i like to know what the people around me are listening to and agreeing with. it's hard to call bullshit if you don't know the context of the conversation. don't worry, i spend a lot of my time with npr, too.
when you spend the day driving from construction site to construction site in rural counties, you let the radio wander...
"In 1996, the wording "Democratic Party" was removed throughout the Republican party platform. Party leaders said that they wanted to make the point that the Democratic Party had become elitist, no longer small-d democratic. In August 2008, the Republican platform committee voted down a proposal to use the phrase "Democrat Party" in the 2008 platform, deciding to use the proper "Democratic Party". "We probably should use what the actual name is," said Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, the panel's chairman. "At least in writing.""
If you were using it out of ignorance, now you know. You won't run the risk of having your arguments be not taken seriously because of a silly word game the Republicans have used to intentionally annoy and aggravate the members of the Democratic Party.
...Kurt.... I'd definitely have a beer with you. It would be an interesting conversation.
Above, you said, "Specifically, WonderK, can you name an ACTUAL tenet of conservatism? Or liberalism?"
I think part of my point in my entries here is that what conservatism was back in the 1950s, or in an ideal sense, is thousands of miles away from what conservatism is now, in practice, by people who call themselves conservative.
I too am for small government and low taxes, so long as we're also accomplishing what needs to be done. But conservatism is not about small government and low taxes right now. It's about all of the divisive social agendas, the Christian militarism, the hipocrisy of the government growing exponentially under our last Republican president, etc. These things are really bankrupting the Republican party right now.
If Republicans would turn back to core conservative values, they'd have the presidency and both houses of congress. The reason I dislike our current stable of Republicans has nothing to do with the core of conservatism. It has everything to do with an activist social agenda that's divisive and intolerant.
Correction, farwest: White evangelical Protestants back torture in far greater numbers than non-Christians. The survey did not include mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, or other Christian groups.
From CNN: "It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small."
I took this to mean that it did include some Catholics and mainline protestants.
There is just so much hypocrisy and irony in politics.
Of course everyone wants low, fair taxes.
Of course everyone wants a small gov't.
Of course everyone wants good health care.
Of course everyone wants good education.
Of course no one wants socialism.
Etc., etc., etc.
I find it quite amusing how easily people shake their fist at extremes and say things like "all democrats want high taxes and big gov't." Please.
The last 8 years has shown us that what was in power, and supported mind you, did nothing but screw up our country. More power, more waste, less attention to our country's internal interests, etc.
Personally, I'd like to be in the middle. Certain things make sense, certain things don't. So far, as far as I can see, health care sucks and something needs to be done which ain't happening with current arrangements.
I want low taxes and free markets, entrepreneurial encouragement, etc., etc., but I also want a fair system that isn't abused by the elite.
Steven, I had to look back at my posts to see what the heck you're responding to -- well, it's not evident.
Mostly you seem subtly offended that I called your ideas unoriginal.
Your longwindedness betraying an irritated need to disprove my grouping you as part of the herd.
not too hard, kurt. you specifically called me out at 05/01/09 8:38, so i answered, part of the flow of a spirited discussion, i thought.
is suggesting that i have a 'need' your way of trying to scare me away, end the discussion like i suggested rush does, turning a fun discourse about public issues into a speculation about my personal motives?
i was indeed responding to your suggestion that those of the liberal persuasion don't think for themselves, just as others have suggested similar about conservatives. it's b.s. on all sides: we all hear what we hear, see what we see, make our decisions, and - because we're lucky to be able to do so - share them when we feel like it.
beer really should be involved here. people would keep it more civil. keep it light, kids!
all that said, i hope you don't discount my post in your effort to discredit me through your diagnosis.
The republican party is dealing with some deep structural problems, not just in its leadership, but really from top to bottom through its platform and constituency. These problems are in many ways far worse than they have been, at least since the 60s, and potentially since its inception. They may in fact be fatal, and unless republicans come to understand this they almost certainly will be.
The primary problem, as I see it, is that the platform of issues upon which their party rests are not consistent with with the fundamental principals upon which their party was founded. The regan coalition, unfortunately, is fundamentally incoherent, designed essentially for the a cold-war society, and cannot be sustained in the current demographic environment.
The best thing republicans have going for them, and its actually a tremendous plus, is that the its most central, core idea, individualism, is profoundly appealing. Not just to wealthy corporate wheelers and dealers or rural communities, but to american ideals in general. What is so tragic, is that most of the modern republican party's platform is anywhere from dissonant to outright contradictory to this principal.
Many here have railed against the perception that the republican party has become a party of zenophobic, misogynistic, anti-civil rights, war-mongering gun nuts. And given their real ideals I can see why. But we must be honest about what your platform actually consists of. If youre not zenophobic, then why are all of the groups your party rails against foreign in some way? Anyone who has seen a youtube of a modern KKK rally would be hard pressed not to notice that their arguments are substantially indistinguishable from those made by Tom Tancredo and Lou Dobbs every night. That immigrants are here to take jobs from legitimate, real,[i] americans, hint-hint nudge-nudge. That they spread disease. That they are irrevocably committed to crime. That we are under threat of a kind of invasion, of a mass of un-assimilatable, non-descript others? Theres a preference for illegal-alien, or criminalien, instead of illegal-immigrant, because an immigrant is something we can all understand. Its something common, something human. The word alien is used because it connotes something non-human, a permanent outsider.
