Here's hoping the establishment prevails. I'm skeptical that it will though.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16837836-first-thoughts-gop-establishment-strikes-back?lite
QuoteFirst Thoughts: GOP establishment strikes back
By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower, NBC News
*** GOP establishment strikes back: This year was always going to be about two big political stories -- President Obama's ability to work with congressional Republicans (on the budget, immigration), and the Republican Party's effort to define itself after its shellacking in 2012. And today we examine that second story. The Sunday New York Times reported that the Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads organization is creating an offshoot, called the Conservative Victory Project, to counter the influence of groups like Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund. Its mission: to spend money in GOP primaries to make sure that candidates like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Sharron Angle, and Christine O'Donnell don't become the nominees for key Senate contests. "In effect, the establishment is taking steps to fight back against Tea Party groups and other conservative organizations that have wielded significant influence in backing candidates who ultimately lost seats to Democrats in the general election," the Times said, adding that the Conservative Victory Project's first effort could be in Iowa, where conservative Rep. Steve King is mulling a Senate bid.
*** Republicans, let's get ready to ... rumble: Rove and Crossroads promised that they would launch this kind of effort, after losing winnable Senate races in Missouri and Indiana last year, as well as in Colorado, Delaware and Nevada in 2010. Yet this establishment effort to nominate better candidates is probably going to make things more painful in the short term, not less. First, these conservative groups are already firing back. "Both the Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund ... mocked the new initiative as yet another hapless establishment-side attempt to muzzle the GOP base," Politico writes. "Club for Growth spokesman Barney Keller essentially responded by pointing to the scoreboard in recent primaries in which conservative insurgents have prevailed and emerged as influential GOP leaders. 'They are welcome to support the likes of Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist and David Dewhurst,' Keller said of the new Crossroads group." Second, the establishment-backed candidates haven't always succeeded in general elections, either. After all, folks like Denny Rehberg in Montana and Rick Berg in North Dakota also lost winnable races last year. And third, how much credibility does Crossroads have after its results last year? Bottom line: This effort was bound to happen, but this is going to be ugly -- as both the populist and establishment wings try to become, well, the NEW establishment. The question is whether these more public primary fights help redefine the party in time for 2016.
Why'd you want the establishment to prevail? Surely they're the ones to blame for things getting to this sort of situation.
My only question is which side would be more appealing to voters if they win the struggle.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 12:52:55 PM
Why'd you want the establishment to prevail? Surely they're the ones to blame for things getting to this sort of situation.
Just because the establishment is bad doesn't mean that a particular flavour of radicals isn't worse.
Quote from: Maximus on February 05, 2013, 01:11:30 PM
Just because the establishment is bad doesn't mean that a particular flavour of radicals isn't worse.
That is not a very revolutionary point of view :(
Quote from: Maximus on February 05, 2013, 01:11:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 12:52:55 PM
Why'd you want the establishment to prevail? Surely they're the ones to blame for things getting to this sort of situation.
Just because the establishment is bad doesn't mean that a particular flavour of radicals isn't worse.
They could be less electable though.
Hopefully establishment wins, but not before realizing that they have to cool down the overheated divisve rhetoric, or the extremist scum will keep splintering off after mistaking the useful bullshit for truth.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 05, 2013, 01:17:21 PM
They could be less electable though.
A positive if they're worse.
Quote from: Maximus on February 05, 2013, 01:11:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 12:52:55 PM
Why'd you want the establishment to prevail? Surely they're the ones to blame for things getting to this sort of situation.
Just because the establishment is bad doesn't mean that a particular flavour of radicals isn't worse.
No. But they're necessary to smash the old establishment. As I say they're the ones who enabled the rise of the Tea Party and they're (with the honourable exception of Rove) the leadership that have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. That's not an establishment that's worth defending or cheering on.
But I think it's a false choice. Firstly because I don't think the Tea Party is that coherent and tightly bound. Is Rubio still a Tea Partier, for example?
Secondly because it doesn't mention the figures (who've attracted lots of conservative and Tea Party support in the past) who I'd expect to form a new establishment. People like, for example, Christie, Jindal, Rubio and, based on early reports, Cruz.
I think that's a far more promising base for a party than the Karl Roves or Bill Kristols.
I would think Tim considers them part of the establishment as they are all fairly mainstream at this point.
Any chance of a more electable third option emerging? Something along the lines of what happened in Canada when the right had to remake itself.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lmfao:
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2013, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: Maximus on February 05, 2013, 01:11:30 PM
Just because the establishment is bad doesn't mean that a particular flavour of radicals isn't worse.
That is not a very revolutionary point of view :(
He's Canadian. They don't have revolutions. They fight The Power with attrition.
Queen: Do we still own that nation in North America?
Prime Minister: Yes, ma'am.
Queen: Why?
Prime Minister: Because we haven't gotten rid of them yet, and they haven't left on their own?
Queen: Hmm. I say we cut them loose.
