Today's Republican Party is....

[Draco]

I read [something somewhere] that typically young people start out very liberal and become more conservative as they age. Dread is a perfect example of that. But some things are neglected when figuring this out, from the outside. Like cultural norms at the time, and whether there's a War going on. My older sisters were part of the VietNam era more than I was. They had friends that were drafted and never came home. My sister's husband flies a flag for his best friend that had the bad luck to be drafted and die in the conflict. So many decades later, and he still feels some guilt.

As a teenager, whilst I didn't understand, nor was interested in, politics, I had varying views of: drugs should be illegal, discrimination laws all the way, America is bad (along with the EU, although that still holds for them), free health care for everyone, free education, free this free that and so on. These views were primarily a result of a left-wing styled education through out high school (don't get me started, but writing an essay on Americanisation, come on..), along with the left-wing theme that is common in my state. Although now that I've 'grown up', read a bit here and there, realised that I don't have the right to say (and advocate for law) what a person can do with their own property, body, etc (so long as they're not taking away the right of another person to his/her life), in the end I decided that if I'm to think rationally in other aspects of my life, I should apply it to my political views.

[GGT]

Missed the part where the existence of a movement with perhaps a few thousand ignorant supporters counts as conclusive proof for something. I wouldn't write that if I was trying to mock GGT.

Wait, there are a few thousand ignorants who are "supporting" something?

[GGT]

..... in the end I decided that if I'm to think rationally in other aspects of my life, I should apply it to my political views.

Well, in the end, there is no end to the dynamism of life. Political views should change over time, even if only slightly, because the world is constantly changing. My oldest son and I have had looong conversations about this....he makes my head hurt. That's a good thing.

[LittleFuzzy]

Fine, then we're stuck with the opaque internal movements within our two parties, and not much gets done? What a plan, huh.

What? How do you get "not much gets done" from that?

Oh yeah, that's just what we need...a statistical analysis. Loki can knock himself out, and come back to explain things, one way or another.

In the meantime, "most people" know Washington and our politics are broken and dysfunctional. If you don't believe me, look at the Occupy movement.

Heaven forbid you seek actual knowledge that might get in the way of those tinted glasses you're clamping tightly to your head.

[LittleFuzzy]

How does the voter control those opaque internal movements?

How do you control all the parties you've never voted for? Or the ones you have voted for? How do you control policy so that your goals get implemented? How do you control education so that the results of your research get disseminated? How do you control anything besides your own two hands?

[Nessus]

How do you control all the parties you've never voted for? Or the ones you have voted for? How do you control policy so that your goals get implemented? How do you control education so that the results of your research get disseminated? How do you control anything besides your own two hands?

Good job talking me out of supporting a parliamentary democracy. The point was, it's easier for the voters to punish an errant or misbehaving party than it is for them to mobilize factions within a party in a two-party system. But of course the single voter doesn't matter at all, so why don't we all embrace Bolshevism?

[Nessus]

Oh that's right, they killed millions and millions of people

Gosh

[GGT]

What? How do you get "not much gets done" from that?

Heaven forbid you seek actual knowledge that might get in the way of those tinted glasses you're clamping tightly to your head.

What's been done ie accomplished by our two parties as leaders in governance the last few decades? Moving our nation forward? Representing the people? One big happy family....or millions of disappointed, disenchanted, disillusioned, disenfranchised people? We don't need Loki or anyone else to do a statistical analysis, we don't need another damn poll or survey to tell us the blaring facts. People are Mad as Hell. People don't believe American government or corporate America is working for anyone but the top 1-10%.

If I had tinted glasses clamped to my head, I couldn't see that. But I do see it, and it's real. What other "knowledge" do you think I should be seeking, Fuzzy?

[Loki]

Now you've gained the magical ability to know what everyone thinks. Delusions, seeing patterns where there are none...

Good job talking me out of supporting a parliamentary democracy. The point was, it's easier for the voters to punish an errant or misbehaving party than it is for them to mobilize factions within a party in a two-party system. But of course the single voter doesn't matter at all, so why don't we all embrace Bolshevism?