If you arent war-mongers, then why the insistence on americas right to preemptive war? If you arent anti-civil rights then why does the party stand against marriage equality, and for torture and indefinite imprisonment? If you arent misogynistic then why the stand against equal-pay-for-equal-work? These [i]are your issues. The intellectual gymnastics you may go through to connect these ideas to individual rights and freedoms may convince you, but they arent going to convince others or grow your coalition. And the real nightmare corner youve painted yourself into is that now you cant altar any part of this platform without abandoning your primary voting base. Bush has so debunked the elements of the regan shell game, of foreign policy conservatism, of economic conservatism, and social conservatism, that your voting constituency no longer holds itself together. Without any real global existential threat against religious freedom, your pandering to evangelicals on abortion and same sex marriage looks antique at bests, and bigotry at worst. Without an evil-empire boogie man to justify a militarily aggressive foreign policy, you look like arrogant, reactionary bullies. None of which gives any convincing evidence for what the party used to be about. You can complain about being perceived as a party of old, white southerners,but statistically speaking that iswhat you are. Remember that that if regan had run 1984 under todays demographics, he would have lost by 8 points. And its only getting worse for you. Without major policy changesthat can appeal to a much broader section of the population you will sustain systematic losses every election election for the next 50 years.
I dont think I have to tell you you wont last that long.
Now democrats certainly have contradictions of their own, but fortunately for them they are largely tactical and cosmetic. Democrats can dump single-payer healthcare or commit itself to foreign engagements when necessary without contradicting its fundamental principal, that government can have an active and constructive roll in society, and without destabilizing its coalition.
Another thing republicans are doing, which many have done before, is underestimate Barack Obama. Anyone who has heard him speak when the camera is off knows that behind that big smile is one of the most ruthless political operators in modern american history. Its quite obvious republicans have not yet come to terms with this, did not anticipate the kind of attrition they would suffer just trying to slow him down. Many of his policies may well fail, as did many of FDRs, but it may not matter. If in the fall of 2010 unemployment is falling and we have anything like healtcare reform it may spell the effective end of the republican party as a national political force.
All that said, I dont think any of this is a foregone conclusion, only that Republicans will not recover until they make major structural changes. Youre going to have to forget about Limbaugh. Youre going to have to forget about regan, and youre going to have to forget about goldwater. It will probably mean abandoning social conservatives almost altogether. Youre going to have to get real with yourselves about what what individualism means in the 21st century, that its about education and equal rights, about the rights of people and not corporations. It would certainly be wise to leapfrog democrats on renewable energy and gay rights. It may sound impossible right now, but in 4 or 8 years its not going to matter much what your constituency was in 1984. This is how a party survives. When youve lost everything, youve got to get with the times and make radical changes.
And I always like to bring this up to scare democrats, or at least light a fire under their ass, but there is at least one dark horse who could do it.
Before you get all cushy about a permanent pax democrata, consider this:
Well I apologize for the length of my post, but if you read it you might have a clearer idea.
Look I dont want to see the united states evolve into the barack obama politburo any more than you do. But at the rate the republican party is disintegrating there wont be much left. Im trying to be productive in this discussion, to talk about actual viable routes conservatives have left to be a strong, active, balancing political voice, and one that actually makes sense.
Theres a preference for illegal-alien, or criminalien, instead of illegal-immigrant, because an immigrant is something we can all understand. Its something common, something human. The word alien is used because it connotes something non-human, a permanent outsider.
LOL, oe, no. I was just making a point that the republicans aren't black-and-white racist however they do have habits of supporting policies that are unintentionally racist which is actually worse because it makes the problem way more difficult to solve. The typical republican doesn't believe that their economic agenda will hurt the poor, typically minority, populations in this country, in fact they believe the opposite. Republicans seriously thought, and many still think, that Reganomics would work to pull people out of poverty and when we talk about impoverished people in America alot of people immediately think "black", or "immigrant" and rarely "white" although there are many poor whites. Therefore, most of the republican economic agenda, while looking completely egaltarian to republicans and people of similar thinking, appears overtly racist to many others. Its way more easy to fix policies that are overtly racist than to fix policies that only a certain percentage of the population feels is racist and the other percentage sees nothing racist in them.
There are a lot of great points being made here and some interesting debates growing. However, what we can ALL agree with is this fantastically telling graph: most politically informative graph ever
So look, I understand Im making a very cold-hearted argument here. Republicans hate hearing it, and are understandably incensed by the implicit argument that republicans are by nature bigoted. Thats not the argument I am making. Obviously, [emphasis, obviously] the largest proportion of republicans are neither racist or homophobic. The problem is that part of your coalition is, and large swaths of the republican party platform continue to pander to them. You are absolutely right to battle the larger perception, but you are hamstrung by legacy arguments and fringe constituencies that depend upon it.
First, is the southern strategy. People should remember, that the modern political lexicon of "states-rights" actually started with george wallace in his campaign for governor of Alabama, as means to justify opposition to federal intervention during the civil rights movement. With democrats fracturing on the issue, Barry Goldwater abandoned all of his previous support for civil rights to pick up the "states rights" banner in the hopes that white southern business owners who were strong segregationists would abandon the democratic party and bolster his political support in the region. The explicit connection between Goldwater and segregationists sank his presidential aspirations, but by 1970 the largest proportion of southern dixicrats had defected to the republican party, leading one of nixons key strategists to declare in an article in the new york times:
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
And by 1980, this became the central focus of the Reagan electoral strategy in the south. "States-rights" evolved into a euphemism to express solidarity with southern whites. 'Anti-federal-intervention' became 'anti-big-government', widely understood as a rhetorical justification for opposition to social programs for minority communities and later to affirmative action to solidify support from white voters.
And as pointed out, this strategy continues today. In 2000 the south carolina karl rove push poll targeting John McCain, and in 2008 the 'secret-muslim' campaign meme against barack obama, to underline and reinforce ethic fear in the rebulican base, leading sarah palin to publicly announce he spent his time "Pallin' around with terrorists."