Prime Minister: Very good, ma'am.
Canadians: We win! :yeah:
Wouldn't it make more sense to base the new Republicans on Richard Nixon, the greatest Republican of them all?
I have a question: Is the "establishment" materially different from the "tea party"? I mean ideologically. Bobby Jindal came out two weeks ago with a speech about how the GOP needs to stop being the "stupid" party. This meant, they need to stop saying stupid things that are repellant to voters. However he also said that he didn't want the Republican party to really change it's platform or water down it's ideas. These seems like an impossible task, stupid statements naturally flow from stupid policies and ideas. So long as they hold to the same beliefs people are going to articulate them. Just giving the car a new paint job won't help a car much if it has a cracked engine block.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 03:41:33 PM
I have a question: Is the "establishment" materially different from the "tea party"? I mean ideologically. Bobby Jindal came out two weeks ago with a speech about how the GOP needs to stop being the "stupid" party. This meant, they need to stop saying stupid things that are repellant to voters. However he also said that he didn't want the Republican party to really change it's platform or water down it's ideas. These seems like an impossible task, stupid statements naturally flow from stupid policies and ideas. So long as they hold to the same beliefs people are going to articulate them. Just giving the car a new paint job won't help a car much if it has a cracked engine block.
Jindl and Rove probably don't have you in mind as the prototypical swing voter.
To you they might as well be the same, Raz. You despise anyone with an R next to his name.
I wonder if they'll turn to a strategy of simply not representing their base at all. This is what Democrats have done, and till now it has worked, as the strength of the enemy, however inexplicable, has precluded the possibility of splintering or staying home, even while the Dems as an establishment have moved badly rightward. On the other hand, the GOP base has been a lot more recalcitrant and unwilling to entertain strategic thinking, which is why they've encouraged if not dictated policies that so damage the Republican Party with centertards. Splintering or staying home may be a much more attractive option for the ideologically pure. This threat may keep the GOP dangling over the extreme right edge for years to come, and will continue to push normal people left.
And thank God, because a more moderated Republican Party, shorn of their racist-dominionist wing, is unbelievably dangerous to America, since Americans might have been stupid enough to vote for monsters like Romney and Ryan if they came bearing only tidings of economic catastrophe and not the message of Klansmen and abortion clinic bombers.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2013, 04:05:35 PM
To you they might as well be the same, Raz. You despise anyone with an R next to his name.
Not true, but irrelevant. The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things. So long as people believe those things they are going to say them. The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 04:13:20 PM
I wonder if they'll turn to a strategy of simply not representing their base at all. This is what Democrats have done, and till now it has worked, as the strength of the enemy, however inexplicable, has precluded the possibility of splintering or staying home, even while the Dems as an establishment have moved badly rightward. On the other hand, the GOP base has been a lot more recalcitrant and unwilling to entertain strategic thinking, which is why they've encouraged if not dictated policies that so damage the Republican Party with centertards. Splintering or staying home may be a much more attractive option for the ideologically pure. This threat may keep the GOP dangling over the extreme right edge for years to come, and will continue to push normal people left.
And thank God, because a more moderated Republican Party, shorn of their racist-dominionist wing, is unbelievably dangerous to America, since Americans might have been stupid enough to vote for monsters like Romney and Ryan if they came bearing only tidings of economic catastrophe and not the message of Klansmen and abortion clinic bombers.
Wow.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2013, 04:21:38 PM
Wow.
Wow? Did he say something you were surprised he would say there? :hmm:
Whore pills for some, miniature American flags for others. :D
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 04:13:20 PM
I wonder if they'll turn to a strategy of simply not representing their base at all. This is what Democrats have done, and till now it has worked, as the strength of the enemy, however inexplicable, has precluded the possibility of splintering or staying home, even while the Dems as an establishment have moved badly rightward. On the other hand, the GOP base has been a lot more recalcitrant and unwilling to entertain strategic thinking, which is why they've encouraged if not dictated policies that so damage the Republican Party with centertards. Splintering or staying home may be a much more attractive option for the ideologically pure. This threat may keep the GOP dangling over the extreme right edge for years to come, and will continue to push normal people left.
And thank God, because a more moderated Republican Party, shorn of their racist-dominionist wing, is unbelievably dangerous to America, since Americans might have been stupid enough to vote for monsters like Romney and Ryan if they came bearing only tidings of economic catastrophe and not the message of Klansmen and abortion clinic bombers.
:unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2013, 04:23:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2013, 04:21:38 PM
Wow.
Wow? Did he say something you were surprised he would say there? :hmm:
No but just a reminder of how far off the reservation he is.
Out of interest Ide, who are the Dems base?
Good God Ide.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 04:27:05 PM
Out of interest Ide, who are the Dems base?
Unions, blacks, professional women, peaceniks.
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2013, 04:32:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
peaceniks.
They are a pretty crap peace party.
And the GOP is a pretty crap "small government" party, but that is still their base.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 04:27:05 PM
Out of interest Ide, who are the Dems base?