Except only the likely voters of that misbehaving party can punish it. If you had 10% Christian fundies in your population who consistently voted for a Christian fundy party, how does a non-Christian fundy punish that party?

[Nessus]

She can read the minds of "people", Dread can read the minds of "folks", what's the difference?

[LittleFuzzy]

Good job talking me out of supporting a parliamentary democracy. The point was, it's easier for the voters to punish an errant or misbehaving party than it is for them to mobilize factions within a party in a two-party system.

No, it's not. That's not a matter of how political interests are organized but of how people elect their governments *and you might regard this as a nitpick, but the US is NOT a parliamentary democracy which ALSO has an impact in both how political interests are organized and in how people elect their government* What you say is true, ONLY if the electoral system is one of voting for a party list as is common in some, but not all, parliamentary systems. It's near meaningless in the US where you vote for a specific candidate directly, and typically have already made a selection from a group of party candidates in a pre-election winnowing system like the primaries. In the US it's actually easier to affect intra-party factions than it is to move the party as a whole.

[Nessus]

No, it's not. That's not a matter of how political interests are organized but of how people elect their governments *and you might regard this as a nitpick, but the US is NOT a parliamentary democracy which ALSO has an impact in both how political interests are organized and in how people elect their government* What you say is true, ONLY if the electoral system is one of voting for a party list as is common in some, but not all, parliamentary systems. It's near meaningless in the US where you vote for a specific candidate directly, and typically have already made a selection from a group of party candidates in a pre-election winnowing system like the primaries. In the US it's actually easier to affect intra-party factions than it is to move the party as a whole.

It's not a nitpick, it's an important observation of a thing that had completely slipped my mind (or me using the wrong words out of ignorance, either way). I do wish your posts weren't so god-damned hard to de-crypt, but let's give this a go:

Voting for a party list as in what we do over here? I vote directly for a candidate of a party (you can run as an independent but let's ignore them for now), but each party within each voting district is given the number of seats that reflects their % of the votes cast, and then the parties fill these seats in the order of which individual candidates got most votes. Or do you mean something else?

I'm having trouble with the next sentence, too; what is "it" that is nearly meaningless? What I said? Party lists?

Given that all one can do in the US is try and affect intra-party factions, it's a good job that it's easy then! But let's look at this for a bit. An example of a very poor showing are the "log cabin Republicans", they're pretty much loathed by the rest of the GOP and don't really have a say in what the GOP drives forward. Another, more successful movement within the GOP was the take-over by the Evangelicals, sainting of uncle Reagan and all that good stuff. But I've been of the impression that it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing; did the grass-roots evangelical nut-jobs, individual Joe Six-Pack voters cause this, or was it engineered from above? To anoint uncle Reagan, and all that good stuff. I'm not sure what exactly you mean when you say it's easier to affect intra-party factions, and I sure as Hell don't know how that relates to running your nation.

[LittleFuzzy]

What's been done ie accomplished by our two parties as leaders in governance the last few decades? Moving our nation forward? Representing the people? One big happy family....or millions of disappointed, disenchanted, disillusioned, disenfranchised people?

And the monologue is off. This does not relate in any way to what I said or what I was replying to.

We don't need Loki or anyone else to do a statistical analysis, we don't need another damn poll or survey to tell us the blaring facts. People are Mad as Hell. People don't believe American government or corporate America is working for anyone but the top 1-10%.

If I had tinted glasses clamped to my head, I couldn't see that. But I do see it, and it's real. What other "knowledge" do you think I should be seeking, Fuzzy?