And the same thread can be run through the immigration issue, that it was conceived as an explicitly racist campaign on the ground against mexican immigrants in the southwest in the early part of the 20th century, but because even then an explicit racial argument could not stand the scrutiny of human decency, a series of canard arguments about crime and public health were drummed up to create a smokescreen of political legitimacy. And though the winks and nudges are more subdued, these shell arguments are substantially identical to those made today.
Everything is perception in politics, everything is calculated. This is what pollsters and talk radio demagogues do, and in closed session will admit so explicitly. And if you think any of it is an accident you are simply not facing political reality.
Again though, I am not accusing any of you or even most republicans of harboring these prejudices. I am accusing political operatives within your party of exploiting them among a small but critical part of your voting base, and I am accusing the modern republican party leadership of not having the moral backbone to stop it. Its not the quality of their ideals which are failing, its their methodology. And republicans simply will not be able to escape the perception that they have evolved into a nativist party and grow until they come up with something more compelling than scapegotating gays and illegal immigrants to pander to their base.
I'm not a republican, i just figured i would troll you guys by letting you know the chairman of the RNC is black.
That's a well written post oe, and i agree with many of you points. But when you mentioned Regan, you failed to mention that his economic agenda was a national thing, not just southern and he pandered to black voters in urban areas (like the bronx) that his economic ideas would lift them out of squalor. Of course we all know that didn't really happen. All I am saying, is that the republican party is frequently guilty of supporting policies that are unintentionally racist, even though their lack of intent is irrelevant. This does hurt them politically and, as proved by many of the posts in this forum, makes them look like, frankly, a bunch racists. It doesn't matter the chairman's black, or that one of the party's biggest former icons, Colin Powell is black. Its also irrelevant that the party was started under Lincoln, a liberal abolitionist because here and now many of their endorsed policies can be seen as racist.
the party of lincoln and the modern GOP bear zero similarities.
lincoln's platform in 1860:
funding for a transcontinental rail
opposed slavery
for tariffs to protect industry
for the homestead act (giving away land for free)
against "crimes against humanity"
"your suggestion that those of the liberal persuasion don't think for themselves"
I've mentioned several times that, although I disagree with them, many liberals are smart, and genuine in their beliefs. I grouped you, specifically, with the Archinect "herd", specifically, when I suggested you had provided pretty stock stuff.
Not that big a deal -- not trying to cut anyone off or end anything... have the last word if you need it. Whatever blows you hair back.
Earlier in this post, Farwest1 wrote, "We wouldn't have tortured people if it weren't for Republicans," in response to my claim that there are no great differences between democrats and republicans. My response was to say that I was sure evidence would emerge showing democrats approving of the Bush administration's torture practice.
Farleft, just wait. More instances of democrats complicit with the Bush administration's torture regimens will emerge. One day, you'll acknowledge the fact that democrats are no less destructive than their republican rivals. Democrats just talk about equality, justice, and the sanctity of preserving civil liberty. But they don't actually practice what they preach. And that's why, in many ways, democrats are more dangerous than republicans. Because they conceal their true beliefs behind the false declaration of peace and equality.
And it's not just in government. It's across the board. They pick and choose their moral ground and are perfectly willing to abandon those beliefs if it serves their own interests. And torture was just one example.
I always think it's funny when people try to pigeon-hole each other (i.e., me) in with a particular party. I don't consider myself a Democrat anymore and indeed, I'm a registered Independent. I have many, many problems with the far right and some problems with the far left. I definitely consider myself a progressive but I also think we need stronger immigration laws and - hold onto your seats - I'm all for guns. I think more liberals need to learn how to use guns, in fact. I like to try to see things from the other side's perspective but I'm a lot less likely to do that when the person is calling people (i.e., me) names. I tend to ignore those people.
"Republicans seriously thought, and many still think, that Reganomics would work to pull people out of poverty"
This isnt true at all. The fact is that during the "Reagonomics years" the poverty rate fell from about 15% to 12%. The total number increased as did the population as a whole. Considering the massive loss of industrial jobs in the northern cities in the 70's and 80's the fact the rate fell at all is a small victory. The term trickle down economics is tossed around a bit but rising tide lifts all boats would be more adept. In Reagen's philosophy I think they thought a business owner would reinvest savings into expansion and jobs and equipment and such. What irks people today is they see the wealth as paper profits from securities speculation and then moved to offshore accounts for avoidance and personal enrichment - the latter I would argue is NOT the system of trickle down economics and is a bastardization of the term - an act both parties are guilty of. Go to Wall St. and we will find Plenty of blue blood east coast Dems as well as republicans. Hell Soros is about the wealthiest SOB out there and he's bankrolling the Dems. I find it odd that any negative economic phenomena are automatically attributed to the Republicans - is the connection between Conservatives and Business so ingrained into our collective mind that we just assume democrats have no say in the business of business?
I avoided OE's post on 05/03/09 because it just made me furious when He traces the lineage of the Dixicrats to the southern republicans and infers its based on race. I just cant sum up how ironic it is that a party built on pointing racial differences and "categorizing" like Dems are would say that the republicans are racist. Im sure theres some that are, but come up to Chicago and hang out with some Democratic machine workers or cops or firemen and ask them what they think of black folks or Mexicans. Im sure you'll get some lovely responses from enlightened, inclusive solid Democratic base individuals. The republicans may have missed the diversity train because frankly - they dont care. They go around pointing out what group, class sub-sect they belong to. I'd argue they are much more tolerant of others since they tend, not all, to see the world as merit based and individuals on an individual basis. They dont care about your hardluck story or "social disadvantages". All that negativity just teaches people to feel sorry for themselves and fall further into despair and deeper into government relliance.