Tax-and-spend liberals.
Also, for better or worse, crypto-isolationists.
***
I'll admit to baiting a little bit with that. :D But other than provocative characterization, what I said was pretty accurate. The Dems have moved to a position where they are a centrist party with a disaffected left base from which they can nonetheless claim loyalty; the GOP is a rightist party with a base that is in large part obviously insane from which they have not so far escaped.
Come on now, Ide. Don't walk it back. Own it.
Quote from: Barrister on February 05, 2013, 04:34:45 PM
And the GOP is a pretty crap "small government" party, but that is still their base.
Good point.
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2013, 04:43:08 PM
Come on now, Ide. Don't walk it back. Own it.
Well, the second part is probably what you objected to--that a GOP with more Randians and fewer rape boosters would be even more dangerous to left-wing politics--I certainly own. At least until very recently, the U.S. was extremely right-tilted and one of the things keeping the dismantling wing of the Republican Party from seeing impressive electoral success was the visceral reaction many had and have to the socially retrogressive elements within the party.
There's my guy :hug:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 04:42:12 PM
Tax-and-spend liberals.
Also, for better or worse, crypto-isolationists.
***
I'll admit to baiting a little bit with that. :D But other than provocative characterization, what I said was pretty accurate. The Dems have moved to a position where they are a centrist party with a disaffected left base from which they can nonetheless claim loyalty; the GOP is a rightist party with a base that is in large part obviously insane from which they have not so far escaped.
Tax and spend liberals all ditched their uniforms and melted into the population the moment Obama uttered his pledge in support of the Schumer doctrine.
Isolationists trend more right than left.
Methinks there's a tendency to overstate the enthrallment of the GOP to the looney right because of the recent electoral drubbing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2013, 05:24:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 04:42:12 PM
Tax-and-spend liberals.
Also, for better or worse, crypto-isolationists.
***
I'll admit to baiting a little bit with that. :D But other than provocative characterization, what I said was pretty accurate. The Dems have moved to a position where they are a centrist party with a disaffected left base from which they can nonetheless claim loyalty; the GOP is a rightist party with a base that is in large part obviously insane from which they have not so far escaped.
Tax and spend liberals all ditched their uniforms and melted into the population the moment Obama uttered his pledge in support of the Schumer doctrine.
I tried to look up "Schumer doctrine" and all I got that used the phrase verbatim were about USSC judges (something to the effect of Sen. Charles Schumer subverting the nomination process for W). I'm not sure what you means by it, can you elaborate?
QuoteIsolationists trend more right than left.
You think? The opponents of the war in Iraq were not, as a rule, on the political right (with, I concede, a fair number of exceptions). I can't name many left figures in the past thirty years that were militarily interventionist, other than Christopher Hitchens. The last American leftist I can think of that was seriously into facing totalitarianism abroad was Lyndon Johnson. And at that point we're talking about a very different country.
QuoteMethinks there's a tendency to overstate the enthrallment of the GOP to the looney right because of the recent electoral drubbing.
Perhaps, although part of this is that the right base which has, since the 80s, had a pervasive influence over the GOP, gotten loonier--both in comparison to the exoteric culture, and in absolute terms as evangelicals and anarchists (sometimes the same folks) closed themselves off to that culture to live in a rightist echo chamber, so that bizarre, factually-bereft views (Obama is a socialist! class warfare! war on Christmas) became dogma. So as they became more entrenched and uncompromising, so too did the GOP mainstream (i.e., center-right folks) have to either accede to them in some regard or compete with them at a disadvantage within the party. 2010 and 2012 showed that the former mainstream lost this competition, or else became co-opted.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:02:13 PM
QuoteIsolationists trend more right than left.
You think? The opponents of the war in Iraq were not, as a rule, on the political right (with, I concede, a fair number of exceptions). I can't name many left figures in the past thirty years that were militarily interventionist, other than Christopher Hitchens. The last American leftist I can think of that was seriously into facing totalitarianism abroad was Lyndon Johnson. And at that point we're talking about a very different country.
Libertarians are very big on isolationism. On the left, don't confuse isolationism with pacifism, Ide.
Quote from: Admiral YiMethinks there's a tendency to overstate the enthrallment of the GOP to the looney right because of the recent electoral drubbing.
The looney right's always been there for 30 years; except instead of blowing up abortion clinics, starting militia survivalist enclaves and creating Jesus-Is-Lord theme parks, they've just finally managed to become House Representatives.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:02:13 PM
I tried to look up "Schumer doctrine" and all I got that used the phrase verbatim were about USSC judges (something to the effect of Sen. Charles Schumer subverting the nomination process for W). I'm not sure what you means by it, can you elaborate?
It's one of Yi's obscure invented references, like arcane nicknames for posters only he gets. You're not supposed to know what it means, because you're not hip enough.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:02:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2013, 05:24:55 PM
Isolationists trend more right than left.
