Why I'm no longer a Republican

[EyeKhan]

I posted here for a reason, since Ogre was a Republican but is leaving the party. See his OP?

The move toward social conservatism is out there, some are Tea Partiers, some are Others. Since the GOP is having an identity crisis, I thought I'd ask Republicans what they think.

Up until Palin spoke I thought Tea partiers were all about libertarian fiscality. But this crowd apparently loves her and I know her past is not fiscally responsible, so the only thing she has to offer is social control. Weird.

[Loki]

Up until Palin spoke I thought Tea partiers were all about libertarian fiscality. But this crowd apparently loves her and I know her past is not fiscally responsible, so the only thing she has to offer is social control. Weird.

This crowd paid $370 for each seat, and Palin was paid $100,000 to speak. Do you really think these people are representative of the Tea Party movement?

[EyeKhan]

This crowd paid $370 for each seat, and Palin was paid $100,000 to speak. Do you really think these people are representative of the Tea Party movement?

Not the one I'm familiar with.

[GGT]

This crowd paid $370 for each seat, and Palin was paid $100,000 to speak. Do you really think these people are representative of the Tea Party movement?

They paid more than that, around $500 for the convention. Tea Party Patriots said that was counter to the ideology to charge that much for a grass roots conference (yes it gets confusing). Palin said her fee would be 'put back into the cause', whatever that means. She'll give it to their PAC? Or to some conservative republican running against an incumbent?

The question remains---what does the GOP stand for and who are they courting, or counting as their base? If people can't really state what the Republican Party IS, then why do they stay in it?

[rumrunner]

They stay to not be democrats. not a good reason, I admit, but it seems to be the only answer.

[GGT]

I re-read Ogre's OP. Disenfranchised, he said. I know some registered Republicans feel the same way about religion, gays in the military, abortion rights....but they stay with the party. Even when republicans haven't been much better fiscally, either.

Reagan was a democrat. Bloomberg, Lieberman, Spector, they changed parties.

Any Republicans here care to comment *about their party loyalties?

[Being]

I re-read Ogre's OP. Disenfranchised, he said. I know some registered Republicans feel the same way about religion, gays in the military, abortion rights....but they stay with the party. Even when republicans haven't been much better fiscally, either.

Reagan was a democrat. Bloomberg, Lieberman, Spector, they changed parties.

Any Republicans here care to comment *about their party loyalties?

Reagan was a Republican as Gov and Pres.
He switched parties in 1962.

[GGT]

Yes, I know

Taking Ogre's position, and asking others as VOTERS about their affiliations or feeling disenfranchised.

[Being]

Yes, I know

Taking Ogre's position, and asking others as VOTERS about their affiliations or feeling disenfranchised.

By affiliations do you mean purchasing the products of the company selling the politician?

[GGT]

Same question applies to Democrats who might be considering changing their voter registration.

Some say it doesn't matter, since people don't always vote straight ticket (or even vote). They could register as Vin Diesel for all it matters.

But it does matter, with the ways our primary system is designed. People changed parties just to vote in closed primaries, sometimes against a candidate and not even for one.

[Being]

Same question applies to Democrats who might be considering changing their voter registration.

Some say it doesn't matter, since people don't always vote straight ticket (or even vote). They could register as Vin Diesel for all it matters.

But it does matter, with the ways our primary system is designed. People changed parties just to vote in closed primaries, sometimes against a candidate and not even for one.

States seem to get between the barking dog and the central government, we should eliminate states.

[Loki]

We have two mass parties in the US. They both appeal to a huge variety of groups, many of whom don't particularly like each other. Just read a piece in the Times that talked about most top bankers being Democrats. I doubt the working class supporters of the DNC appreciate that fact. The reality is that in a two-party system, trying to adhere to a strict ideology is suicidal. There are only so many social conservatives or fiscal conservatives. If you appeal only to one group, you'll never win an election.