By the way, does anyone else think it's weird that the two parties are taking out ads mocking each other? I mean, it IS May right? No elections for a while folks...don't they have something better to do with that money? Like, fix things? I'm just saying...
Wanda Sykes, the comedian who spoke at the correspondents' dinner, is predictably creating massive "outrage" in the right-wing media. She said a few funny things, and a few off-color things, and Obama laughed at a few of her jokes, and didn't laugh at others.
Here's a comment from the right wing blog Free Republic, typical of the paroxysms of thinly-veiled racism that have taken over the right wing lately:
The good news is that stuff like this takes its toll, and not on the objects of attack. I don't know if Obama realizes it, but he is generating racial tension.
After reading how his pick to lead the US Forest Service had no previous USFS background, a fellow commented, "Why do I expect he's black?"
I thought it was in poor taste, but then, sure enough - the pick is a black man known for supporting fellow minorities.
Picking a trashy black lesbian to do bitter stand-up that will be replayed on TV doesn't help the President. In fact, it makes him look like what he is - a bitter racist whose chief qualification, in his mind even, seems to be "I'm Black. I'm Cool."
And having the adoring press there laughing reminds folks that the people who bring them ‘news' are firmly in Obama's hip pocket...or even further in his shorts.
I watched about half of her performance. The word I kept thinking was, "Ghetto". And I doubt I'm the only one.
A month ago, I made a joke about needing to be on the receiving end of some income redistribution. The salesman smiled and replied, "We're the wrong skin color - all we're allowed to do is give." I was shocked because I had never had a salesman say something like that in front of me. But I think a lot of folks are starting to feel like this is a BLACK Administration - no whites need apply. And that is very bad for racial harmony.
And this comment is also typical: Typical ghetto slime in the White House, UFB
Farwest - you contribute nothing to the debate. Please go to a left wing site and post the vitiol posted there. As for jokes - who cares really? She said some stuff about Rush being a hijacker and his kidneys failing. Its poor taste but it doesnt bug me much. We just lived through 8 years of nightly jokes about Cheney having a heart attack via John Stewart. No one was up in arms about the disrespect of hoping the vp dies in office were they? Why you guys so obsessed with the republicans and hyper sensitive to any little thing you can find bad? Whats your motivation here?
Sorry, but I'm not going to trust your opinion that I contribute nothing to the debate, evilp. I could say the same for you, but I won't because I like to hear your opinions, even though I often disagree with them.
My point was to illustrate how the conservative chattering class tries to paint Obama as "without class" and "ghetto," both of which are essentially racist euphemisms.
But then they turn around and create three days' worth of talking points about how "elitist" he is for choosing dijon mustard.
I agree kunga but remember also there's millions more people in the workplace now and the laws of supply and demand dictate a lowering of wages when theres a high supply of workers - the real problem is not the slightly fallen wages but rather the steep asset increases of the last 15 years - ie home prices. The market will sort it all out eventually.
The chart also doesnt take into account wages by age groups. Your birth year and occupation have a great deal of say in your wages. A gen x person in computer science probably will have enjoyed a better overall wage versus a millenal entering the same field as its now becoming comoditised and a Boomer MBA will have enjoyed a greater wage compared to a Gen X MBA yet I feel as architects the future is actualy bright for wages if you you can wait 10years when a huge number of boomers retire or expire
Even though I hate Le Corb and the phoniness of New Urbanism... I think late Gen X'ers and Gen Y'ers are getting shafted career wise, housing wise and living wise and this is where these two things come into play.
I have a feeling that most Gen Y'ers kind of accept that there isn't much of a "future." I'm not sure other people my age in other parts of the country feel the same way but I know most of the people around me never expect to make more than 12 dollars an hour. In fact, most of my friends and other people I have talked to have a career aspiration to make at least 15 dollars an hour within 4 years of graduating.
That's really kind of sad. We grow up and came to maturity in the economic party of the 90s and 00s. Now, we just kind of hope to make somewhere between 25,000 and 35,000 a year. Older folks tend to forget that when they grew up, they had 'better' cities and not nearly as many expenses.
The current way of thinking is setting up the "future" to be a pauper generation without any of the trappings of being a "pauper." As in walkability, easy city to city transportation, accessible part time jobs et cetera... mostly the younger generation is feeling the pressure of severe punishment (background checks, drug tests, alcohol testing, crippling HR procedures, dissolution of social safety nets) and that they have to "accept" what's going on.
But thank you previous generations, I have to spend all my income on a crappy car to live in a crappy apartment and I can't even be a functional alcoholic... all while paying for billions of dollars of social programs I won't get to use on a 12 dollar an hour job. Oh, and I can't even walk to a gas station anymore to get more smokes.
The Implosion of the Republican Party (hang on while I get some popcorn...)
i like to know what the people around me are listening to and agreeing with. it's hard to call bullshit if you don't know the context of the conversation. don't worry, i spend a lot of my time with npr, too.
when you spend the day driving from construction site to construction site in rural counties, you let the radio wander...
and i didn't say i didn't listen to rush. i said i DO: i wanna know what's up.
aquapura - are you aware of the dog whistle you just threw into your post?
It is "Democratic party", not "Democrat party". Read up on the history of the phrase here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)
"In 1996, the wording "Democratic Party" was removed throughout the Republican party platform. Party leaders said that they wanted to make the point that the Democratic Party had become elitist, no longer small-d democratic. In August 2008, the Republican platform committee voted down a proposal to use the phrase "Democrat Party" in the 2008 platform, deciding to use the proper "Democratic Party". "We probably should use what the actual name is," said Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, the panel's chairman. "At least in writing.""
If you were using it out of ignorance, now you know. You won't run the risk of having your arguments be not taken seriously because of a silly word game the Republicans have used to intentionally annoy and aggravate the members of the Democratic Party.