You think? The opponents of the war in Iraq were not, as a rule, on the political right (with, I concede, a fair number of exceptions). I can't name many left figures in the past thirty years that were militarily interventionist, other than Christopher Hitchens. The last American leftist I can think of that was seriously into facing totalitarianism abroad was Lyndon Johnson. And at that point we're talking about a very different country.
Most leftists may be opposed to overseas projection of our military power, but that doesn't necessarily make them isolationist. They tend to want to engage other countries diplomatically. Isolationists, though, want to largely ignore or disengage from the rest of the world, and are mostly on the right (or are apolitical--lots of them tend to not really care about anything that's not a local issue; forget about the rest of the world, they're not even interested in the rest of the country).
Quote from: Admiral Yi]Methinks there's a tendency to overstate the enthrallment of the GOP to the looney right because of the recent electoral drubbing.
I think there's a tendency to overstate the degree to which they were drubbed. They did keep control of the House, and even though they nominated one of the most uninspiring Presidential candidates ever selected by a major party, they did better against Barack Obama than they had done 4 years previously. Granted, given the approval ratings of President Obama going into the election, they probably should have done better, but overall, it was actually a fairly close election.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:02:13 PM
I tried to look up "Schumer doctrine" and all I got that used the phrase verbatim were about USSC judges (something to the effect of Sen. Charles Schumer subverting the nomination process for W). I'm not sure what you means by it, can you elaborate?
Not raising taxes on hard working middle class Americans.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 06:20:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:02:13 PM
QuoteIsolationists trend more right than left.
You think? The opponents of the war in Iraq were not, as a rule, on the political right (with, I concede, a fair number of exceptions). I can't name many left figures in the past thirty years that were militarily interventionist, other than Christopher Hitchens. The last American leftist I can think of that was seriously into facing totalitarianism abroad was Lyndon Johnson. And at that point we're talking about a very different country.
Libertarians are very big on isolationism. On the left, don't confuse isolationism with pacifism, Ide.
I dunno. I think Dennis Kucinich speaks for a broader segment of leftists in regards to war than Ron Paul does on the right.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2013, 06:37:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:02:13 PM
I tried to look up "Schumer doctrine" and all I got that used the phrase verbatim were about USSC judges (something to the effect of Sen. Charles Schumer subverting the nomination process for W). I'm not sure what you means by it, can you elaborate?
Not raising taxes on hard working middle class Americans.
What about the ones that dont work hard?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:44:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 06:20:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:02:13 PM
QuoteIsolationists trend more right than left.
You think? The opponents of the war in Iraq were not, as a rule, on the political right (with, I concede, a fair number of exceptions). I can't name many left figures in the past thirty years that were militarily interventionist, other than Christopher Hitchens. The last American leftist I can think of that was seriously into facing totalitarianism abroad was Lyndon Johnson. And at that point we're talking about a very different country.
Libertarians are very big on isolationism. On the left, don't confuse isolationism with pacifism, Ide.
I dunno. I think Dennis Kucinich speaks for a broader segment of leftists in regards to war than Ron Paul does on the right.
You're missing the point that CdM and I are making. He put it better than I did, I think: pacifism isn't the same thing as isolationism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2013, 06:37:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:02:13 PM
I tried to look up "Schumer doctrine" and all I got that used the phrase verbatim were about USSC judges (something to the effect of Sen. Charles Schumer subverting the nomination process for W). I'm not sure what you means by it, can you elaborate?
Not raising taxes on hard working middle class Americans.
Well, this is what I mean by American being right-tilted. There are still people who would accept higher taxes for themselves, particularly if coupled with more progressive taxation overall, in exchange for better-funded or expanded government programs, but this does not play politically. This is still the base of the Democratic Party.
This subsumes some of the groups you mentioned. As for the others, professional women, for example, are
not the base--they will not vote Dem no matter what, but rather, like I said, in opposition to Republican candidates that offend them. And I don't think unions are much the base of anything anymore.
Quote from: dps on February 05, 2013, 06:49:18 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:44:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 06:20:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 06:02:13 PM
QuoteIsolationists trend more right than left.
You think? The opponents of the war in Iraq were not, as a rule, on the political right (with, I concede, a fair number of exceptions). I can't name many left figures in the past thirty years that were militarily interventionist, other than Christopher Hitchens. The last American leftist I can think of that was seriously into facing totalitarianism abroad was Lyndon Johnson. And at that point we're talking about a very different country.
Libertarians are very big on isolationism. On the left, don't confuse isolationism with pacifism, Ide.
I dunno. I think Dennis Kucinich speaks for a broader segment of leftists in regards to war than Ron Paul does on the right.
You're missing the point that CdM and I are making. He put it better than I did, I think: pacifism isn't the same thing as isolationism.
OK, I misunderstood and should have been clearer myself.
When I said crypto-isolationist, I meant it as a smear on pacifists, as they might as well be isolationist for all the good they do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
Unions, blacks, professional women, peaceniks.