Define "people." Because if you mean anything significant, like a "voting majority" then you do not, in fact, know that. You can't know that, without reference to carefully and systemically gathered empirical data. Now is there is a subset of people who are "mad as hell." Sure, absolutely. That is always true. But there are only two things indicating that more people are mad, or that people are more mad, than they are at any other time. One is the visibility of the current protest, and the other is that you happen to think people OUGHT to be. Neither comes anywhere near close to actually KNOWING. My own perception is that most people ARE'NT "mad as hell." More people than usual are dissatisfied, that's normal in poor or sluggish economic times, but it's a pallid, depressive resentment at their situation, or those of people they knwo, not anger, and not directed at "Wall Street" or 'Republicans," or "Obama." And the problems that resulted in those feelings have next to nothing at all to do with either the structure or the partisan workings of the US government. There is no conceptually simple lever which might be pulled to a different position to make things better or keep them from going wrong again.

[LittleFuzzy]

It's not a nitpick, it's an important observation of a thing that had completely slipped my mind (or me using the wrong words out of ignorance, either way). I do wish your posts weren't so god-damned hard to de-crypt, but let's give this a go:

Voting for a party list as in what we do over here? I vote directly for a candidate of a party (you can run as an independent but let's ignore them for now), but each party within each voting district is given the number of seats that reflects their % of the votes cast, and then the parties fill these seats in the order of which individual candidates got most votes. Or do you mean something else?

That is a type of party list, yes, albeit a type that gives voters more control than the basic concept.

I'm having trouble with the next sentence, too; what is "it" that is nearly meaningless? What I said? Party lists?

What you said.

Given that all one can do in the US is try and affect intra-party factions, it's a good job that it's easy then! But let's look at this for a bit. An example of a very poor showing are the "log cabin Republicans", they're pretty much loathed by the rest of the GOP and don't really have a say in what the GOP drives forward. Another, more successful movement within the GOP was the take-over by the Evangelicals, sainting of uncle Reagan and all that good stuff. But I've been of the impression that it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing; did the grass-roots evangelical nut-jobs, individual Joe Six-Pack voters cause this, or was it engineered from above? To anoint uncle Reagan, and all that good stuff. I'm not sure what exactly you mean when you say it's easier to affect intra-party factions, and I sure as Hell don't know how that relates to running your nation.

It is a chicken-and-egg problem because the answer is both. It was engineered by leaders within the party and those leaders were leaders because they had strong grassroots support. And then there were charismatic leaders who didn't have major movements backing them who threw their support his way, and grassroots movements without leadership who did the same, like the Democrats for Reagan. Reagan was elected because had broad appeal, across partisan lines. He appealed to the Middle. The rise of a major evangelical faction within the party *which did not then and has not now taken it over* started well into his first term. It happened because a bunch of long-standing Republicans let themselves be organized by religious leaders into a semi-focused voting bloc in reaction to this broad Middle vote which had the potential of drowning out their voices. Either led organizations, unorganized grassroots movements, or both can create significant change. The Tea Party is *or was* entirely a grassroots movement, it doesn't have focal leaders nationally. It created change according to what those grassroots want *and not what co-opting interests want* when it elected a number of freshmen Congress-critters, a number of whom the GOP might not have embraced if it had a choice, and who certainly aren't paying much attention to attempts to exercise party discipline by GOP congressional leaders.

[Nessus]

Fair enough, but isn't the viability of the Tea Party, and most of their longevity (such as it is) attributable as well to some wealthy backers, helping to disseminate the message, as it is to a die-hard core of grass roots supporters? Without being too cynical about the average voter, people do need to hear about ideas before they can latch on to them (for whatever reason). I'm not pretending that the Tea Party is some crazy conspiracy cooked up by some rich and cynical people, but neither do I think that it's solely a grass-roots response to perceived weakness within the GOP. Make sense?

[LittleFuzzy]

Fair enough, but isn't the viability of the Tea Party, and most of their longevity (such as it is) attributable as well to some wealthy backers, helping to disseminate the message, as it is to a die-hard core of grass roots supporters?

It's possible, but I think it's unlikely. Large grassroots movements will usually significantly outspend the "wealthy backers" types. Which doesn't mean they can't be enhanced synergistically.