...Kurt.... I'd definitely have a beer with you. It would be an interesting conversation.
Above, you said, "Specifically, WonderK, can you name an ACTUAL tenet of conservatism? Or liberalism?"
I think part of my point in my entries here is that what conservatism was back in the 1950s, or in an ideal sense, is thousands of miles away from what conservatism is now, in practice, by people who call themselves conservative.
I too am for small government and low taxes, so long as we're also accomplishing what needs to be done. But conservatism is not about small government and low taxes right now. It's about all of the divisive social agendas, the Christian militarism, the hipocrisy of the government growing exponentially under our last Republican president, etc. These things are really bankrupting the Republican party right now.
If Republicans would turn back to core conservative values, they'd have the presidency and both houses of congress. The reason I dislike our current stable of Republicans has nothing to do with the core of conservatism. It has everything to do with an activist social agenda that's divisive and intolerant.
A non-sequitor worth noting:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/
Christians back torture in far greater numbers than non-Christians. And that's very "christian" of them!
Correction, farwest: White evangelical Protestants back torture in far greater numbers than non-Christians. The survey did not include mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics, or other Christian groups.
From CNN: "It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small."
I took this to mean that it did include some Catholics and mainline protestants.
Looks like I misread that paragraph... My bad.
There is just so much hypocrisy and irony in politics.
Of course everyone wants low, fair taxes.
Of course everyone wants a small gov't.
Of course everyone wants good health care.
Of course everyone wants good education.
Of course no one wants socialism.
Etc., etc., etc.
I find it quite amusing how easily people shake their fist at extremes and say things like "all democrats want high taxes and big gov't." Please.
The last 8 years has shown us that what was in power, and supported mind you, did nothing but screw up our country. More power, more waste, less attention to our country's internal interests, etc.
Personally, I'd like to be in the middle. Certain things make sense, certain things don't. So far, as far as I can see, health care sucks and something needs to be done which ain't happening with current arrangements.
I want low taxes and free markets, entrepreneurial encouragement, etc., etc., but I also want a fair system that isn't abused by the elite.
Steven, I had to look back at my posts to see what the heck you're responding to -- well, it's not evident.
Mostly you seem subtly offended that I called your ideas unoriginal.
Your longwindedness betraying an irritated need to disprove my grouping you as part of the herd.
not too hard, kurt. you specifically called me out at 05/01/09 8:38, so i answered, part of the flow of a spirited discussion, i thought.
is suggesting that i have a 'need' your way of trying to scare me away, end the discussion like i suggested rush does, turning a fun discourse about public issues into a speculation about my personal motives?
i was indeed responding to your suggestion that those of the liberal persuasion don't think for themselves, just as others have suggested similar about conservatives. it's b.s. on all sides: we all hear what we hear, see what we see, make our decisions, and - because we're lucky to be able to do so - share them when we feel like it.
beer really should be involved here. people would keep it more civil. keep it light, kids!
all that said, i hope you don't discount my post in your effort to discredit me through your diagnosis.
The republican party is dealing with some deep structural problems, not just in its leadership, but really from top to bottom through its platform and constituency. These problems are in many ways far worse than they have been, at least since the 60s, and potentially since its inception. They may in fact be fatal, and unless republicans come to understand this they almost certainly will be.
The primary problem, as I see it, is that the platform of issues upon which their party rests are not consistent with with the fundamental principals upon which their party was founded. The regan coalition, unfortunately, is fundamentally incoherent, designed essentially for the a cold-war society, and cannot be sustained in the current demographic environment.
The best thing republicans have going for them, and its actually a tremendous plus, is that the its most central, core idea, individualism, is profoundly appealing. Not just to wealthy corporate wheelers and dealers or rural communities, but to american ideals in general. What is so tragic, is that most of the modern republican party's platform is anywhere from dissonant to outright contradictory to this principal.
Many here have railed against the perception that the republican party has become a party of zenophobic, misogynistic, anti-civil rights, war-mongering gun nuts. And given their real ideals I can see why. But we must be honest about what your platform actually consists of. If youre not zenophobic, then why are all of the groups your party rails against foreign in some way? Anyone who has seen a youtube of a modern KKK rally would be hard pressed not to notice that their arguments are substantially indistinguishable from those made by Tom Tancredo and Lou Dobbs every night. That immigrants are here to take jobs from legitimate, real,[i] americans, hint-hint nudge-nudge. That they spread disease. That they are irrevocably committed to crime. That we are under threat of a kind of invasion, of a mass of un-assimilatable, non-descript others? Theres a preference for illegal-alien, or criminalien, instead of illegal-immigrant, because an immigrant is something we can all understand. Its something common, something human. The word alien is used because it connotes something non-human, a permanent outsider.
If you arent war-mongers, then why the insistence on americas right to preemptive war? If you arent anti-civil rights then why does the party stand against marriage equality, and for torture and indefinite imprisonment? If you arent misogynistic then why the stand against equal-pay-for-equal-work? These [i]are your issues. The intellectual gymnastics you may go through to connect these ideas to individual rights and freedoms may convince you, but they arent going to convince others or grow your coalition. And the real nightmare corner youve painted yourself into is that now you cant altar any part of this platform without abandoning your primary voting base. Bush has so debunked the elements of the regan shell game, of foreign policy conservatism, of economic conservatism, and social conservatism, that your voting constituency no longer holds itself together. Without any real global existential threat against religious freedom, your pandering to evangelicals on abortion and same sex marriage looks antique at bests, and bigotry at worst. Without an evil-empire boogie man to justify a militarily aggressive foreign policy, you look like arrogant, reactionary bullies. None of which gives any convincing evidence for what the party used to be about. You can complain about being perceived as a party of old, white southerners,but statistically speaking that iswhat you are. Remember that that if regan had run 1984 under todays demographics, he would have lost by 8 points. And its only getting worse for you. Without major policy changesthat can appeal to a much broader section of the population you will sustain systematic losses every election election for the next 50 years.