This seems like a very 80s view :lol:
QuoteMethinks there's a tendency to overstate the enthrallment of the GOP to the looney right because of the recent electoral drubbing.
Well my view is they've lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. They lost the popular vote in the House in 2012. And in my view they lost what should have been a number of easy wins in the Senate (Harry Reid! :blink). My general view of politics is that when you're not winning popular votes it's because you're not appealing to enough people and more of them are in the centre.
In my view the Republicans are in as much trouble as the Democrats were in the 70s and 80s and I don't, yet, see a DLC or Ed Kochs, Al Gores and Bill Clintons. But hopefully it'll happen and as I say I think Rubio, Jindal and Christie are all sending interesting hints at the minute. I'm more optimistic about Republicans than I was immediately after the election.
Having said that, I think a lot of the talk about demographics strikes me as changeable and not terribly important. I remember Republicans saying similar things about permanent majorities during 2004, it struck me as nonsense then.
QuoteSo long as people believe those things they are going to say them. The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.
Clinton of course was as pro-choice as any other Democrat. But he used the phrase 'safe, legal and rare'. That's why the way you say things matter.
And I think 'so long as politicians believe things they will say them' is adorable :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 08:51:56 PM
In my view the Republicans are in as much trouble as the Democrats were in the 70s and 80s
That seems a strange thing to say. The Dems held the Congress that entire time. Unless you just mean the Presidency.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 08:51:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
Unions, blacks, professional women, peaceniks.
This seems like a very 80s view :lol:
He forgot Jews, too. Not the psycho settler water well poisoning types like Siegy, but normal American ones.
And fags. Forgot the fags.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 05, 2013, 08:56:15 PM
That seems a strange thing to say. The Dems held the Congress that entire time. Unless you just mean the Presidency.
Yeah, but I don't think the GOP holding the House and the Democrats winning the next few Presidential elections would be a great achievement for them. On the other hand that was pre-Hastert rule so I think there were more cross-party coalitions so to an extent the Republicans holding the House now matters more.
But I mean the Presidency and the national perception of the party, which I think has been growing in importance.
Edit: And more particularly I think the extremism of 'allies' of the Democrats (often just language) tainted their brand and, to an extent, the old Democrat coalition fell apart.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 08:58:44 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2013, 08:51:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 05, 2013, 04:30:53 PM
Unions, blacks, professional women, peaceniks.
This seems like a very 80s view :lol:
He forgot Jews, too. Not the psycho settler water well poisoning types like Siegy, but normal American ones.
And fags. Forgot the fags.
I think you guys are defining base differently than me. The Democrats are a party of left economic interests with social libertarian interests along for the ride; the GOP is a party of social reactionaries who have been found useful by economic anarchists. But outside of the economically left base are a lot of Democrats would happily vote on behalf of their economic interests, i.e. for reduced taxes and government intervention. A lot of nominal Democrats vote for Democrats, which entails a degree of higher taxes and government intervention (though far less than it once would have, because of the right-tilting I've been describing),
only because their social interests are directly and overtly threatened. Democrats taken as a whole are still Americans, and thus for the most part a corrupt and greedy lot without a sense of a patriotism or dedication to the common weal; economically right gays only stay blue because the alternative is a party full of people who could probably be convinced that they belong in death camps.
Gays, like professional women, or any particular demographic, even blacks, are not part of the Democratic base--poor people and people who understand that stability requires intense government intervention in the economy are. Everyone else can be turned. That was my point made before: I hope the GOP doesn't realize this and continues to rely on their base instead of rejecting it and reinventing themselves ideologically as what they've practically come to be, the party of the rich and the special snowflakes who think they can be.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 04:20:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2013, 04:05:35 PM
To you they might as well be the same, Raz. You despise anyone with an R next to his name.
Not true, but irrelevant. The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things. So long as people believe those things they are going to say them. The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.
I was expecting you'd come back to this.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 10:51:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 04:20:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2013, 04:05:35 PM
To you they might as well be the same, Raz. You despise anyone with an R next to his name.
Not true, but irrelevant. The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things. So long as people believe those things they are going to say them. The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.
I was expecting you'd come back to this.
I'll bite. What Republicans do you respect and like?
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 10:52:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 10:51:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 04:20:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2013, 04:05:35 PM
To you they might as well be the same, Raz. You despise anyone with an R next to his name.
Not true, but irrelevant. The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things. So long as people believe those things they are going to say them. The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.
I was expecting you'd come back to this.
I'll bite. What Republicans do you respect and like?
I like you. :)
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 10:52:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 10:51:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 04:20:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2013, 04:05:35 PM
To you they might as well be the same, Raz. You despise anyone with an R next to his name.
Not true, but irrelevant. The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things. So long as people believe those things they are going to say them. The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.
Er not that part. I vote GOP in local elections all the time. I meant the other part.
I was expecting you'd come back to this.
