Nate Silver is asking:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/are-republicans-going-galt.html
Quote
Are Republicans turning into libertarians?
Last week's Tea Party protests had their origins in the libertarian movement. Although many conservative groups were eager to co-opt their purpose, the core of the message -- anti-tax, anti-big government -- was about as libertarian as it gets. Participation in the rallies was also proportionately quite high in areas like New Hampshire and the Interior West, which are traditionally more sympathetic toward libertarian concerns.
We can argue about the significance of the tea paries and we can argue about whether they represent the way forward for Republicans. But they are just one manifesation of what seems like an increasing drift toward libertariansim within the party. Consdier also:
-- A new Gallup survey suggests that 80 percent of Republicans think that big government is a bigger threat to the government than big business, versus just 10 percent who think the opposite. This represents an enormous partisan split from Democrats, among whom a majority think that big business is the greater threat. Moreover, the partisan split has grown significantly since 2006; it has now become almost a definitional issue for Republicans.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsas-origin.onstreammedia.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Fs_kjaueabecbciuiyaslda.gif&hash=47c2e0e75dd400e5946b6fa430706ba4f0bae17c)
-- The Republican alternative budget could be considered a somewhat radical experiment in libertarianism, dramatically slashing taxes while promising to balance budgets -- an achievement that would only be possible if the size of the government were cut enormously. Meanwhile, the Republicans, with help from some Democrats, stuck into the budget debate an amendment to curb the estate tax, which will cost the government about $100 billion in revenue annually.
-- Republican insiders are increasingly uncertain about whether gay marriage, which was such an important issue for the party over 2000-2004, is any longer a winning issue at all for them. Reaction to the Iowa Supreme Court decision was surprisingly muted in conservative circles. Meanwhile, at least one prominent Republican presidential candidate, Utah's John Huntsman, has come out in favor of civil unions (although not gay marriage itself).
-- If gay bashing is becoming less in vogue among Republicans, it's unclear which other cultural issues -- areas where Republicans sometimes favor bigger, more statist government -- might take its place. Yes, there's always abortion. But I'm surprised there hasn't been more anti-immigrant sentiment, as often happens when jobs are scarce; perhaps the Republicans' poor performance among Latino voters on November 4th might have scared them away from that issue. Marijuana legalization seems to be gaining some traction (although more among pundits than policymakers), but about half the conservative commentariat (see Glenn Beck, for instance, who calls himself a libertarian) seems to embrace it.
Maybe you see a pattern there and maybe you don't. But of the roughly four different pathways the Republicans could take in the post-Obama universe -- toward Ron Paulesque libertarianism, toward Sarah Palinesque cultural populism, toward Mike Huckabeesque big-government conservatism, or toward Olympia Snowesque moderation/ good-governmentism -- the libertarian side would seem to have had the best go of things in the First 100 Days.
To me, the GOP seems to always become more "libertarian"--if you want to use that word--when they're out of power. Gingrich came in on a wave of "fiscal responsibility" and a lot of talk about balancing the budget, not on making sure gays can't marry or banning abortion. Mostly, I think, because while they do get material support and possibly a core constituency from the cultural right, they don't really ever become a serious contender in the numbers until the cultural moderates come in too. And to those people, abortion et al just isn't a big issue.
As soon as they get in power though, all that responsibility crap goes right out the window.
Interesting... and Hod I hope so :cool:
The permanent economic meltdown that libertarianism in the US would cause would certainly bring about an interesting international scene.
Quote from: Caliga on April 23, 2009, 12:26:55 PM
Interesting... and Hod I hope so :cool:
Don't get your hopes up. The Libertarian GOP will continue the Bush era crackdown on civil rights, cut funding for education, lower taxes, and keep the God hates fags and demands abstinence education.
Democrats are cute.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 23, 2009, 12:38:56 PMDon't get your hopes up. The Libertarian GOP will continue the Bush era crackdown on civil rights, cut funding for education, lower taxes, and keep the God hates fags and demands abstinence education.
Yes sir :cry:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2009, 12:23:55 PM
To me, the GOP seems to always become more "libertarian"--if you want to use that word--when they're out of power. Gingrich came in on a wave of "fiscal responsibility" and a lot of talk about balancing the budget, not on making sure gays can't marry or banning abortion. Mostly, I think, because while they do get material support and possibly a core constituency from the cultural right, they don't really ever become a serious contender in the numbers until the cultural moderates come in too. And to those people, abortion et al just isn't a big issue.
As soon as they get in power though, all that responsibility crap goes right out the window.
Problem is it nearly always costs more votes to cut spending than it gains. People benefitting from various government subsidies or employment are much more sensitive to fluctuations in spending than the average taxpayer. So while campaigning on a vague idea of cutting spending can net you a few percentage points, once you propose concrete cuts(whether campaign rhetoric or in an actual bill) those electoral gains fade away and then some.
It is neither likely or desirable. The last thing the GOP needs is more Black Helicopter types.
great, more Ron Paul fruits out in the wild. I can isolate myself from the internet ones, but it gets harder in the real world.