[Being]

We have two mass parties in the US. They both appeal to a huge variety of groups, many of whom don't particularly like each other. Just read a piece in the Times that talked about most top bankers being Democrats. I doubt the working class supporters of the DNC appreciate that fact. The reality is that in a two-party system, trying to adhere to a strict ideology is suicidal. There are only so many social conservatives or fiscal conservatives. If you appeal only to one group, you'll never win an election.

Political parties make themselves out to be the barking dog but they are not.

[GGT]

*coughs at Loki*

I don't much like the claws our two party system process has in effecting things. But a gal can hope some things change.

Then again, with a sig like yours, you'd probably disagree.

[Loki]

Not liking it won't make it go away, and anyone who does intend to live within the world they're given will take reality into consideration. Even from a moral perspective, most people want their favored policies implemented. If they strive for ideological purity (to make sure that their party only supports the "proper" policies), then their party will never get elected, and none of their policies will be implemented.

[Being]

*coughs at Loki*

I don't much like the claws our two party system process has in effecting things. But a gal can hope some things change.

Then again, with a sig like yours, you'd probably disagree.

He doesn't understand what his sig says. He relates hope to a carrot on a stick to make a horse go forward.

[GGT]

Not liking it won't make it go away, and anyone who does intend to live within the world they're given will take reality into consideration. Even from a moral perspective, most people want their favored policies implemented. If they strive for ideological purity (to make sure that their party only supports the "proper" policies), then their party will never get elected, and none of their policies will be implemented.

You're looking at this from the politicians' point of view.

For all the poking fun at hopey-changey things, millions of people don't particularly like our process of electing legislators. Let alone how they operate once they've been elected.

I'm hardly the first or only one to notice this, and "purity" has nothing to do with it....

[Loki]

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Any political system has its flaws. Until someone comes up with a better alternative, complaining about them won't make them go away.

[Being]

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Any political system has its flaws. Until someone comes up with a better alternative, complaining about them won't make them go away.

Not complaining about them is a good way to insure they don't change.

[GGT]

I also asked why people stay in parties they don't like, when they could change. And not just between R or D but Independent or, like Ogre, Libertarian.

You have a fatalistic view of this. We are just sort of stuck with this gridlock, trying to fix broken systems like health care/education/budgets, using a broken political system?

[LittleFuzzy]

He doesn't understand what his sig says. He relates hope to a carrot on a stick to make a horse go forward.

I don't know what his sig says, I don't display them, but what he said in the post immediately above yours is literal truth. The national political process (anywhere, in multi-party systems, two-party systems, even one-party systems since being single-party doesn't actually eliminate factionalism) is the art of coalition-building. No one ever succeeds at anything political without engaging in coalition-building.

[Loki]

I also asked why people stay in parties they don't like, when they could change. And not just between R or D but Independent or, like Ogre, Libertarian.

You have a fatalistic view of this. We are just sort of stuck with this gridlock, trying to fix broken systems like health care/education/budgets, using a broken political system?

You're making a huge logical leap from saying that something isn't perfect to saying it's broken. As Fuzzy mentions, coalition-building is an inherent part of any political system. You will never get 51% of people to agree on the relative importance of a huge amount of issues and the specific solution to any one of those issues (since we're choosing from a potentially infinite number of solutions). If someone doesn't want to politically affiliate with anyone with whom they have any disagreements, then they're pushing themselves into irrelevance.

[Being]

I don't know what his sig says, I don't display them, but what he said in the post immediately above yours is literal truth. The national political process (anywhere, in multi-party systems, two-party systems, even one-party systems since being single-party doesn't actually eliminate factionalism) is the art of coalition-building. No one ever succeeds at anything political without engaging in coalition-building.

Dividing issues between two camps might be considered coalition building but it also forces shades of gray to be construed as black and white.

[Loki]

If anything, the opposite is true. A two-party system forces everyone to compromise, at least within their own camp. Any resulting platform is thus bound to be "gray".

[GGT]

... If someone doesn't want to politically affiliate with anyone with whom they have any disagreements, then they're pushing themselves into irrelevance.