I'll bite. What Republicans do you respect and like?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 10:56:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 10:52:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 10:51:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 04:20:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2013, 04:05:35 PM
To you they might as well be the same, Raz. You despise anyone with an R next to his name.
Not true, but irrelevant. The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things. So long as people believe those things they are going to say them. The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.
Er not that part. I vote GOP in local elections all the time. I meant the other part.
I was expecting you'd come back to this.
I'll bite. What Republicans do you respect and like?
Why would he come back to that part? I don't think he was advancing any argument among those lines.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 10:52:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 10:51:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 04:20:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2013, 04:05:35 PM
To you they might as well be the same, Raz. You despise anyone with an R next to his name.
Not true, but irrelevant. The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things. So long as people believe those things they are going to say them. The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.
I was expecting you'd come back to this.
I'll bite. What Republicans do you respect and like?
I like you. :)
But I'm one just itching to vote for Hil.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 10:56:49 PM
Er not that part. I vote GOP in local elections all the time.
Traitor. :angry:
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 11:00:36 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2013, 10:52:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 10:51:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 04:20:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2013, 04:05:35 PM
To you they might as well be the same, Raz. You despise anyone with an R next to his name.
Not true, but irrelevant. The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things. So long as people believe those things they are going to say them. The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.
I was expecting you'd come back to this.
I'll bite. What Republicans do you respect and like?
I like you. :)
But I'm one just itching to vote for Hil.
Is she gonna run in 2016?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
I think you guys are defining base differently than me. The Democrats are a party of left economic interests with social libertarian interests along for the ride; the GOP is a party of social reactionaries who have been found useful by economic anarchists. But outside of the economically left base are a lot of Democrats would happily vote on behalf of their economic interests, i.e. for reduced taxes and government intervention. A lot of nominal Democrats vote for Democrats, which entails a degree of higher taxes and government intervention (though far less than it once would have, because of the right-tilting I've been describing), only because their social interests are directly and overtly threatened. Democrats taken as a whole are still Americans, and thus for the most part a corrupt and greedy lot without a sense of a patriotism or dedication to the common weal; economically right gays only stay blue because the alternative is a party full of people who could probably be convinced that they belong in death camps.
Gays, like professional women, or any particular demographic, even blacks, are not part of the Democratic base--poor people and people who understand that stability requires intense government intervention in the economy are. Everyone else can be turned. That was my point made before: I hope the GOP doesn't realize this and continues to rely on their base instead of rejecting it and reinventing themselves ideologically as what they've practically come to be, the party of the rich and the special snowflakes who think they can be.
Like your movie reviews, you're over-analyzing again.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 03:41:33 PM
I have a question: Is the "establishment" materially different from the "tea party"? I mean ideologically. Bobby Jindal came out two weeks ago with a speech about how the GOP needs to stop being the "stupid" party. This meant, they need to stop saying stupid things that are repellant to voters. However he also said that he didn't want the Republican party to really change it's platform or water down it's ideas. These seems like an impossible task, stupid statements naturally flow from stupid policies and ideas. So long as they hold to the same beliefs people are going to articulate them. Just giving the car a new paint job won't help a car much if it has a cracked engine block.
In countries with proportional voting system, there are usually two different parties for the neo-con and the "tea party" kind of outlook, so I would say they are different enough. They are both ultimately right wing, but the sentiments are different enough, the only thing keeping them together in the US is the one mandate voting.
If your system changed to proportional, the probably outcome would be the formation of a centre-right neo-liberal party which would consist of the mainstream GOP and a number of Democrats such as Lieberman.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
Gays, like professional women, or any particular demographic, even blacks, are not part of the Democratic base--poor people and people who understand that stability requires intense government intervention in the economy are. Everyone else can be turned. That was my point made before: I hope the GOP doesn't realize this and continues to rely on their base instead of rejecting it and reinventing themselves ideologically as what they've practically come to be, the party of the rich and the special snowflakes who think they can be.
That's true. Gays will be first to jump ship the moment Republicans start seeing gay marriage as fait accompli and focus on being a party of low taxes.
Republicans, like Tories in the 90s, have become a "nasty party". They spew offensive stuff about gays, women, Latinos and other racial minorities, etc. It may be true that people tend to value economy over politics when it comes to voting, but there is a certain smell test barrier that one would not cross without feeling like a total sell out - the GOP vitriol against these groups makes it impossible for many of them to consider voting Republican.
Paradoxically, I think Republicans cling to this hate rhetorics against their political interest because this is something they actually believe. So, like Tories, they need generational change before they can change - which means they won't see a revival until 2020s.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2013, 04:20:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 05, 2013, 04:05:35 PM
To you they might as well be the same, Raz. You despise anyone with an R next to his name.
Not true, but irrelevant. The reason why Tod Akin or Mitt Romney said a dumb things is because they believe dumb things. So long as people believe those things they are going to say them. The GOP needs a Clinton figure to sideline the kooks and bring the party closer to the center.
