40 year Republican who would like his party back. (Obama supporter last election, no actual choice). Also a fiscal conservative - for the yahoos out there - FC doesn’t mean, “CUT TAXES, CUT TAXES”). It means, " If you are going to spend all this money, you’d better bring in that much revenue".