In case you thought the GOP was ascendant...

[Admiral Yi]

Nonsense.  Almost all real progress is incremental

Almost all change in human behavior and attitudes is incremental.  What examples of government-initiated incremantal change can you think of?

[Fate]

The income tax dance?

[MadImmortalMan]

Nonsense.  Almost all real progress is incremental

What examples of government-initiated incremantal change can you think of?

http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3083.0

Look how much power the EPA has accumulated since Nixon.

[Admiral Yi]

The income tax dance?

Sorry, not clear enough.  What examples of government-initiated incremental progress can you think of?

[Sheilbh]

You mean, abandon conservatism?  No thanks.  I'd rather stay out of power a little longer than do that.

The Tories haven't abandoned conservatism in any specific way.  Let's not forget when Labour decided to be pure in 1979, in 1983 they may have received several million votes for socialism but they were also trounced.

But I think this is a difference between conservatism in the UK and in the US.  In the UK conservatism is to some extent the absence of ideology.  Against the principles of the Liberals and the ideology of Labour the Tories represent the pragmatism of good government; I think it's the source of their 'natural party of government' status.  Which is why 1997 was so traumatic for them.

In the US I think conservatism is a very ideological term with a set ideological meaning - far moreso than liberalism - and I think there is a strand of American conservatism that basically disdains power.  It's in their DNA that while the Tories are the 'natural party of government' modern-day American conservatism has 1964 as its year of conception: it emerged in one of the most crushing defeats of the post-war era.  From the start it's had the idea that it's better to be right and pure than to be in power.

Is there anything you can think of that rises to the level of the Dems' healthcare legislation?

That's as aggressive and radical as Burke cuddling a kitten.  What's the aggressively radical stuff in there?

Let's not forget that for all the talk about Reid and Pelosi the figures who the Republicans couldn't reach a deal with were people like Max Baucus.  We're not talking barn-burning radicals here.  Currently I believe there's suggestions that Lieberman and Collins are happier with the current bill and I suspect that Voinovich could go for it too.

I would love nothing better than if the Tea Baggers were a broad-based popular movement for fiscal discipline, but that is not my impression.

I think one problem with the tea baggers is that they seem to me quite Glenn Beckish.  They give a worrying impression, to me, of sort of populist pitchfork waving.

Having said that I agree with DS and think the GOP should focus on fiscal conservatism.  However they need to give the impression of seriousness.  I don't think policy ideas are the solution to any opposition parties' problem.  For example only 20% of people in 1994 had even heard of 'Contract with America', right now though everyone has an opinion on it under 30% of people actually understand what a public option is.  What opposition parties need to do is present the image that they're sane, responsible, ready for government - a few policies will help but no need to go overboard. 

I think one of the GOP's problems is that they don't seem attached to the reality of current political debate.  Their proposal for stimulus was to cut capital gains tax which was ridiculous, despite the fact that conservative economists broadly thought a good right-wing stimulus would be to temporarily eliminate and permanently lower the payroll tax (I actually think this should have been the tax cut portion of the actual stimulus).  So the GOP's policy doesn't seem connected to reality, rather it's a shibboleth of the conservative movement and Reagan revolution (I think the GOP need to start talking about 2009 rather than Reagan as well) - that then gets read by a few policy wonks and the image dissipates through the press that they're not being responsible or ready for government, which they worked.

Something similar happened when Sen. Bennett of Utah proposed a conservative healthcare bill and was promptly attacked by numerous PACs as advocating a government takeover.  It's not good for the party, in my opinion.

I disagree with Valmy on a couple of points to do with radicalism because I live in a country with a Parliamentary system in which every government can basically change things and fulfill their promises: it's not all bad.

[Barrister]

Sheilbh, just because conservatives put more emphasis on pragmatism does not mean that we have no ideology. 

[MadImmortalMan]

You mean, abandon conservatism?  No thanks.  I'd rather stay out of power a little longer than do that.

The Tories haven't abandoned conservatism in any specific way.  Let's not forget when Labour decided to be pure in 1979, in 1983 they may have received several million votes for socialism but they were also trounced.

But I think this is a difference between conservatism in the UK and in the US.  In the UK conservatism is to some extent the absence of ideology.  Against the principles of the Liberals and the ideology of Labour the Tories represent the pragmatism of good government; I think it's the source of their 'natural party of government' status.  Which is why 1997 was so traumatic for them.

In the US I think conservatism is a very ideological term with a set ideological meaning - far moreso than liberalism - and I think there is a strand of American conservatism that basically disdains power.  It's in their DNA that while the Tories are the 'natural party of government' modern-day American conservatism has 1964 as its year of conception: it emerged in one of the most crushing defeats of the post-war era.  From the start it's had the idea that it's better to be right and pure than to be in power.