I agree with Raz. :huh:
They need a Cameron. But as the recent vote on gay marriage shows, the change of leadership may not be enough. I wonder if Cameron will survive - the best outcome would be if he was destroyed and tories banished back to their dark recesses, where the light of the electorate's approval does not shine (since I would prefer a lib-dem/labour government that does not tinker with the EU referendum bomb).
Quote from: merithyn on February 05, 2013, 03:04:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2013, 01:14:44 PM
Quote from: Maximus on February 05, 2013, 01:11:30 PM
Just because the establishment is bad doesn't mean that a particular flavour of radicals isn't worse.
That is not a very revolutionary point of view :(
He's Canadian. They don't have revolutions. They fight The Power with attrition.
Queen: Do we still own that nation in North America?
Prime Minister: Yes, ma'am.
Queen: Why?
Prime Minister: Because we haven't gotten rid of them yet, and they haven't left on their own?
Queen: Hmm. I say we cut them loose.
Prime Minister: Very good, ma'am.
Canadians: We win! :yeah:
I remember explaining to a canadian professor of education that Canada was still a monarchy. Don't think that would be the reaction. It would be more like
Canadians: WTF, we have a Queen?
British: No, she kicked you out, now you have to go and elect yourselves a president.
Canadians: Wait, WTF, we have to pick a president?
British: President Harper has a nice ring to it doesn't it?
Canadians: Can we have "our" Queen back? Please? Pretty Please?
Why would a paternalist like Lieberman join the libertarian lite party?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 06, 2013, 04:00:30 AM
Why would a paternalist like Lieberman join the libertarian lite party?
I do not see mainstream Republicans as libertarians. Do you? :huh:
I'm uncertain why they would want to peel off the social conservatives if they're not going to shift their platform away from it.
At any rate, Lieberman may be a hawk, but he's a lefty regarding the most fundamental issue, money.
Both parties would be socially conservative, but you can go about it being modern and non-modern.
Most European countries have two parties like this. The French have UPM and Front Nationale. The British have Tories and UKIP. Poland has PO and PiS.
The former is still socially conservative, but presents a more modern, open, pro-economy focus and the latter is more religious social conservative with a mistrust of big business.
This allows the former to get voters from the centre that would not vote for a party that has the right wing religious conservatives in its ranks. The latter, at the same time, can cater to the conspiracy theory religious fundamentalist crowd without risking their ideological purity.
The establishment Republicans would have the same problem as they do now, they'd still depend on the more reactionary party for support. They'd still have to say things that might drive Berkuts away. A party based on religious social conservatism with a mistrust of big business(not sure how viable this is in US or other predominately Protestant nations) might even go into coalition with the establishment Democrats from time to time.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 06, 2013, 05:19:56 AM
The establishment Republicans would have the same problem as they do now, they'd still depend on the more reactionary party for support. They'd still have to say things that might drive Berkuts away. A party based on religious social conservatism with a mistrust of big business(not sure how viable this is in US or other predominately Protestant nations) might even go into coalition with the establishment Democrats from time to time.
I thought the Tea Party is pretty mistrustful of big business. :huh:
It certainly has no love for Wall Street.
No more than the general public.
While it's popular for conservative politicians to tout their policies as being good for "small business" in the end it amounts to the same as being good for "big business".
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
I think you guys are defining base differently than me.
The base is people that can be counted on throughout the electoral process. People who always vote in primaries and generals, people who volunteer for campaigns, people who put signs in their yards, people who man phone banks, people who attend rallies and donate money.
For the Democratic party, that group is *not* made up of statists. Statists don't exist outside think tanks.
It's union members, blacks, professional women, and peaceniks.
What about professional men? A lot of professional men, especially on the young side, are likewise repulsed by Republican social policies. Unless they're young professional men who are loners and have Asperger's, in which case they become Rothbardian Libertarians.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2013, 09:45:46 AM
What about professional men? A lot of professional men, especially on the young side, are likewise repulsed by Republican social policies. Unless they're young professional men who are loners and have Asperger's, in which case they become Rothbardian Libertarians.
Not as jacked up as professional women are about Roe v. Wade, quotas, and political correctness laws.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 09:42:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
I think you guys are defining base differently than me.
The base is people that can be counted on throughout the electoral process. People who always vote in primaries and generals, people who volunteer for campaigns, people who put signs in their yards, people who man phone banks, people who attend rallies and donate money.
For the Democratic party, that group is *not* made up of statists. Statists don't exist outside think tanks.
It's union members, blacks, professional women, and peaceniks.
What do you think the Republican base is?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2013, 10:26:14 AM
What do you think the Republican base is?
Bible thumpers, gun nuts, and fat cats.
What about the racists?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
What about the racists?
Can be a part of either party's base. Bigoted union members and bigoted blacks for example are likely to be part of the Democratic base. Or they could very well be swing voters or apoltical.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 10:47:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
What about the racists?