I dont think I have to tell you you wont last that long.
Now democrats certainly have contradictions of their own, but fortunately for them they are largely tactical and cosmetic. Democrats can dump single-payer healthcare or commit itself to foreign engagements when necessary without contradicting its fundamental principal, that government can have an active and constructive roll in society, and without destabilizing its coalition.
Another thing republicans are doing, which many have done before, is underestimate Barack Obama. Anyone who has heard him speak when the camera is off knows that behind that big smile is one of the most ruthless political operators in modern american history. Its quite obvious republicans have not yet come to terms with this, did not anticipate the kind of attrition they would suffer just trying to slow him down. Many of his policies may well fail, as did many of FDRs, but it may not matter. If in the fall of 2010 unemployment is falling and we have anything like healtcare reform it may spell the effective end of the republican party as a national political force.
All that said, I dont think any of this is a foregone conclusion, only that Republicans will not recover until they make major structural changes. Youre going to have to forget about Limbaugh. Youre going to have to forget about regan, and youre going to have to forget about goldwater. It will probably mean abandoning social conservatives almost altogether. Youre going to have to get real with yourselves about what what individualism means in the 21st century, that its about education and equal rights, about the rights of people and not corporations. It would certainly be wise to leapfrog democrats on renewable energy and gay rights. It may sound impossible right now, but in 4 or 8 years its not going to matter much what your constituency was in 1984. This is how a party survives. When youve lost everything, youve got to get with the times and make radical changes.
And I always like to bring this up to scare democrats, or at least light a fire under their ass, but there is at least one dark horse who could do it.
Before you get all cushy about a permanent pax democrata, consider this:
David Petreaus 2016.
I stop reading that when you compared Lou Dobbs to the KKK
Well since I heard him refer to Barack Obama and Condoleza Rice as "cotton-picking politicians" the correlation has became difficult for me to avoid.
Id love to see a conservative with the courage of conviction to look their own ideas in the face.
What does that even mean?
Well I apologize for the length of my post, but if you read it you might have a clearer idea.
Look I dont want to see the united states evolve into the barack obama politburo any more than you do. But at the rate the republican party is disintegrating there wont be much left. Im trying to be productive in this discussion, to talk about actual viable routes conservatives have left to be a strong, active, balancing political voice, and one that actually makes sense.
I wonder if anybody in here knows that the chairman of the RNC is black.
Oh! Thats right! Racism in america over.
wow
LOL, oe, no. I was just making a point that the republicans aren't black-and-white racist however they do have habits of supporting policies that are unintentionally racist which is actually worse because it makes the problem way more difficult to solve. The typical republican doesn't believe that their economic agenda will hurt the poor, typically minority, populations in this country, in fact they believe the opposite. Republicans seriously thought, and many still think, that Reganomics would work to pull people out of poverty and when we talk about impoverished people in America alot of people immediately think "black", or "immigrant" and rarely "white" although there are many poor whites. Therefore, most of the republican economic agenda, while looking completely egaltarian to republicans and people of similar thinking, appears overtly racist to many others. Its way more easy to fix policies that are overtly racist than to fix policies that only a certain percentage of the population feels is racist and the other percentage sees nothing racist in them.
There are a lot of great points being made here and some interesting debates growing. However, what we can ALL agree with is this fantastically telling graph:
most politically informative graph ever
So look, I understand Im making a very cold-hearted argument here. Republicans hate hearing it, and are understandably incensed by the implicit argument that republicans are by nature bigoted. Thats not the argument I am making. Obviously, [emphasis, obviously] the largest proportion of republicans are neither racist or homophobic. The problem is that part of your coalition is, and large swaths of the republican party platform continue to pander to them. You are absolutely right to battle the larger perception, but you are hamstrung by legacy arguments and fringe constituencies that depend upon it.
First, is the southern strategy. People should remember, that the modern political lexicon of "states-rights" actually started with george wallace in his campaign for governor of Alabama, as means to justify opposition to federal intervention during the civil rights movement. With democrats fracturing on the issue, Barry Goldwater abandoned all of his previous support for civil rights to pick up the "states rights" banner in the hopes that white southern business owners who were strong segregationists would abandon the democratic party and bolster his political support in the region. The explicit connection between Goldwater and segregationists sank his presidential aspirations, but by 1970 the largest proportion of southern dixicrats had defected to the republican party, leading one of nixons key strategists to declare in an article in the new york times:
"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
And by 1980, this became the central focus of the Reagan electoral strategy in the south. "States-rights" evolved into a euphemism to express solidarity with southern whites. 'Anti-federal-intervention' became 'anti-big-government', widely understood as a rhetorical justification for opposition to social programs for minority communities and later to affirmative action to solidify support from white voters.
And as pointed out, this strategy continues today. In 2000 the south carolina karl rove push poll targeting John McCain, and in 2008 the 'secret-muslim' campaign meme against barack obama, to underline and reinforce ethic fear in the rebulican base, leading sarah palin to publicly announce he spent his time "Pallin' around with terrorists."
And the same thread can be run through the immigration issue, that it was conceived as an explicitly racist campaign on the ground against mexican immigrants in the southwest in the early part of the 20th century, but because even then an explicit racial argument could not stand the scrutiny of human decency, a series of canard arguments about crime and public health were drummed up to create a smokescreen of political legitimacy. And though the winks and nudges are more subdued, these shell arguments are substantially identical to those made today.