What kind of Libertarian tries to defend torture outside of being exposed to Rand's "novels"? :huh:
Quote from: Queequeg on April 23, 2009, 01:52:36 PM
What kind of Libertarian tries to defend torture outside of being exposed to Rand's "novels"? :huh:
:unsure: What generated that question? Anyway, I can't imagine many libertarians feel the government has the right to torture, or certainly not its own citizens, at least.
You can torture brown people. It's in the Constitution.
Quote from: The Brain on April 23, 2009, 02:00:30 PM
You can torture brown people. It's in the Constitution.
That's in the Declaration of the Rights of Men, not the Constitution.
Quote from: Caliga on April 23, 2009, 01:59:08 PM
:unsure: What generated that question?
Spellus-Speak say : All Republicans support torture. If Republicans become Libertarians, then Libertarians will support torture.
interesting that 13% of democrats think Big Unions are the biggest problem. this gives them the lead.
as it goes against stereotype, anyone have thoughts on this?
Quote from: Habbaku on April 23, 2009, 02:03:19 PMSpellus-Speak say : All Republicans support torture. If Republicans become Libertarians, then Libertarians will support torture.
Is it Spellus who thinks all Republicans are party ideologues, and I've been slandering Raz this whole time? :(
Quote from: saskganesh on April 23, 2009, 02:03:45 PM
interesting that 13% of democrats think Big Unions are the biggest problem. this gives them the lead.
as it goes against stereotype, anyone have thoughts on this?
Dunno. I'm a democrat who thinks big unions can be a threat. Maybe it's because the unions have a pretty important slice of the democrat pie, and the other factions see them as a threat against their own interests in that they compete for the attentions of policymakers and have a lot of cash to do it. Time spent on card check is time not spent on saving the planet, or whatever.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 23, 2009, 01:52:36 PM
What kind of Libertarian tries to defend torture outside of being exposed to Rand's "novels"? :huh:
Armenian ones.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 23, 2009, 02:03:45 PM
interesting that 13% of democrats think Big Unions are the biggest problem. this gives them the lead.
as it goes against stereotype, anyone have thoughts on this?
The stereotype is about absolute perception of the problem, not relative to other problems.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2009, 02:09:23 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on April 23, 2009, 02:03:45 PM
interesting that 13% of democrats think Big Unions are the biggest problem. this gives them the lead.
as it goes against stereotype, anyone have thoughts on this?
Dunno. I'm a democrat who thinks big unions can be a threat. Maybe it's because the unions have a pretty important slice of the democrat pie, and the other factions see them as a threat against their own interests in that they compete for the attentions of policymakers and have a lot of cash to do it. Time spent on card check is time not spent on saving the planet, or whatever.
I suspect low wage-earners who aren't unionized or are in ineffectual ones are most likely to pick that option.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 23, 2009, 02:03:19 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 23, 2009, 01:59:08 PM
:unsure: What generated that question?
Spellus-Speak say : All Republicans support torture. If Republicans become Libertarians, then Libertarians will support torture.
btw is Spellus-Speak like "Speak & Spell"? It buzzes at you if you don't spell Byzantine "BZYANTINE". ^_^
Quote from: Caliga on April 23, 2009, 02:04:22 PM
Is it Spellus who thinks all Republicans are party ideologues, and I've been slandering Raz this whole time? :(
Spellus has always stood in the front rank of Bush haters. Maybe now that the Bush administration is over he's transferring his allegiance.
Hymen-mania
Quote from: Caliga on April 23, 2009, 02:04:22 PM
Is it Spellus who thinks all Republicans are party ideologues, and I've been slandering Raz this whole time? :(
I don't believe Raz thinks that. Spellus lives in his own, special world of crazy, though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2009, 02:17:03 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on April 23, 2009, 02:03:45 PM
interesting that 13% of democrats think Big Unions are the biggest problem. this gives them the lead.
as it goes against stereotype, anyone have thoughts on this?
The stereotype is about absolute perception of the problem, not relative to other problems.
in other words, you have no idea.
In my case, my slide back in the direction of libertarianism started during Bush's 2nd term. It has accelerated in the past 100 days, of course.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2009, 02:09:23 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on April 23, 2009, 02:03:45 PM
interesting that 13% of democrats think Big Unions are the biggest problem. this gives them the lead.
as it goes against stereotype, anyone have thoughts on this?
Dunno. I'm a democrat who thinks big unions can be a threat. Maybe it's because the unions have a pretty important slice of the democrat pie, and the other factions see them as a threat against their own interests in that they compete for the attentions of policymakers and have a lot of cash to do it. Time spent on card check is time not spent on saving the planet, or whatever.
in our own domestic, left party, a big minority don't like the increased role unions have, guaranteed votes for example.
or it could be envy. or memories of bad treatment by a union.
I thought letting fags marry was the biggest threat? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2009, 04:04:13 PM
I thought letting fags marry was the biggest threat? :huh:
To whom, Marty?