Is there anything you can think of that rises to the level of the Dems' healthcare legislation?

That's as aggressive and radical as Burke cuddling a kitten.  What's the aggressively radical stuff in there?

Let's not forget that for all the talk about Reid and Pelosi the figures who the Republicans couldn't reach a deal with were people like Max Baucus.  We're not talking barn-burning radicals here.  Currently I believe there's suggestions that Lieberman and Collins are happier with the current bill and I suspect that Voinovich could go for it too.

I would love nothing better than if the Tea Baggers were a broad-based popular movement for fiscal discipline, but that is not my impression.

I think one problem with the tea baggers is that they seem to me quite Glenn Beckish.  They give a worrying impression, to me, of sort of populist pitchfork waving.

Having said that I agree with DS and think the GOP should focus on fiscal conservatism.  However they need to give the impression of seriousness.  I don't think policy ideas are the solution to any opposition parties' problem.  For example only 20% of people in 1994 had even heard of 'Contract with America', right now though everyone has an opinion on it under 30% of people actually understand what a public option is.  What opposition parties need to do is present the image that they're sane, responsible, ready for government - a few policies will help but no need to go overboard. 

I think one of the GOP's problems is that they don't seem attached to the reality of current political debate.  Their proposal for stimulus was to cut capital gains tax which was ridiculous, despite the fact that conservative economists broadly thought a good right-wing stimulus would be to temporarily eliminate and permanently lower the payroll tax (I actually think this should have been the tax cut portion of the actual stimulus).  So the GOP's policy doesn't seem connected to reality, rather it's a shibboleth of the conservative movement and Reagan revolution (I think the GOP need to start talking about 2009 rather than Reagan as well) - that then gets read by a few policy wonks and the image dissipates through the press that they're not being responsible or ready for government, which they worked.

Something similar happened when Sen. Bennett of Utah proposed a conservative healthcare bill and was promptly attacked by numerous PACs as advocating a government takeover.  It's not good for the party, in my opinion.

I disagree with Valmy on a couple of points to do with radicalism because I live in a country with a Parliamentary system in which every government can basically change things and fulfill their promises: it's not all bad.

Our system necessitates compromise. We don't elect "a government" in that the majority comes to power and puts their guys in charge of it all. We elect individuals and make them get along enough to get stuff done. It's unusual for a single party to have anything like the kind of power Labour or Tories would have once elected. Maybe FDR did. Obama is close. GOP has had some success electing Presidents, but had been basically out of power in the modern era until 1994.

So everybody goes into it knowing they are going to have to compromise in order get what they want. So they do the same thing you would do when haggling with a merchant. You overshoot your target price and haggle down to what you are actually willing to pay.

GOP had no input whatsoever in the stimulus, so we don't know what their ideas would have been whittled down to. Maybe that cap gains cut would have become a payroll cut via compromise.

[Darth Wagtaros]

It happened before (see: 1994, Contract with America), and it can happen again.

I see the Contract with America as a largely anti-Clinton thing, not so much as a fiscal conservatism thing.  Notably it came about soon after Billary health care was demolished. 

How many of those term limits fanatics are still in office? 

[KRonn]

...  Everytime we try some great experimental whatever it almost always turns out badly.

That is my view and I think history both recent and ancient back up my view.

You guys put people on the moon and you can't manage to offer basic healthcare coverage for all your citizens?! 



G.

Are you insinuating that we put our unisnured people on the moon!?1?   

[Maximus]

Right it means an expected outcome due to theory...some crackpot theory...and then unintended consequences come up.

Public health care isn't an untried crackpot theory. Most of the civilized world has had some form of it for decades.

[The Minsky Moment]

I haven't been paying close attention lately.

Are these Tea Party/"Teabagging" Republicans supposed to be some rebranding of the Log Cabin Republicans?  I am just assuming based on the name.

[DontSayBanana]

I haven't been paying close attention lately.

Are these Tea Party/"Teabagging" Republicans supposed to be some rebranding of the Log Cabin Republicans?  I am just assuming based on the name.

Nope, although speaking of teabaggers, Stupak finally got shot down.

[Admiral Yi]

Nope, although speaking of teabaggers, Stupak finally got shot down.

No shit, how'd they manage that?

[Razgovory]

Nope, although speaking of teabaggers, Stupak finally got shot down.

No shit, how'd they manage that?

Stinger missile.

[Valmy]

Public health care isn't an untried crackpot theory. Most of the civilized world has had some form of it for decades.

If what the US was doing was looking around the world for the most efficient, most innovative, and most effective health care strategy and implemented it that would be different.  But we are not doing that.  Why I have no idea...maybe we are too proud to borrow anything from foreigners?  Not sure.  Maybe there are no public health care strategy out there that works well...though I heard the Dutch one is something others should look at.