Everything is perception in politics, everything is calculated. This is what pollsters and talk radio demagogues do, and in closed session will admit so explicitly. And if you think any of it is an accident you are simply not facing political reality.
Again though, I am not accusing any of you or even most republicans of harboring these prejudices. I am accusing political operatives within your party of exploiting them among a small but critical part of your voting base, and I am accusing the modern republican party leadership of not having the moral backbone to stop it. Its not the quality of their ideals which are failing, its their methodology. And republicans simply will not be able to escape the perception that they have evolved into a nativist party and grow until they come up with something more compelling than scapegotating gays and illegal immigrants to pander to their base.
really well said in both posts oe
I'm not a republican, i just figured i would troll you guys by letting you know the chairman of the RNC is black.
That's a well written post oe, and i agree with many of you points. But when you mentioned Regan, you failed to mention that his economic agenda was a national thing, not just southern and he pandered to black voters in urban areas (like the bronx) that his economic ideas would lift them out of squalor. Of course we all know that didn't really happen. All I am saying, is that the republican party is frequently guilty of supporting policies that are unintentionally racist, even though their lack of intent is irrelevant. This does hurt them politically and, as proved by many of the posts in this forum, makes them look like, frankly, a bunch racists. It doesn't matter the chairman's black, or that one of the party's biggest former icons, Colin Powell is black. Its also irrelevant that the party was started under Lincoln, a liberal abolitionist because here and now many of their endorsed policies can be seen as racist.
the party of lincoln and the modern GOP bear zero similarities.
lincoln's platform in 1860:
funding for a transcontinental rail
opposed slavery
for tariffs to protect industry
for the homestead act (giving away land for free)
against "crimes against humanity"
Talkitect, that graph doesn't count unless you have proof that Obama killed the pirates with his bare hands.
I think I saw the footage on YouTube......,
That is true holz.
That wasnt really directed at you, apurimac, or even anyone specifically. I just have this really bad second-person writing tick.
"your suggestion that those of the liberal persuasion don't think for themselves"
I've mentioned several times that, although I disagree with them, many liberals are smart, and genuine in their beliefs. I grouped you, specifically, with the Archinect "herd", specifically, when I suggested you had provided pretty stock stuff.
Not that big a deal -- not trying to cut anyone off or end anything... have the last word if you need it. Whatever blows you hair back.
Earlier in this post, Farwest1 wrote, "We wouldn't have tortured people if it weren't for Republicans," in response to my claim that there are no great differences between democrats and republicans. My response was to say that I was sure evidence would emerge showing democrats approving of the Bush administration's torture practice.
Well, I have something to post...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-interrogate8-2009may08,0,4925805.story
Farleft, just wait. More instances of democrats complicit with the Bush administration's torture regimens will emerge. One day, you'll acknowledge the fact that democrats are no less destructive than their republican rivals. Democrats just talk about equality, justice, and the sanctity of preserving civil liberty. But they don't actually practice what they preach. And that's why, in many ways, democrats are more dangerous than republicans. Because they conceal their true beliefs behind the false declaration of peace and equality.
And it's not just in government. It's across the board. They pick and choose their moral ground and are perfectly willing to abandon those beliefs if it serves their own interests. And torture was just one example.
I always think it's funny when people try to pigeon-hole each other (i.e., me) in with a particular party. I don't consider myself a Democrat anymore and indeed, I'm a registered Independent. I have many, many problems with the far right and some problems with the far left. I definitely consider myself a progressive but I also think we need stronger immigration laws and - hold onto your seats - I'm all for guns. I think more liberals need to learn how to use guns, in fact. I like to try to see things from the other side's perspective but I'm a lot less likely to do that when the person is calling people (i.e., me) names. I tend to ignore those people.
That said, HI oe!!!! How's it going?
Whatup dubk :)
Another one dems should be more nervous about;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr
"Republicans seriously thought, and many still think, that Reganomics would work to pull people out of poverty"
This isnt true at all. The fact is that during the "Reagonomics years" the poverty rate fell from about 15% to 12%. The total number increased as did the population as a whole. Considering the massive loss of industrial jobs in the northern cities in the 70's and 80's the fact the rate fell at all is a small victory. The term trickle down economics is tossed around a bit but rising tide lifts all boats would be more adept. In Reagen's philosophy I think they thought a business owner would reinvest savings into expansion and jobs and equipment and such. What irks people today is they see the wealth as paper profits from securities speculation and then moved to offshore accounts for avoidance and personal enrichment - the latter I would argue is NOT the system of trickle down economics and is a bastardization of the term - an act both parties are guilty of. Go to Wall St. and we will find Plenty of blue blood east coast Dems as well as republicans. Hell Soros is about the wealthiest SOB out there and he's bankrolling the Dems. I find it odd that any negative economic phenomena are automatically attributed to the Republicans - is the connection between Conservatives and Business so ingrained into our collective mind that we just assume democrats have no say in the business of business?
link
"Huntsman also joined REO Speedwagon on the piano for two songs during their concert at the Utah State Fair"
I avoided OE's post on 05/03/09 because it just made me furious when He traces the lineage of the Dixicrats to the southern republicans and infers its based on race. I just cant sum up how ironic it is that a party built on pointing racial differences and "categorizing" like Dems are would say that the republicans are racist. Im sure theres some that are, but come up to Chicago and hang out with some Democratic machine workers or cops or firemen and ask them what they think of black folks or Mexicans. Im sure you'll get some lovely responses from enlightened, inclusive solid Democratic base individuals. The republicans may have missed the diversity train because frankly - they dont care. They go around pointing out what group, class sub-sect they belong to. I'd argue they are much more tolerant of others since they tend, not all, to see the world as merit based and individuals on an individual basis. They dont care about your hardluck story or "social disadvantages". All that negativity just teaches people to feel sorry for themselves and fall further into despair and deeper into government relliance.