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2009, 04:04:13 PM
I thought letting fags marry was the biggest threat? :huh:
:rolleyes:
It doesn't always come back to gays.
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2009, 04:04:13 PM
I thought letting fags marry was the biggest threat? :huh:
Well, you thought like Lit.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 23, 2009, 01:52:36 PM
What kind of Libertarian tries to defend torture outside of being exposed to Rand's "novels"? :huh:
Do you want the government to tell you whether you can or can't torture people?
I'm not wholly convinced. Plus I think it would be electoral suicide for the Republicans.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 23, 2009, 03:03:05 PM
our own domestic, left party, a big minority don't like the increased role unions have, guaranteed votes for example.
or it could be envy. or memories of bad treatment by a union.
Ironically, my wife the public sector union kingpin, had a very negative perception of the NDP...
Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2009, 06:19:06 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on April 23, 2009, 03:03:05 PM
our own domestic, left party, a big minority don't like the increased role unions have, guaranteed votes for example.
or it could be envy. or memories of bad treatment by a union.
Ironically, my wife the public sector union kingpin, had a very negative perception of the NDP...
Well most people have a negative perception of the Nazis.
Repubs will be fine, just as the Dems were fine after losing the last number of Presidential elections, and losing Congress. Dems changed, and came back while the Repubs couldn't get their act together. We'll see how the Dems do in the next short while as well. We do seem to have some self destructive political parties.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2009, 05:53:42 PM
I'm not wholly convinced. Plus I think it would be electoral suicide for the Republicans.
Just because Marty says so doesn't mean the fundies are the numerical core constituency for the GOP. I think it will make them more competitive than they are now, certainly. The demo that will vote for anything so long as fags can't get married was never really that big to begin with, and it's shrinking extremely fast.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 23, 2009, 07:08:56 PMJust because Marty says so doesn't mean the fundies are the numerical core constituency for the GOP. I think it will make them more competitive than they are now, certainly. The demo that will vote for anything so long as fags can't get married was never really that big to begin with, and it's shrinking extremely fast.
White Evangelical (or born agains) form a larger part of the GOP vote than Black or union voters do the Democrats. I read the survey Silver's talking about with the gay issue. The problem is that while the Republicans inside the beltway seem to believe that the gay thing isn't a winner any more those outside the beltway overwhelming think it either is or that doesn't matter (only 40% 'insiders' in DC think the GOP should oppose gay marriage, while 60-70% think the party should). Now I agree the Republicans will eventually reconcile themselves to gay marriage. Except for a few holdouts, though, I don't think it'll happen for another 5-10 years.
While younger Republicans are overwhelmingly disinterested in gay marriage and generally believe in climate change they still, equally overwhelmingly, are pro-life. So I don't think that issue's ever going to go away.
I also don't think the Republicans will shift to a libertarian foreign policy view any time soon, and if they do they'll renege on it when they're in office.
And, simply put, I think with the exception of the Sarah Palin option the Ron Paul Libertarian one is the most likely to produce kooks and the least likely to win elections. I think both styles of conservatism have low ceilings.
Edit: Plus who, on a national scale, would you identify with this strand of the party? The only one I can think of is Mark Sanford who I think could be a very persuasive candidate. But that's it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2009, 07:19:30 PM
Edit: Plus who, on a national scale, would you identify with this strand of the party? The only one I can think of is Mark Sanford who I think could be a very persuasive candidate. But that's it.
Can't think of anybody, really. I'd like to think whoever it might be would still be a lot more mainstream than Ron Paul though. :P
Hopefully, they're just waiting for someone to emerge.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 23, 2009, 02:03:45 PM
interesting that 13% of democrats think Big Unions are the biggest problem. this gives them the lead.
as it goes against stereotype, anyone have thoughts on this?
Not necessarily; the liberal stereotype is each according to their function, while unions largely promote based on seniority (the "guess what floats to the top" argument).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2009, 02:47:22 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 23, 2009, 02:04:22 PM
Is it Spellus who thinks all Republicans are party ideologues, and I've been slandering Raz this whole time? :(
Spellus has always stood in the front rank of Bush haters. Maybe now that the Bush administration is over he's transferring his allegiance.
:huh:
I supported him until around Katrina. Generally speaking.
Oh Kanye!
Quote from: Caliga on April 23, 2009, 02:04:22 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 23, 2009, 02:03:19 PMSpellus-Speak say : All Republicans support torture. If Republicans become Libertarians, then Libertarians will support torture.
Is it Spellus who thinks all Republicans are party ideologues, and I've been slandering Raz this whole time? :(
I think at this point the ideologues form a much bigger part of the Republican party than their equivalents in the Democratic Party, but that seems pretty obvious . Interestingly, this rump party is increasingly anti-tax to an extent that not even Bush's party was.