Without being too cynical about the average voter, people do need to hear about ideas before they can latch on to them (for whatever reason). I'm not pretending that the Tea Party is some crazy conspiracy cooked up by some rich and cynical people, but neither do I think that it's solely a grass-roots response to perceived weakness within the GOP. Make sense?

Treating any movement as exclusively one thing or another is generally going to be inaccurate. But let's take your idol Bachmann. Bachmann is not stumping the Koch line.

[Nessus]

Treating any movement as exclusively one thing or another is generally going to be inaccurate. But let's take your idol Bachmann. Bachmann is not stumping the Koch line.

What did I say about de-crypting

verb (used with object) 14. to reduce to a stump; truncate; lop.

15. to clear of stumps, as land.

16. Chiefly Southern U.S. to stub, as one's toe.

17. to nonplus, embarrass, or render completely at a loss: This riddle stumps me.

18. to challenge or dare to do something.

No, she's not going against the Kochs inasmuch as I know, but that's not the main reason for liking her. I mean, voting for her is the most progressive vote you could cast in the US in 2012! The first female president with a homosexual husband! Think of that White House, coloureds are yesterday's news, we're going for the tolerance jack-pot here folks!

She's "folksy" in that Palin kind of way, which appeals to voters, and her willingness to be lead by her nose/dismantle the government apparatus for ideological reasons is what appeals to the rich backers. Of course it now looks like she's not nearly folksy enough to out-do the two stuffy old white men, but their appeal to the rich is largely the same. Right? Either way, Joe Six-Pack doesn't seem to have much say in the whole process. Am I being too cynical?

[LittleFuzzy]

What did I say about de-crypting

Sorry, the campaign stump is American idiom for a bit of electoral jargon. Her campaign speeches and political message.

[GGT]

It's got absolutely nothing to do with that. The same thing happens all the time with multi-party systems. It's a lot easier to TRACK with them, because you directly see the factions shifting through the external mechanism of elections, rather than through more opaque internal movements within a party.

Fine, then we're stuck with the opaque internal movements within our two parties, and not much gets done? What a plan, huh.

What? How do you get "not much gets done" from that?

Because we can TRACK outcomes. How much has improved within either party, with the GOP in-fighting between freshmen Tea Party factions, Christian Conservatives, oil-rich states, and industry puppets? Or is it just a campaign slogan to go "clean up Washington" (McCain's not the only one who ran on that). The 2010 elections were supposed to be about the economy and JOBS. Not fighting against gay marriage, gays in the military, NPR funding, abortion, or Planned Parenthood, etc. The "facts" are in congress having an approval rating around 10%, and millions of angry people. That's not my monologue.

[LittleFuzzy]

Because we can TRACK outcomes. How much has improved within either party, with the GOP in-fighting between freshmen Tea Party factions, Christian Conservatives, oil-rich states, and industry puppets? Or is it just a campaign slogan to go "clean up Washington" (McCain's not the only one who ran on that). The 2010 elections were supposed to be about the economy and JOBS. Not fighting against gay marriage, gays in the military, NPR funding, abortion, or Planned Parenthood, etc. The "facts" are in congress having an approval rating around 10%, and millions of angry people. That's not my monologue.

Whether you can observe it easily from the outside by reading the news is not the measure of whether and in what degree it is happening. Politics is not a simple feedback-and-response system. And no, the 2010 elections were not about the economy and jobs. Inasmuch as there was a primary campaign issue *and there wasn't really one, nor is there usually one for off-term elections, beyond running against DC* it was the reaction to health-care reform. You may have wanted them to be about something else, but your issues and interests are not those of other people and even when they are, their reactions and preferred responses are their own, not yours. This is important and it's what I think you don't get. Yes, Congress can be unresponsive and yes it can go off on its own despite what the public wants but it actually doesn't do so that much. It may bewilder you that lots of people are against gay marriage *I certainly don't understand it myself* but nonetheless they ARE. They care enough about it that that keep pressing it with direct democracy in most states even when the local legislature won't act and it is actually reasonable for Congress-critters to pick up on that and push in that direction. And the popularity of Congress in general is absolutely meaningless because no one votes for Congress in general and it is ALWAYS very unpopular. The one area where our democracy is genuinely dysfunctional is with the delusion that the voting public and Congress-critters create and maintain for themselves that Washington is screwed up but they as individuals *voting or representing* are doing right and so the attitude toward "Congress" doesn't tell you anything but that shared delusion.

