A thought, inspired by lunch with a professor and my boss for the summer.
He's a great guy, and worked under the first Bush at the EPA. He's an environmental lawyer, but certainly not a hardcore environmentalist loonie. In 2008, he was won of several other former Republicans who campaigned for the Obama campaign, and was talking about how he feels like the party has become so anti-intellectual and ideological that he can't imagine voting for them.
I get the impression this is true for several posters on the board; Berkut voted for Obama despite his dislike of the man, for instance, although I'm sure he would vote for a Republican again if they can ever find a good one. And Fahdiz reminisces for Goldwater to this day, although the GOP would probably call him too liberal today.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but I'm curious about people's thoughts on it.
I have great sympathy with the Republican party theoretically on economic issues and the idea of a limited Federal Government.
However it seems they are abandoning those principals in favor of raw populism combined with kissing up to the religious fundamentalists and their ideas. I would gladly support the Republicans if they ever shed one or both of those movements.
I am not exactly a huge fan of the Democrats but at least I agree with their left wing social policies even if I find almost everything else about the party distressing. That is why I am hoping the Blue Dogs become a political force worth something.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 12:22:12 PM
I have great sympathy with the Republican party theoretically on economic issues and the idea of a limited Federal Government.
However it seems they are abandoning those principals in favor of raw populism combined with kissing up to the religious fundamentalists and their ideas. I would gladly support the Republicans if they ever shed one or both of those movements.
I am not exactly a huge fan of the Democrats but at least I agree with their left wing social policies even if I find almost everything else about the party distressing. That is why I am hoping the Blue Dogs become a political force worth something.
I agree with this post 100%.
I second this. I'm wary of Democrats on many issues, but I can't even consider embracing a party that is so militant and renounces reason. The only exception are the Northeastern RINOs, who are often much more sensible that their Democratic counterparts, but even they disqualify themselves in national races due to strong party discipline among Republicans.
Have the Republicans been punished because they were incompetent and in power a bit too long, or is it really ideological?
QuoteThat is why I am hoping the Blue Dogs become a political force worth something.
Would they sacrifice economic or social policies, do you think?
It pains me to see the party of Lincoln so discredited this way, but they have only themselves to blame.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2009, 12:28:23 PM
Would they sacrifice economic or social policies, do you think?
Well they tend to bend on both (but usually the same blue dog will lean right either socially or economically but rarely both) but I find them more reasonable in general. Alot of them are big gun supporters for example, which in my mind is an issue I am willing to let go.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 02, 2009, 12:17:36 PM
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but I'm curious about people's thoughts on it.
You follow the forum pretty sporadically, don't you. Bitching and moaning about wishing the GOP was more centrist/libertarian/old school Rockefeller/Goldwater is quite commonplace here.
Blue dogs are the worst of both worlds - creationists that want to spend lots of money on the federal government. :P
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 02, 2009, 12:35:09 PM
You follow the forum pretty sporadically, don't you. Bitching and moaning about wishing the GOP was more centrist/libertarian/old school Rockefeller/Goldwater is quite commonplace here.
I follow it enough to know who bitches about it. I'm more interested not so much in the bitching as what it will do to the party in the long run.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 02, 2009, 12:36:23 PM
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 02, 2009, 12:35:09 PM
You follow the forum pretty sporadically, don't you. Bitching and moaning about wishing the GOP was more centrist/libertarian/old school Rockefeller/Goldwater is quite commonplace here.
I follow it enough to know who bitches about it. I'm more interested not so much in the bitching as what it will do to the party in the long run.
Steele for President, baby. (God willing!)
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 12:22:12 PM
I have great sympathy with the Republican party theoretically on economic issues and the idea of a limited Federal Government.
However it seems they are abandoning those principals in favor of raw populism combined with kissing up to the religious fundamentalists and their ideas. I would gladly support the Republicans if they ever shed one or both of those movements.
I am not exactly a huge fan of the Democrats but at least I agree with their left wing social policies even if I find almost everything else about the party distressing. That is why I am hoping the Blue Dogs become a political force worth something.
I suspect that when the GOP does retake power all references to Limited Federal Government will go out the window. Currently it just feels like they're doing nothing but falling back on the "Tax Cut" card ad infinitum with no new ideas.
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 02, 2009, 12:35:09 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 02, 2009, 12:17:36 PM
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but I'm curious about people's thoughts on it.
You follow the forum pretty sporadically, don't you. Bitching and moaning about wishing the GOP was more centrist/libertarian/old school Rockefeller/Goldwater is quite commonplace here.
:worthy:
I look forward to the day Rockefeller Republicans retake the GOP.