That said, I don't see libertarianism squaring with the batshit Jingonism of Hansmeister or Glenn Beck. Taxes are needed for military equipment, at the very least.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 23, 2009, 07:19:30 PM
White Evangelical (or born agains) form a larger part of the GOP vote than Black or union voters do the Democrats. I read the survey Silver's talking about with the gay issue. The problem is that while the Republicans inside the beltway seem to believe that the gay thing isn't a winner any more those outside the beltway overwhelming think it either is or that doesn't matter (only 40% 'insiders' in DC think the GOP should oppose gay marriage, while 60-70% think the party should). Now I agree the Republicans will eventually reconcile themselves to gay marriage. Except for a few holdouts, though, I don't think it'll happen for another 5-10 years.
While younger Republicans are overwhelmingly disinterested in gay marriage and generally believe in climate change they still, equally overwhelmingly, are pro-life. So I don't think that issue's ever going to go away.
I also don't think the Republicans will shift to a libertarian foreign policy view any time soon, and if they do they'll renege on it when they're in office.
And, simply put, I think with the exception of the Sarah Palin option the Ron Paul Libertarian one is the most likely to produce kooks and the least likely to win elections. I think both styles of conservatism have low ceilings.
Edit: Plus who, on a national scale, would you identify with this strand of the party? The only one I can think of is Mark Sanford who I think could be a very persuasive candidate. But that's it.
I don't understand several parts of your post, particularly, "(only 40% 'insiders' in DC think the GOP should oppose gay marriage, while 60-70% think the party should)". I think you maybe meant 60-70% of the party rank-and-file (or simply, those outside the beltway), but I'm not sure.
And I'm not sure what a libertarian foreign policy would mean. As best that I can tell, it seems that libertarians are generally non-interventionist, but there are exceptions (and also diferences between those who equate non-interventionist with isolationist and those who don't), and most people are talking about domestic policy when they talk about libertarianism.
Quote from: dps on April 24, 2009, 09:18:45 PM
I don't understand several parts of your post, particularly, "(only 40% 'insiders' in DC think the GOP should oppose gay marriage, while 60-70% think the party should)". I think you maybe meant 60-70% of the party rank-and-file (or simply, those outside the beltway), but I'm not sure.
Yeah. Sorry, I literally meant outside of the beltway. The poll he's referring to when he says this 'Republican insiders are increasingly uncertain about whether gay marriage, which was such an important issue for the party over 2000-2004, is any longer a winning issue at all for them.' was a poll of party 'insiders'. Now I assume that means party figures or strategists, or elected officials.
40% of the ones based in Washington think the GOP should keep shtum about gay marriage, about 40% oppose it and 20% support it. Those based in the states breakdown to something like 60% oppose it, 30% don't think the party should have a policy and 10% support it (I think a little less, actually).
QuoteAnd I'm not sure what a libertarian foreign policy would mean. As best that I can tell, it seems that libertarians are generally non-interventionist, but there are exceptions (and also diferences between those who equate non-interventionist with isolationist and those who don't), and most people are talking about domestic policy when they talk about libertarianism.
I think they're generally non-interventionist, I believe in Sanford's few statements on foreign policy take that line.
But you're right about them being associated with domestic policy. So my question would be are the libertarians taking over the Republican party, or are domestic issues more prominent than at any time in the past 7 years? I think the latter's true which is why I find the former more difficult to believe.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 24, 2009, 09:29:02 PM
Quote from: dps on April 24, 2009, 09:18:45 PM
I don't understand several parts of your post, particularly, "(only 40% 'insiders' in DC think the GOP should oppose gay marriage, while 60-70% think the party should)". I think you maybe meant 60-70% of the party rank-and-file (or simply, those outside the beltway), but I'm not sure.
Yeah. Sorry, I literally meant outside of the beltway. The poll he's referring to when he says this 'Republican insiders are increasingly uncertain about whether gay marriage, which was such an important issue for the party over 2000-2004, is any longer a winning issue at all for them.' was a poll of party 'insiders'. Now I assume that means party figures or strategists, or elected officials.
40% of the ones based in Washington think the GOP should keep shtum about gay marriage, about 40% oppose it and 20% support it. Those based in the states breakdown to something like 60% oppose it, 30% don't think the party should have a policy and 10% support it (I think a little less, actually).
QuoteAnd I'm not sure what a libertarian foreign policy would mean. As best that I can tell, it seems that libertarians are generally non-interventionist, but there are exceptions (and also diferences between those who equate non-interventionist with isolationist and those who don't), and most people are talking about domestic policy when they talk about libertarianism.
I think they're generally non-interventionist, I believe in Sanford's few statements on foreign policy take that line.
But you're right about them being associated with domestic policy. So my question would be are the libertarians taking over the Republican party, or are domestic issues more prominent than at any time in the past 7 years? I think the latter's true which is why I find the former more difficult to believe.
Oh, I have no doubt that domestic policy is more prominent now than any time since 10 September 2001. That said, the GOP lost big last year, and it needs to decide what direction it needs to go in. Whether or not they go in a libertarian direction remains to be seen, but it's a possibility.