Huntsman doesn't seem like such a bad dude. The prog rock thing is funny.
obama effing killed last night. the comment about boehner being a "person of color" had me kicking and screaming.
wanda was ok too, though not as awesome as colbert.
can the nutters explain this for me?
psycho-bot coulter making fun of 9/11 families is ok,
wanda (in a comedic setting) joking that rush was the 20th hijacker but missed the flight due to his oxycontin issues went too far.
Obama was really really funny. Anyone know who writes his comedy stuff for him? It was right on, I mean just absolutely brilliant.
The part about Boehner was funny but I'm not totally sure I get it...is it because he looks like he has an eterna-tan?
full size
The bubble diagram and the street scene are both pretty awesome.
By the way, does anyone else think it's weird that the two parties are taking out ads mocking each other? I mean, it IS May right? No elections for a while folks...don't they have something better to do with that money? Like, fix things? I'm just saying...
Wanda Sykes, the comedian who spoke at the correspondents' dinner, is predictably creating massive "outrage" in the right-wing media. She said a few funny things, and a few off-color things, and Obama laughed at a few of her jokes, and didn't laugh at others.
Here's a comment from the right wing blog Free Republic, typical of the paroxysms of thinly-veiled racism that have taken over the right wing lately:
The good news is that stuff like this takes its toll, and not on the objects of attack. I don't know if Obama realizes it, but he is generating racial tension.
After reading how his pick to lead the US Forest Service had no previous USFS background, a fellow commented, "Why do I expect he's black?"
I thought it was in poor taste, but then, sure enough - the pick is a black man known for supporting fellow minorities.
Picking a trashy black lesbian to do bitter stand-up that will be replayed on TV doesn't help the President. In fact, it makes him look like what he is - a bitter racist whose chief qualification, in his mind even, seems to be "I'm Black. I'm Cool."
And having the adoring press there laughing reminds folks that the people who bring them ‘news' are firmly in Obama's hip pocket...or even further in his shorts.
I watched about half of her performance. The word I kept thinking was, "Ghetto". And I doubt I'm the only one.
A month ago, I made a joke about needing to be on the receiving end of some income redistribution. The salesman smiled and replied, "We're the wrong skin color - all we're allowed to do is give." I was shocked because I had never had a salesman say something like that in front of me. But I think a lot of folks are starting to feel like this is a BLACK Administration - no whites need apply. And that is very bad for racial harmony.
And this comment is also typical:
Typical ghetto slime in the White House, UFB
link
Farwest - you contribute nothing to the debate. Please go to a left wing site and post the vitiol posted there. As for jokes - who cares really? She said some stuff about Rush being a hijacker and his kidneys failing. Its poor taste but it doesnt bug me much. We just lived through 8 years of nightly jokes about Cheney having a heart attack via John Stewart. No one was up in arms about the disrespect of hoping the vp dies in office were they? Why you guys so obsessed with the republicans and hyper sensitive to any little thing you can find bad? Whats your motivation here?
Why arent Dem. and Rep. fully inside the corporate interest bubble?
Evilplatypus:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html
No real wage growth for almost all of us over the last years, despite the uptorn.
Sorry, but I'm not going to trust your opinion that I contribute nothing to the debate, evilp. I could say the same for you, but I won't because I like to hear your opinions, even though I often disagree with them.
My point was to illustrate how the conservative chattering class tries to paint Obama as "without class" and "ghetto," both of which are essentially racist euphemisms.
But then they turn around and create three days' worth of talking points about how "elitist" he is for choosing dijon mustard.
I agree kunga but remember also there's millions more people in the workplace now and the laws of supply and demand dictate a lowering of wages when theres a high supply of workers - the real problem is not the slightly fallen wages but rather the steep asset increases of the last 15 years - ie home prices. The market will sort it all out eventually.
The chart also doesnt take into account wages by age groups. Your birth year and occupation have a great deal of say in your wages. A gen x person in computer science probably will have enjoyed a better overall wage versus a millenal entering the same field as its now becoming comoditised and a Boomer MBA will have enjoyed a greater wage compared to a Gen X MBA yet I feel as architects the future is actualy bright for wages if you you can wait 10years when a huge number of boomers retire or expire
EP, you hit something right on the nose there.
Even though I hate Le Corb and the phoniness of New Urbanism... I think late Gen X'ers and Gen Y'ers are getting shafted career wise, housing wise and living wise and this is where these two things come into play.
I have a feeling that most Gen Y'ers kind of accept that there isn't much of a "future." I'm not sure other people my age in other parts of the country feel the same way but I know most of the people around me never expect to make more than 12 dollars an hour. In fact, most of my friends and other people I have talked to have a career aspiration to make at least 15 dollars an hour within 4 years of graduating.
That's really kind of sad. We grow up and came to maturity in the economic party of the 90s and 00s. Now, we just kind of hope to make somewhere between 25,000 and 35,000 a year. Older folks tend to forget that when they grew up, they had 'better' cities and not nearly as many expenses.
The current way of thinking is setting up the "future" to be a pauper generation without any of the trappings of being a "pauper." As in walkability, easy city to city transportation, accessible part time jobs et cetera... mostly the younger generation is feeling the pressure of severe punishment (background checks, drug tests, alcohol testing, crippling HR procedures, dissolution of social safety nets) and that they have to "accept" what's going on.
But thank you previous generations, I have to spend all my income on a crappy car to live in a crappy apartment and I can't even be a functional alcoholic... all while paying for billions of dollars of social programs I won't get to use on a 12 dollar an hour job. Oh, and I can't even walk to a gas station anymore to get more smokes.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.