Republicans for Obama should be drowned.
Quote from: Vince on April 02, 2009, 12:39:16 PM
I look forward to the day Rockefeller Republicans retake the GOP.
Which are left?
Rockefeller Republicans will never take over a party based in the deep South. :lmfao:
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 02, 2009, 12:40:30 PM
Republicans for Obama should be drowned.
Eventually, but right now the Democrats still need them.
Quote from: Vince on April 02, 2009, 12:39:16 PM
Republicans for Obama should be drowned.
QFT.
I wouldn't be overly upset if the GOP de-emphasized social issues & focused more on economic issues, but I reject the notion that seems to pervade here that socially liberal Republicans have been the heart & soul of the party in recent memory.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 02, 2009, 12:40:30 PM
Republicans People for Obama should be drowned.
Fixed. :hug:
It prevails here because it fits the board demographic. But you and I both know, given where we live, that board Republicans are drastically more progressive than "heartland" Republicans. :yes:
Quote from: Faeelin on April 02, 2009, 12:36:23 PM
[I follow it enough to know who bitches about it. I'm more interested not so much in the bitching as what it will do to the party in the long run.
I don't see a radical reallignment on the horizon. Republicans will stop talking about gays as much, but they'll still be the more socially conservative party. Both parties will continue their dance around the "center" of the electorate. There haven't been that many times in our history that the equilibrium between the two parties has been knocked completely out of whack. Off the top of my head, there's:
1812- killed the federalists
slavery/civil war- killed the whigs, brought the Republicans to life
Great Depression- gave Dems a huge majority for a generation
60s & 70s activism & backlash against it- realligned parties around social issues
The past 30 years have had a pattern of parties winning, overstepping, and then retreating or getting booted by the voters. Take Clinton for example- his first two years he tried to get nationalized health care and gays in the military. The public wasn't ready for those so they elected lots of Republicans in '94. Bush's foreign adventurism could be seen in much the same light as being responsible for GOP losses in '06 and '08. Congressional leaders have similar problems, if they push for too much they lose their majorities.
Voters like Berkut and your professor are coveted. Both parties try their damnedest to be as unobjectionable to them as possible, while still getting money and turnout from their core supporters. But they are too close to the center of the overall electorate to have a party centered around them and our system keep the bipolarity it's basically had since our nation was founded. (Would it work? I don't know. I suspect what would happen is the more extreme wings would break off and squeeze them. People in the middle would be less likely to donate time and money too I think, as the result wouldn't be much different than what we have now.)
Disclaimer: This is not a response specifically referring to American politics, but rather all politics (at least in the Western world).
As the political ideologies of the Left and the Right demonstrate, in order to have a political movement, you need to be populist to some degree. Historically, there have been two types, broadly speaking, of populist ideologies, and they are both based on a definition of the "Enemy". The Enemy is either "the Man" (as is the case with the Left) or "the Other" (as is the case with the Right).
In modern day, the Left has pretty much abandoned its visceral hatred of the Man - at least as far as the mainstream is concerned. Sure, it is mistrustful of the Man, but it does not seek to destroy him. The Right however, is much more vicious in its hatred of the Other.
Since I both represent the Man (because I am relatively well off and have a good job) and the Other (because I am gay), I choose to side with the Left because they hate me less. :p
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2009, 02:02:52 PM
Since I both represent the Man (because I am relatively well off and have a good job) and the Other (because I am gay), I choose to side with the Left because they hate me less. :p
Pretty sure it's a push on which side hates you. ^_^
I don't get the Rockefeller love. He (and the other Rockefeller Republican who preceded him) led NYC into bankruptcy.
Quote from: katmai on April 02, 2009, 02:06:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2009, 02:02:52 PM
Since I both represent the Man (because I am relatively well off and have a good job) and the Other (because I am gay), I choose to side with the Left because they hate me less. :p
Pretty sure it's a push on which side hates you. ^_^
People like Marty who feed off of victimhood need to focus on one side.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 02, 2009, 12:40:30 PM
Republicans for Obama should be drowned.
Only if we drown the Log Cabin Republicans, too.
Quote from: derspiess on April 02, 2009, 02:27:55 PM
People like Marty who feed off of victimhood need to focus on one side.
I'm trying to tell him he's an island adrift on his own dammit!
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2009, 02:31:42 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 02, 2009, 12:40:30 PM
Republicans for Obama should be drowned.
Only if we drown the Log Cabin Republicans, too.
One class at a time, there is only so much water.
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2009, 02:02:52 PMIn modern day, the Left has pretty much abandoned its visceral hatred of the Man - at least as far as the mainstream is concerned. Sure, it is mistrustful of the Man, but it does not seek to destroy him. The Right however, is much more vicious in its hatred of the Other.