Now if Republicans just turned into Fahdiz I suppose that would be okay. Lock up your daughters though.
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2009, 04:12:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2009, 04:04:13 PM
I thought letting fags marry was the biggest threat? :huh:
Well, you thought like Lit.
What does it mean?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2009, 12:31:51 AM
Now if Republicans just turned into Fahdiz I suppose that would be okay. Lock up your daughters though.
:D I'm a one-woman man these days.
And I think I've come to terms with the fact that I've evolved into pretty much a moderate Democrat.
What's with all the evolution these days? It makes it hard to stereotype people. :mad:
ya well, evolution is not taught in schools, thus it means anything you want.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 23, 2009, 10:50:25 PM
That said, I don't see libertarianism squaring with the batshit Jingonism of Hansmeister or Glenn Beck. Taxes are needed for military equipment, at the very least.
I was under the impression that both of those guys leaned fairly libertarian. Just not in foreign policy.
Quote from: Norgy on April 27, 2009, 12:01:26 PM
What's with all the evolution these days? It makes it hard to stereotype people. :mad:
Meh, ideology's all well and good, but it doesn't Get Shit Done. A fat, bloated, intrusive government isn't a good thing either, but there's a happy medium...since taxes and government spending aren't going away, as much as Ron Paul would like them to.
I think I just realized that my economic politics are gradually becoming more practical the older I get, while my social politics are pretty laissez-faire.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 27, 2009, 03:54:34 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 27, 2009, 12:01:26 PM
What's with all the evolution these days? It makes it hard to stereotype people. :mad:
Meh, ideology's all well and good, but it doesn't Get Shit Done. A fat, bloated, intrusive government isn't a good thing either, but there's a happy medium...since taxes and government spending aren't going away, as much as Ron Paul would like them to.
I think I just realized that my economic politics are gradually becoming more practical the older I get, while my social politics are pretty laissez-faire.
:o The End of Librarytarianism?
Republicans are not turning into Libertarians.
However, if they slide quite a bit further towards libertarianism, that would be a very good thing.
Quote from: derspiess on April 27, 2009, 04:05:44 PM
:o The End of Librarytarianism?
:D Pretty much. I'm now kind of on the domestic equivalent of realpolitik.
fahdiz - The Man for All Seasons :D
Quote from: fahdiz on April 27, 2009, 03:54:34 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 27, 2009, 12:01:26 PM
What's with all the evolution these days? It makes it hard to stereotype people. :mad:
Meh, ideology's all well and good, but it doesn't Get Shit Done. A fat, bloated, intrusive government isn't a good thing either, but there's a happy medium...since taxes and government spending aren't going away, as much as Ron Paul would like them to.
I think I just realized that my economic politics are gradually becoming more practical the older I get, while my social politics are pretty laissez-faire.
Welcome to the the practical club. OBEY THE RULES.
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2009, 04:07:15 PM
However, if they slide quite a bit further towards libertarianism, that would be a very good thing.
Agree. I'm still socially conservative, but economic issues are much more important In These Troubled Times (r). I'd be okay if the GOP went neutral on a few social issues, if it'd put its money where its mouth is with all the libertarian rhetoric.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 27, 2009, 04:24:00 PM
Welcome to the the practical club. OBEY THE RULES.
What are the rules?
Quote from: Habbaku on April 27, 2009, 05:30:58 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 27, 2009, 05:21:33 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 27, 2009, 05:20:29 PM
What are the rules?
No Marti like activity.
No gays? Sounds awfully similar to the Republicans...
No trend whoring gays. Garbons and Habsys still welcome.
I find the Republicans attempts to hijack the Ron Pauliacs and Libertarians distasteful and think they are only going in this direction because they are out of power. Believing the power of government should be curtailed is very popular when the other guys control it.
I think it's pretty simple, when the Republicans (as a party, many exceptions exist for individual Republicans) aren't in government they hate the government and express this by opposing "big government". When they are in power, they don't hate the government very much and try to influence it to do what they think is right.
Thus the opposition to "big government" is primarily a reflection of "we lost the election". It will probably be reflected is specific electioneering language, but it does not necessarily (or even probably) indicate that any future hypothetical Republican governments will shrink the size of government (though they'll likely shrink the size of programs they disagree with).
Just a guess.
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2009, 06:13:30 PM
I find the Republicans attempts to hijack the Ron Pauliacs and Libertarians distasteful and think they are only going in this direction because they are out of power. Believing the power of government should be curtailed is very popular when the other guys control it.
Hijacking the Ron Pauliacs is like Hijacking the Clown Car at the circus. It might be satisfying but it won't get you anywhere.
Raz has a point: the last election should have shown republicans that while the public hates them, it is even less inclined to vote for the Ron Paul version of their brand.
Anyway, how did we arrive at the idea that Republicans are more liberation now than a few months ago? There hasn't been a shortage of anguish over gay marriage in the past few months, and I haven't heard of a big shift on abortion policy.