Isn't that part of our problem? Aren't you the one who said the GOP won't distance themselves from the Tea Party people, because ~2/3 of their constituents share their opinions? And didn't even John McCain make "changing how Washington works" part of his platform?

If it's an illogical leap to say our system is broken, then I share company with millions.

[Being]

If anything, the opposite is true. A two-party system forces everyone to compromise, at least within their own camp. Any resulting platform is thus bound to be "gray".

So the resulting healthcare reform, worked on for over 60 years, will end up being gray? When?

[Loki]

Isn't that part of our problem? Aren't you the one who said the GOP won't distance themselves from the Tea Party people, because ~2/3 of their constituents share their opinions? And didn't even John McCain make "changing how Washington works" part of his platform?

If it's an illogical leap to say our system is broken, then I share company with millions.

And what would you prefer? That every party splinters into smaller, more pure, parties? At which point do you stop the splitting, as even the smallest party will find some issues to disagree on? And if you stop at say 10, how do you determine the policy that ultimately gets implemented? Either you need multiple groups to work together, which brings us back to the current situation, or you allow one group to impose its preferences on everyone else, which isn't terribly democratic. So which solution do you prefer?

A politician said something that is politically popular. I'm astounded. We have to carefully investigate why he'd do such a thing.

[Being]

And what would you prefer? That every party splinters into smaller, more pure, parties? At which point do you stop the splitting, as even the smallest party will find some issues to disagree on? And if you stop at say 10, how do you determine the policy that ultimately gets implemented? Either you need multiple groups to work together, which brings us back to the current situation, or you allow one group to impose its preferences on everyone else, which isn't terribly democratic. So which solution do you prefer?

A politician said something that is politically popular. I'm astounded. We have to carefully investigate why he'd do such a thing.

Smaller groups spreads out the money.

[GGT]

And what would you prefer? That every party splinters into smaller, more pure, parties? At which point do you stop the splitting, as even the smallest party will find some issues to disagree on? And if you stop at say 10, how do you determine the policy that ultimately gets implemented? Either you need multiple groups to work together, which brings us back to the current situation, or you allow one group to impose its preferences on everyone else, which isn't terribly democratic. So which solution do you prefer?

A politician said something that is politically popular. I'm astounded. We have to carefully investigate why he'd do such a thing.

This doesn't answer why Republicans who are pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage, or pro-gays-in-the military can remain as Republicans. But I'll answer you anyway.

I'd like all primaries to be open, more options for voter registrations, less concentration of money and power to just two parties, and more "coalition building" based on ideas and cooperation, instead of parties fighting or just saying No. How is that for a start?

And if I lived in California, I'd be yelling about ballot initiatives.

[Loki]

This doesn't answer why Republicans who are pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage, or pro-gays-in-the military can remain as Republicans. But I'll answer you anyway.

I'd like all primaries to be open, more options for voter registrations, less concentration of money and power to just two parties, and more "coalition building" based on ideas and cooperation, instead of parties fighting or just saying No. How is that for a start?

And if I lived in California, I'd be yelling about ballot initiatives.

What is the purpose of having a party if outsiders get to decide its platform? This contradicts your very own argument against what's happening now. What would you do if Republicans voted in Democratic primaries to make sure that only pro-life candidates won? Is that a good thing?

What practical difference would having the money and power go to more than 2 parties make? As things stand, there are various factions within each party, and the money and power are split between those factions. If you have more parties, then you're basically just making those factions independent of one another. They'll still have the same money and power.

If each party wants to get something as close as possible to its ideal platform implemented, then what basis is it cooperating with other parties? Why would it possibly cooperate for the sake of cooperating or cooperate based on the some subjective merit of various ideas? If a party knows what it wants, why shouldn't it use political calculations to get that implemented? Or do you want parties to care more about cordiality than results?

Why are you against ballot initiatives if you're for giving people more choices? Or are you for giving people more choices only when they end up making the choice you want them to make?