I don't know what exactly you mean by "modern day", but assuming you're talking about Western conservatives of the present and past decade or so, I'm pretty sure the Right is not more vicious of its hatred of "the Other" than it used to be. I'm not aware of any conservatives who want to put gays into death camps and/or send Einsatzgruppen driving through the streets of San Francisco.
I know you're going to counter with Fred Phelps, too, but we both know he represents a tiny, insane minority :P
Obama is more centrist than many assume, and so some of the "left" is going to hive off and try to find water in the wilderness. this will make the Dem party more attractive to some defecting GOP'ers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2009, 02:16:31 PM
I don't get the Rockefeller love. He (and the other Rockefeller Republican who preceded him) led NYC into bankruptcy.
NYC is a basket case. I don't see how it can ever sustain itself if the Wall Street tit runs dry. Besides, Rockefeller wasn't even a mayor of NYC.
So far, I'm thinking that many Repubs and a lot of Independents for Obama/Dems are having serious second thoughts. Seems even many Dems are concerned over policy directions and budgets, spending, which are the Dems venue right now. But we'll see how things look in a few months; maybe I'm wrong. Not that the Repubs have a lot of credibility, just really means many of us are pretty annoyed at both parties and don't see much relief on the horizon.
Could Obama have been elected if he honestly said prior to the election what he was going to do?
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2009, 02:49:20 PM
Could Obama have been elected if he honestly said prior to the election what he was going to do?
In what sense?
I admit I am curious what people think McCain would be doing right now. Significantly more tax cuts, but he couldn't push too hard since the Dems control Congress. The Bailout plan? Something like it, I imagine. GM seems to be being pushed into bankruptcy, so I don't see a real change.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 02, 2009, 03:03:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2009, 02:49:20 PM
Could Obama have been elected if he honestly said prior to the election what he was going to do?
In what sense?
I admit I am curious what people think McCain would be doing right now. Significantly more tax cuts, but he couldn't push too hard since the Dems control Congress. The Bailout plan? Something like it, I imagine. GM seems to be being pushed into bankruptcy, so I don't see a real change.
Just a crazy guess, but he would not have championed a spending bill that included 9000 earmarks and was basically just a massive liberal spending orgy under the guise of "stimulus". Seems unlikely.
Perhaps McCain would have done something worse, and not had any kind of stimulus. Who knows.
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2009, 02:49:20 PM
Could Obama have been elected if he honestly said prior to the election what he was going to do?
He couldn't have won the Democrat primary if he said he was going to follow Bush's plan in Iraq. Is that what you mean? Otherwise I don't think Obama's done anything all that differently than what he pledged; at least nothing that would have stopped him from beating McCain.
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2009, 03:07:31 PM
Just a crazy guess, but he would not have championed a spending bill that included 9000 earmarks and was basically just a massive liberal spending orgy under the guise of "stimulus". Seems unlikely.
Perhaps McCain would have done something worse, and not had any kind of stimulus. Who knows.
Why would President McCain have not had a stimulus, when the Republicans tried to propose their own version, based on tax cuts for all!
Quote from: Berkut link=topic=332.msg12272#msg12272
Just a crazy guess, but he would not have championed a spending bill that included 9000 earmarks and was basically just a massive liberal spending orgy under the guise of "stimulus". Seems unlikely.
Perhaps McCain would have done something worse, and not had any kind of stimulus. Who knows.
He promised to spend money irresponsibly and he delivered. :thumbsup:
Seriously, I don't think that knowing the specifics of the stimulus bill would have kept Obama out of office. Congress's approval rating actually went up after they passed it.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 02, 2009, 03:12:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2009, 03:07:31 PM
Just a crazy guess, but he would not have championed a spending bill that included 9000 earmarks and was basically just a massive liberal spending orgy under the guise of "stimulus". Seems unlikely.
Perhaps McCain would have done something worse, and not had any kind of stimulus. Who knows.
Why would President McCain have not had a stimulus, when the Republicans tried to propose their own version, based on tax cuts for all!
He would have had a stimulus, who said otherwise?
Besides, the issue is not what McCain would do, it is what Obama has done.
Whatever McCain would do, it is safe to say it would not be writing a blank check to Pelosi/reed and telling them to go nuts while giving the opposition party the finger.
It's good to know Berkut can fall back on a career as a comedian if his other job is ever trimmed.
Quote from: Savonarola on April 02, 2009, 03:12:45 PM
He promised to spend money irresponsibly and he delivered. :thumbsup:
:lol: Truth in politics fails again.