[GGT]

Whether you can observe it easily from the outside by reading the news is not the measure of whether and in what degree it is happening. Politics is not a simple feedback-and-response system. And no, the 2010 elections were not about the economy and jobs. Inasmuch as there was a primary campaign issue *and there wasn't really one, nor is there usually one for off-term elections, beyond running against DC* it was the reaction to health-care reform.

The 2010 elections were about "Obama's job killing policies" (remember that?), "Repeal and Replace (the ACA), and TAXES (Taxed Enough Already / Tea Party).

You may have wanted them to be about something else, but your issues and interests are not those of other people and even when they are, their reactions and preferred responses are their own, not yours. This is important and it's what I think you don't get. Yes, Congress can be unresponsive and yes it can go off on its own despite what the public wants but it actually doesn't do so that much.

State level elections ended with governors and legislatures instituting policies that weren't part of their campaigns, ending with protests and recall elections in Ohio and Wisconsin. Their complaint was state congress "going off on its own despite what the voting public wanted"--ie banning collective bargaining, changing district lines, and re-writing voter registration rules, etc. Again, these aren't my issues, or my monologue.

It may bewilder you that lots of people are against gay marriage *I certainly don't understand it myself* but nonetheless they ARE. They care enough about it that that keep pressing it with direct democracy in most states even when the local legislature won't act and it is actually reasonable for Congress-critters to pick up on that and push in that direction. And the popularity of Congress in general is absolutely meaningless because no one votes for Congress in general and it is ALWAYS very unpopular. The one area where our democracy is genuinely dysfunctional is with the delusion that the voting public and Congress-critters create and maintain for themselves that Washington is screwed up but they as individuals *voting or representing* are doing right and so the attitude toward "Congress" doesn't tell you anything but that shared delusion.

If that's the shared delusion....where individual voters, and individual legislators see functional governance instead of a messed up DC....that implies the reality is functional governance, happy voters, nothing new here folks, move along?

Incumbents get re-elected, people tend to say they're happy with their "own guy", yeah. But that doesn't reflect how well they work together (or don't), or how well they prioritize for the nation (or don't), or when politics gets increasingly nasty and divisive. If you want to hold onto the idea that things have always been this way, or things are working just fine, then that's your opinion. But I'd disagree. And I don't understand what you meant by "no one votes for Congress in general".

[LittleFuzzy]

The 2010 elections were about "Obama's job killing policies" (remember that?), "Repeal and Replace (the ACA), and TAXES (Taxed Enough Already / Tea Party).

No, I don't remember much attention or emphasis placed on "Obama's job killing policies." I remember a whole lot placed on the other two though. And a good portion of the anti-health care noise was ultimately about taxes and total government spending anyway.

State level elections ended with governors and legislatures instituting policies that weren't part of their campaigns, ending with protests and recall elections in Ohio and Wisconsin. Their complaint was state congress "going off on its own despite what the voting public wanted"--ie banning collective bargaining, changing district lines, and re-writing voter registration rules, etc. Again, these aren't my issues, or my monologue.