The poll to start the thread probably would have had the similar results over the past 20 years. Big Government as the enemy has been standard mantra since reagan. Certainly the republicans weren't going to pick Big Business, and how can anyone think unions are the biggest problem in the current pathetic state?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2009, 06:22:47 PM
Hijacking the Ron Pauliacs is like Hijacking the Clown Car at the circus. It might be satisfying but it won't get you anywhere.
:lol:
But it is oh so satisfying.
Quote from: Jacob on April 27, 2009, 06:22:11 PM
I think it's pretty simple, when the Republicans (as a party, many exceptions exist for individual Republicans) aren't in government they hate the government and express this by opposing "big government". When they are in power, they don't hate the government very much and try to influence it to do what they think is right.
Thus the opposition to "big government" is primarily a reflection of "we lost the election". It will probably be reflected is specific electioneering language, but it does not necessarily (or even probably) indicate that any future hypothetical Republican governments will shrink the size of government (though they'll likely shrink the size of programs they disagree with).
Just a guess.
Yeah, it's a tactic not an issue. Same thing with government spending. Government spending is bad when are out of office because it's being spent on stuff you don't like. When you are in office it's going to good causes.
Quote from: Jacob on April 27, 2009, 06:22:11 PM
I think it's pretty simple, when the Republicans (as a party, many exceptions exist for individual Republicans) aren't in government they hate the government and express this by opposing "big government". When they are in power, they don't hate the government very much and try to influence it to do what they think is right.
Thus the opposition to "big government" is primarily a reflection of "we lost the election". It will probably be reflected is specific electioneering language, but it does not necessarily (or even probably) indicate that any future hypothetical Republican governments will shrink the size of government (though they'll likely shrink the size of programs they disagree with).
Just a guess.
I think it's very problematic to draw conclusions about the Republican party based on one presidency.
Yi wants Reagan.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2009, 11:32:19 PMI think it's very problematic to draw conclusions about the Republican party based on one presidency.
I'm drawing a conclusion about the Republican Party right now, thus I think the last 16 years or so is adequate and for that period I think my conclusion is reasonably reasonable.
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2009, 02:34:13 AM
I'm drawing a conclusion about the Republican Party right now, thus I think the last 16 years or so is adequate and for that period I think my conclusion is reasonably reasonable.
If the last 16 years are adequate then you need to account for Republican controlled Senate and House trying to cut spending under Clinton, not increase it, and your conclusion is no longer so reasonably reasonable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2009, 02:57:17 AM
If the last 16 years are adequate then you need to account for Republican controlled Senate and House trying to cut spending under Clinton, not increase it, and your conclusion is no longer so reasonably reasonable.
Nah, it holds. Like most Americans they care the most about the winner and the leader, in this case the president, so they considered themselves in opposition since it was held by a Democrat. Consequently, they used the "we're against big government" while campaigning until they won. At which point their true colours were shown.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 27, 2009, 03:54:34 PM
A fat, bloated, intrusive government isn't a good thing either
Just think of it as a sexually abusive, overweight older brother. :uffda:
Quote from: Jacob on April 28, 2009, 03:03:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 28, 2009, 02:57:17 AM
If the last 16 years are adequate then you need to account for Republican controlled Senate and House trying to cut spending under Clinton, not increase it, and your conclusion is no longer so reasonably reasonable.
Nah, it holds. Like most Americans they care the most about the winner and the leader, in this case the president, so they considered themselves in opposition since it was held by a Democrat. Consequently, they used the "we're against big government" while campaigning until they won. At which point their true colours were shown.
I don't really agree. If Gingrich had still been Speaker of the House when Bush took office, the President would have found Congress much less willing to go along with his domestic spending plans, I think.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 27, 2009, 11:47:04 PM
Yi wants Reagan.
He wants the myth of Reagan. Not the real Reagan.
Quote from: dps on April 28, 2009, 05:39:16 AM
I don't really agree. If Gingrich had still been Speaker of the House when Bush took office, the President would have found Congress much less willing to go along with his domestic spending plans, I think.
This doesn't necessarily contradict what Jacob said. Gingrich is about small government but rest of the GOP isn't. Anyway Gingrich writes alt-history so everything he stands for is wrong.
Quote from: Jacob on April 27, 2009, 06:22:11 PM
I think it's pretty simple, when the Republicans (as a party, many exceptions exist for individual Republicans) aren't in government they hate the government and express this by opposing "big government". When they are in power, they don't hate the government very much and try to influence it to do what they think is right.
Thus the opposition to "big government" is primarily a reflection of "we lost the election". It will probably be reflected is specific electioneering language, but it does not necessarily (or even probably) indicate that any future hypothetical Republican governments will shrink the size of government (though they'll likely shrink the size of programs they disagree with).
Just a guess.
Yeah, similarly the Dems have been a lot quieter about Obama continuing Bush policies on War on Terror.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2009, 07:11:31 AM
Yeah, similarly the Dems have been a lot quieter about Obama continuing Bush policies on War on Terror.