Well stimulating the economy was what needed to be done. He shall be judged by how it turns out, pretty simple. Of course economics is so complex who is to know if the stimuli really did anything even if the economy does turn around or is to at fault if it does not? That is why politics is unfair I suppose.
Quote from: katmai on April 02, 2009, 03:20:15 PM
It's good to know Berkut can fall back on a career as a comedian if his other job is ever trimmed.
I don't know. Last time he just fell back on the Government.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 02, 2009, 03:46:57 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 02, 2009, 03:20:15 PM
It's good to know Berkut can fall back on a career as a comedian if his other job is ever trimmed.
I don't know. Last time he just fell back on the Government.
:pinchL
Quote from: Savonarola on April 02, 2009, 03:08:10 PM
He couldn't have won the Democrat primary if he said he was going to follow Bush's plan in Iraq. Is that what you mean? Otherwise I don't think Obama's done anything all that differently than what he pledged; at least nothing that would have stopped him from beating McCain.
Ohio might have turned out differently and the unions might have been less supportive if he had said "I promise to end the pilot project for Mexican truckers" instead of "I promise to renegociate NAFTA to include worker protections" but agree overall that he's doing what he said he'd do. Except maybe the airy fairy stuff about changing Washington culture.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2009, 02:37:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2009, 02:16:31 PM
I don't get the Rockefeller love. He (and the other Rockefeller Republican who preceded him) led NYC into bankruptcy.
NYC is a basket case. I don't see how it can ever sustain itself if the Wall Street tit runs dry. Besides, Rockefeller wasn't even a mayor of NYC.
There is quite a lot of economic activity in NY outside of Wall Street. Media, advertising, fashion, design, technology, and food processing are all major sectors. The garment industry is still alive and kicking and there are several major universites within the city limits.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2009, 04:04:52 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on April 02, 2009, 03:08:10 PM
He couldn't have won the Democrat primary if he said he was going to follow Bush's plan in Iraq. Is that what you mean? Otherwise I don't think Obama's done anything all that differently than what he pledged; at least nothing that would have stopped him from beating McCain.
Ohio might have turned out differently and the unions might have been less supportive if he had said "I promise to end the pilot project for Mexican truckers" instead of "I promise to renegociate NAFTA to include worker protections" but agree overall that he's doing what he said he'd do. Except maybe the airy fairy stuff about changing Washington culture.
I agree with both of these sentiments, and even on the latter don't see that he really has been in office long enough to actually change any culture.
I don't agree with him on many issues, but knew that would be true at this point even as I voted for him.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2009, 04:11:27 PM
There is quite a lot of economic activity in NY outside of Wall Street. Media, advertising, fashion, design, technology, and food processing are all major sectors. The garment industry is still alive and kicking and there are several major universites within the city limits.
That's true. However, every time Wall Street hiccups, NYC winds up with an enormous budget deficit, since the financial industry is such a big determinant of the city's economy. This is usually followed by a tax hike in a city that already taxes and charges its residents into poverty.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 12:22:12 PMHowever it seems they are abandoning those principals in favor of raw populism combined with kissing up to the religious fundamentalists and their ideas.
"Abandoning"? They've been "abandoning" their principles for the last 29 years.
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2009, 03:24:21 PM
Well stimulating the economy was what needed to be done. He shall be judged by how it turns out, pretty simple. Of course economics is so complex who is to know if the stimuli really did anything even if the economy does turn around or is to at fault if it does not? That is why politics is unfair I suppose.
Not only that but this crisis seems to have knocked a few holes in the theories we have. Lord Turner, who's recently published a paper on the reforms to the regulators in this country (and just been appointed to head them), said that it's easy to see in retrospect. Two years ago Ben Bernanke was giving speeches saying that the reason we can have such light-touch regulations of banking is because risk management was being taken a lot more seriously and was far more almost scientific in it objectivity and accuracy. The IMF and numerous other groups produced reports arguing that derivatives had made a systemic financial failure deeply implausible.
Now, we've realised that's not quite true. So I don't like the blame game. I can't think of anyone who, over and above anyone else, I think deserves any blame. I think the culture we had based on this large economic growth and free credit really exacerbated things but, basically, almost everyone got a few things wrong that had massive effect. People who were stood at the edge shouting about this were Cassandras, whether that means posters here like DGuller or MPs like Vince Cable. Everyone said there's a housing bubble and people have too much debt, the number of peole who thought that would then lead to global banking collapse were very few indeed.