Protests and recall elections which A) also targeted groups like judges who got in the way of implementing those policies indicating both sides of that fight were engaged in that game and B) were largely at the behest of and succeeded on the backs of Democrats who had voted against those legislators in the first place and were able to marshal a GOTV effort on its back. Voters who had backed those legislators before and were upset with them were neither necessary, sufficient, nor a major part of those recall efforts which were successful *and most of the recall efforts weren't successful*

A Republican gets elected with 53% of the vote. 30% of those vote for her/him primarily because the candidate is Republican and not a Democrat, 10% vote for the stance on taxes, 6% because of a vow to repeat DADT, 4% vote because the candidate engaged in the usual fence-straddle regarding being against abortion but it's a matter for the courts and they erroneously think that means s/he favors whichever position they do, and 3% is because s/he represented them in the state legislature. Who elected the candidate? Which of those sets of policy is s/he allowed to act on? Which of those count for being the reason the candidate was elected, even with us completely ignoring that most people vote based on more than one issue?

If that's the shared delusion....where individual voters, and individual legislators see functional governance instead of a messed up DC.

I am, as always, astounded by your ability to see the exact opposite of my words when you read and reply. I think this line of discussion is done.

[GGT]

The one area where our democracy is genuinely dysfunctional is with the delusion that the voting public and Congress-critters create and maintain for themselves that Washington is screwed up but they as individuals *voting or representing* are doing right and so the attitude toward "Congress" doesn't tell you anything but that shared delusion.

I read it as you wrote it, Fuzzy. The individual voters and congress share a "delusion" they're doing things right, ie governing well. It's just everyone else in DC that's messed up. Don't blame me if your sentence structure sucks.

[GGT]

Bump---let's get this back on track.

Is there anyone here that can explain the Republican Party and what they call their Pro-Life platform?

All candidates are vetted by the GOP on these issues---their views on abortion/birth control, end-of-life/elder care, insurance coverage, and government's role. Herman Cain has been giving a mess of answers back and forth. Others claim they're Pro-Life because they believe Life begins at conception. Some would overturn Roe v Wade to ban all abortions, or add a Constitutional Amendment to define Personhood beginning at conception. (Do they understand the difference between fertilization and implantation and how birth control works? )


All while de-funding Planned Parenthood, cutting aid to poor women and children, and changing sex-ed in public schools to focus on abstinence.

Then there's the end-of-life, elder care, Medicare/Medicaid. Remember those "death panels" they claimed would be part of Obamacare while forgetting the Terri Schiavo case? Some Republicans want to change Medicare to a voucher system, whittle away at Medicaid coverage, and/or convert the whole thing to private insurance using exchanges. Sounds like their own type of death panel for anyone old, poor, or even middle class families priced out of private insurance coverage.

So, what's the deal with the Republican Party regarding Life and their apparent conflicting standards and definitions?

[Lewkowski]

All this "obstructionist" talk is silly. The Dems had a filibuster proof majority when Obama was inaugurated.

[GGT]

All this "obstructionist" talk is silly. The Dems had a filibuster proof majority when Obama was inaugurated.

Gee, thanks for answering the question about the GOP Pro-Life agenda!

[Lebanese Dragon]

Senator McConnell stating the GOP's main goal is to make Obama a one term president. Parroted by Michele Bachman and others.-- Is this any different from what any opposition party does when it's in the opposition? It's not.

Abuse of filibusters and congressional rules to obstruct legislation. -- Is this any different from what any opposition party does when it's in the opposition? It's not.

Refusal to pass legislation once advocated by the GOP, if Democrats also agree. -- Eh? I mean, I'm sure it's possibly happened, but is this some kind of regular thing not explainable by long/medium-term shifts in views?

The first 2 I don't care if both sides do it it's not right. Your main goal should be to elect the best leader not care who has 1 or 2 terms. Filibusters are a useful tool, but also sick when abused at the expense of the country. On the last, the GOP does it because they don't want anything passed.. if things get passed it means they economy may do better, and thus Obama's re-election. Money is controlling our politics too much.

[Loki]

And this is different to what the Democrats did under Bush how?

[Lebanese Dragon]

It's not good for either party, you need to have "the Adult party" around to get things done. The party that's not puttin' the country first shows our system is corrupt, we're attracting and letting thrive the wrong people in our government. We need to restructure our incentives.

[Loki]

You might want to look up the definition of corruption. Trying to get elected != corruption.