Good point.
Interesting that the Languish left is not lambasting Obama for torturing people at Gitmo, for example, even though he is doing the exact same thing there in regards to treatment as Bush.
Funny that.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 27, 2009, 06:29:17 PM
There hasn't been a shortage of anguish over gay marriage in the past few months, and I haven't heard of a big shift on abortion policy.
Libertarians don't have to be pro-choice.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 08:23:33 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2009, 07:11:31 AM
Yeah, similarly the Dems have been a lot quieter about Obama continuing Bush policies on War on Terror.
Good point.
Interesting that the Languish left is not lambasting Obama for torturing people at Gitmo, for example, even though he is doing the exact same thing there in regards to treatment as Bush.
Funny that.
It was always Bush hate.
My feeling is that many people, Dems or Repubs, are pretty frustrated with the political process. The process has been going on for years, nothing new there, but the economic downturn and the resultant actions taken by Congress and the last two Pres Admins have received a lot more attention, lots of unfavorable attention and people are realizing it's business as usual, and not liking it. So I think more people are looking at something besides the Dems/Repubs.
As for Pres Obama, he's getting favorable ratings, which is not rubbing off on Dems in Congress. Repubs are already in the doldrums. And indeed, Obama is finally trying to tackle some issues that the past admins and Congresses have failed on. Of course, I have a lot of reservations about how these changes will be enacted, given the scandalous way Congress and the political process seems to work. So we may get change - energy, health care, immigration, social security, all needed. But I'm a bit fearful of what that change will look like, as Congress or the Pres try to please everyone, and put through poorly designed policies. We saw that with Bush and the immigration bill monster that no one on either side of the issue liked. And the various bail out bills, badly constructed and poorly implemented.
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 08:23:33 AM
Good point.
Interesting that the Languish left is not lambasting Obama for torturing people at Gitmo, for example, even though he is doing the exact same thing there in regards to treatment as Bush.
Funny that.
What're you talking about? I posted an article and discussed how it was contemptible a couple of weeks ago, and have made it clear how he's been a failure on a great many issues.
I've hardly been the only Languish leftist to criticize the man.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 28, 2009, 09:24:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 28, 2009, 08:23:33 AM
Good point.
Interesting that the Languish left is not lambasting Obama for torturing people at Gitmo, for example, even though he is doing the exact same thing there in regards to treatment as Bush.
Funny that.
What're you talking about? I posted an article and discussed how it was contemptible a couple of weeks ago, and have made it clear how he's been a failure on a great many issues.
I've hardly been the only Languish leftist to criticize the man.
Go on.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2009, 07:11:31 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 27, 2009, 06:22:11 PM
I think it's pretty simple, when the Republicans (as a party, many exceptions exist for individual Republicans) aren't in government they hate the government and express this by opposing "big government". When they are in power, they don't hate the government very much and try to influence it to do what they think is right.
Thus the opposition to "big government" is primarily a reflection of "we lost the election". It will probably be reflected is specific electioneering language, but it does not necessarily (or even probably) indicate that any future hypothetical Republican governments will shrink the size of government (though they'll likely shrink the size of programs they disagree with).
Just a guess.
Yeah, similarly the Dems have been a lot quieter about Obama continuing Bush policies on War on Terror.
one more time :actually if you leave the languish bubbleboy reality, and head to some leftist-dem sites, you'll see there's a lot of anger, dissapointment and debate.
but many self-declared "critical thinkers" are either lazy or just stupid.
Funny, I didn't need to head to any left-wing sites to see all that anger and disappointment and "debtate" before Obama took power. Why do I need to now?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/us/politics/28web-nagourney.html
Quote from: NYT
Signs G.O.P. Is Rethinking Stance on Gay Marriage
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: April 28, 2009
WASHINGTON — It was only five years ago that opposition to gay marriage was so strong that Republicans explicitly turned to the issue as a way to energize conservative voters. Yet today, as the party contemplates the task of rebuilding itself, some Republicans say the issue of gay marriage may be turning into more of a hindrance than a help.
The fact that a run of states have legalized gay marriage in recent months — either by court decision or by legislative action — with little backlash is only one indication of how public attitudes about this subject appear to be changing.
More significant is evidence in polls of a widening divide on the issue by age, suggesting to many Republicans that the potency of the gay-marriage question is on the decline. It simply does not appear to have the resonance with younger voters that it does with older ones.
Consider this: In the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, released on Monday, 31 percent of respondents over the age of 40 said they supported gay marriage. By contrast, 57 percent under age 40 said they supported it, a 26-point difference. Among the older respondents, 35 percent said they opposed any legal recognition of same-sex couples, be it marriage or civil unions. Among the younger crowd, just 19 percent held that view.
Steve Schmidt, who was the senior strategist to Senator John McCain of Arizona during his presidential campaign, said in a speech and an interview that Republicans were in danger of losing these younger voters unless the party comes to appreciate how issues like gay marriage resonate, or do not resonate, with them.
"Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that I don't believe are among our core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become, over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters," he said in a speech.
This does not mean, Republicans said, that most Americans are suddenly embracing the idea of same-sex couples going to the chapel. It is more that, for a lot of these Americans, gay marriage is not something they spend a lot of time worrying about, or even thinking about.
For younger respondents, this shift may in part be cultural: the result of coming of age in an era when openly gay people have become increasingly common in popular entertainment and in public life, not to mention in their own families or social circles. Familiarity in this case breeds relative comfort, or perhaps just lack of interest.
The other reason, members of both parties said, is that the argument over gay marriage seems beside the point at a time when the country is facing a severe economic crisis, remains on edge for another domestic terrorist attack and has just inaugurated its first black president.
"Right now, people are not concerned about issues like gay marriage because they are concerned about the economy," Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former Republican mayor of New York, told reporters in Albany after meeting with Republican members of the state Senate, who are opposing legislation to legalize gay marriage.
Mr. Giuliani explained that he opposed gay marriage — while supporting civil unions — but that he did not think it made much sense for Republicans to be harping on the issue if the party had any serious interest in returning to power.
"The Republican party does best organizing itself around economic issues and issues of national security," said Mr. Giuliani, 64, who ran for president last year and is now thinking about running for governor of New York.
The difference in attitudes among age groups has been noted by Republicans at a time when party leaders are engaged in discussion about what policies and messages can best help them regain some of the power they have lost to Democrats. Some conservative leaders said that unless something happened to reverse the trend, it would simply be a matter of time — perhaps as many as 10 years, perhaps as few as 3 — before opposition to gay marriage would get traction in only a few parts of the country.
In this latest New York Times/CBS News Poll, 42 percent of all respondents said they supported gay marriage, compared with 22 percent in March 2004. By contrast, 18 percent of Republicans supported gay marriage, while 49 percent said they opposed any kind of recognition of gay unions. The electorate at large seems to be moving while Republican base voters are not, a challenge to any Republican seeing to win his or her party's nomination in 2012.
"It's a problem," said Mr. Schmidt said in an interview.
This was reflected in a recent conversation with Tim Pawlenty, the Republican governor of Minnesota, a social conservative who opposes gay marriage and is considering a run for president.
Asked if he thought, given recent events, that Republicans were making a political mistake in emphasizing gay issues, Mr. Pawlenty, who is 48, responded: "I think it's an important issue for our conservative voters." But he notably did not dwell on the subject.
Before joining Mr. McCain's ill-fated campaign, Mr. Schmidt was known in Republican circles for arguing that the party needed to move away from social issues to be successful; he managed Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign for governor in California.
"The Republican Party is shrinking," he said. "One of the reasons it is shrinking is because there are large demographics in this country that view the party as intolerant or not relevant to them. Politics is about addition."
For Republicans, the complications of this issue could very well focus on the very first state on the nominating calendar in 2012, Iowa. The courts there overturned a law banning gay marriage earlier this month, and social conservatives — who are a strong force in Republican politics in Iowa — are already organizing to try to amend the state Constitution to restore the ban.
Should developments continue apace, Republican candidates for president are going to be pressed to support that effort, and to spend time talking about an issue that could undercut their appeal to more centrist voters in a general election.
Will that matter? As Mr. Schmidt noted, the winner of the Iowa Republican caucus is hardly assured of becoming the party's nominee; Mr. McCain lost there in 2008. Still, he said it would be difficult for any Republican candidate to win his party's nomination in 2012 without opposing gay marriage.
"I think it's likely that all our candidates will be against gay marriage," Mr. Schmidt said. "But the point is this: There should be a de-emphasis on this issue. This is not the most important issue facing the country. In states where this has been made legal, there has been a collective yawn from the citizenry in a lot of these states. The party should focus on disagreeing with the president on the axis of issues that we agree on."
Mr. Schmidt is 38 years old.
My guess is you'll see this on a state by state level first; the NY Republicans have already said that wihle they're opposed to gay marriage, they'll let the Republicans vote with their conscience.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are refusing to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote, in accordance with the chronic corruption of the NY Senate, where bills are only brought if they're assured passage, and several of the Democratic Senators are vehemently against it, infuriating the Democratic party's state support, which is a terrible sign for them in the upcmoing gubernatorial and senatorial elections, since NY GLBT funding was pretty significant in the 2008 elections.
As strategies go, it's not bad.
After living in NY for 7 years, I am still mystified and bemused by NYS politics.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2009, 07:11:31 AMYeah, similarly the Dems have been a lot quieter about Obama continuing Bush policies on War on Terror.
Yeah, there are similarities.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 28, 2009, 09:56:11 AMone more time :actually if you leave the languish bubbleboy reality, and head to some leftist-dem sites, you'll see there's a lot of anger, dissapointment and debate.
Yeah, I hang out on a gaming board where the American posters are pretty left-Dem and many of them are quite disappointed in Obama on a variety of fronts and they're not particularly quiet about it.