So I'm relatively sanguine about politicans trying to forge some way ahead (unless they're Tories). I think they're in crisis mode and it's not clearly understood how to get out of it. I think Paulson did as good a job as could be expected given the horrible choices that needed to be made and the difficult politics of it all. I think Obama and Geithner are doing about as well as can be expected - I have some issues but, more importantly, their political opponents haven't proposed anything better. I think Bernanke's done a pretty good job, as has Brown. Sarko's been mercurial and a bit hyperactive but that's to be expected.
But overall I'm not terribly hopeful. Martin Wolf asked who, in the late 70s, would have predicted that that economic crisis would unleash mass unemployment, the taming of inflation and, within a decade, the collapse of communism? Who know's what we'll get out of those but my concern is that we're at the late 60s-early 70s point.
Cardinal Hume split people into alpha, beta and gamma. The alphas are brilliant and rare, they see all the problems and all the solutions. The betas are most of us, they see all the problems but none of the solutions. The gammas are highly successful, they don't see the problems but forge on regardless, occassionally hitting on the solutions. I think we're all betas at the minute. We don't have elegant theories to try out (a la Keynes or Friedman) that seem to explain the problem. We just see it and its enormity, which is why I think it may be that we're in for a decade or so of sputtering growth.
QuoteCould Obama have been elected if he honestly said prior to the election what he was going to do?
To answer with two political platitudes: 'a week's a long time in politics' and 'events, dear boy, events' got in the way. I think in October the scale still wasn't known. And the precedent, I suppose, is FDR who campaigned against government spending and Hoover's 'huge deficits'.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 02, 2009, 03:46:57 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 02, 2009, 03:20:15 PM
It's good to know Berkut can fall back on a career as a comedian if his other job is ever trimmed.
I don't know. Last time he just fell back on the Government.
How so?
Quote from: Martinus on April 02, 2009, 02:31:42 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 02, 2009, 12:40:30 PM
Republicans for Obama should be drowned.
Only if we drown the Log Cabin Republicans, too.
Figures you'd say that. They are the best your kind has to offer.
I have a secret for everyone here. Fiscal restraint isn't an issue, it's a political tactic. You want the budget cut when you aren't in power because the money is going for things you don't support. Both sides call for fiscal restraint and cutting budgets when they are in the minority. It's simply a tactic like calling for political investigations. You don't call for investigations when you are running stuff. Just the other guy. Political investigations aren't a political issue either. It's an effective tactic but just don't confuse it with a principle.
Quote from: Berkut on April 02, 2009, 08:11:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 02, 2009, 03:46:57 PM
Quote from: katmai on April 02, 2009, 03:20:15 PM
It's good to know Berkut can fall back on a career as a comedian if his other job is ever trimmed.
I don't know. Last time he just fell back on the Government.
How so?
Wait do you mean you lost your job again? Jeez.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 02, 2009, 09:56:11 PM
I have a secret for everyone here. Fiscal restraint isn't an issue, it's a political tactic. You want the budget cut when you aren't in power because the money is going for things you don't support. Both sides call for fiscal restraint and cutting budgets when they are in the minority. It's simply a tactic like calling for political investigations. You don't call for investigations when you are running stuff. Just the other guy. Political investigations aren't a political issue either. It's an effective tactic but just don't confuse it with a principle.
Yeah, but it's also not the same thing as fiscal conservatism. Any fiscal conservative can make up their own mind, grudgingly admitting when spending is actually needed. Once you cry "fiscal restraint," you more or less have to blackball.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 02, 2009, 09:56:11 PM
I have a secret for everyone here. Fiscal restraint isn't an issue, it's a political tactic. You want the budget cut when you aren't in power because the money is going for things you don't support. Both sides call for fiscal restraint and cutting budgets when they are in the minority. It's simply a tactic like calling for political investigations. You don't call for investigations when you are running stuff. Just the other guy. Political investigations aren't a political issue either. It's an effective tactic but just don't confuse it with a principle.
Your theory doesn't account for Clinton's surplus, Republican criticism of Bush's deficits, and Blue Dog criticism of Obama's proposals.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2009, 11:27:26 PMYour theory doesn't account for Clinton's surplus, Republican criticism of Bush's deficits, and Blue Dog criticism of Obama's proposals.
See above. I think Raz is having difficulty differentiating between fiscal conservatism as an ideology and fiscal restraint as a political maneuver.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 02, 2009, 11:32:12 PM
See above. I think Raz is having difficulty differentiating between fiscal conservatism as an ideology and fiscal restraint as a political maneuver.
I thought his whole point was that the ideology was a pose, that it's all opportunism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2009, 11:36:04 PMI thought his whole point was that the ideology was a pose, that it's all opportunism.
Pretty much. It's just a flawed premise, is all. Typical Raz.