Can be a part of either party's base. Bigoted union members and bigoted blacks for example are likely to be part of the Democratic base. Or they could very well be swing voters or apoltical.
Yeah, sure, keep telling yourself that. Lots of people are racist, but the ones willing to act politically on their bigotry tend to find one party a lot more inviting than the other party.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2013, 10:49:32 AM
Yeah, sure, keep telling yourself that. Lots of people are racist, but the ones willing to act politically on their bigotry tend to find one party a lot more inviting than the other party.
Please elaborate. For example, what do you have in mind when you say some people are willing to act politically on their bigotry?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2013, 10:49:32 AM
Yeah, sure, keep telling yourself that. Lots of people are racist, but the ones willing to act politically on their bigotry tend to find one party a lot more inviting than the other party.
Please elaborate. For example, what do you have in mind when you say some people are willing to act politically on their bigotry?
(https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/634487275/KR_Twitter.jpg)
Not what, whom.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
For example, what do you have in mind when you say some people are willing to act politically on their bigotry?
That black people will always vote for black people in order to get back at The Man?
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2013, 10:49:32 AM
Yeah, sure, keep telling yourself that. Lots of people are racist, but the ones willing to act politically on their bigotry tend to find one party a lot more inviting than the other party.
I don't know. If you are bigoted against WASPs you probably are not going to be a Republican.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 06, 2013, 10:55:23 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
For example, what do you have in mind when you say some people are willing to act politically on their bigotry?
That black people will always vote for black people in order to get back at The Man?
No, they do that because of identity politics, which is much worse.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
Gays, like professional women, or any particular demographic, even blacks, are not part of the Democratic base--poor people and people who understand that stability requires intense government intervention in the economy are. Everyone else can be turned. That was my point made before: I hope the GOP doesn't realize this and continues to rely on their base instead of rejecting it and reinventing themselves ideologically as what they've practically come to be, the party of the rich and the special snowflakes who think they can be.
See, but if you think of it like that, then there's no such thing as a base, because anybody can be turned by slight adjustments in policy. Remember back when the Democratic base was the Klan?
Quote from: derspiess on February 06, 2013, 10:56:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 06, 2013, 10:55:23 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
For example, what do you have in mind when you say some people are willing to act politically on their bigotry?
That black people will always vote for black people in order to get back at The Man?
No, they do that because of identity politics, which is much worse.
So like white rich people and white people who aren't rich but are conned into believing white rich people like them anyway.
Quote from: derspiess on February 06, 2013, 10:56:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 06, 2013, 10:55:23 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
For example, what do you have in mind when you say some people are willing to act politically on their bigotry?
That black people will always vote for black people in order to get back at The Man?
No, they do that because of identity politics, which is much worse.
Well I'm not sure it is unreasonable to think a black president might be more sympathetic to the issues of black voters if only because he(she!) has had experience with being a minority.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 06, 2013, 11:01:02 AM
So like white rich people and white people who aren't rich but are conned into believing white rich people like them anyway.
But isn't that what politics is all about in this day and age? Politicians trick people that they hate into voting for them everywhere, in every party in the world.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 06, 2013, 11:01:02 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 06, 2013, 10:56:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 06, 2013, 10:55:23 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
For example, what do you have in mind when you say some people are willing to act politically on their bigotry?
That black people will always vote for black people in order to get back at The Man?
No, they do that because of identity politics, which is much worse.
So like white rich people and white people who aren't rich but are conned into believing white rich people like them anyway.
Usually, I'm trying to con rich white people into liking me. ;)
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2013, 11:12:18 AM
Usually, I'm trying to con rich white people into liking me. ;)
That's because you're a saucy little sex minx. Doesn't count.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 06, 2013, 05:19:56 AM
A party based on religious social conservatism with a mistrust of big business(not sure how viable this is in US or other predominately Protestant nations) might even go into coalition with the establishment Democrats from time to time.
Heck, if all Democrats were like Jimmy Carter, that would be a pretty good description of the Democratic party to begin with.
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2013, 10:58:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
Gays, like professional women, or any particular demographic, even blacks, are not part of the Democratic base--poor people and people who understand that stability requires intense government intervention in the economy are. Everyone else can be turned. That was my point made before: I hope the GOP doesn't realize this and continues to rely on their base instead of rejecting it and reinventing themselves ideologically as what they've practically come to be, the party of the rich and the special snowflakes who think they can be.
See, but if you think of it like that, then there's no such thing as a base, because anybody can be turned by slight adjustments in policy. Remember back when the Democratic base was the Klan?
Of course that's true. People identify with political parties for ideological reasons. If the party changes ideology, the followers will leave. It's not like a football team.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 06, 2013, 12:31:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2013, 10:58:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
Gays, like professional women, or any particular demographic, even blacks, are not part of the Democratic base--poor people and people who understand that stability requires intense government intervention in the economy are. Everyone else can be turned. That was my point made before: I hope the GOP doesn't realize this and continues to rely on their base instead of rejecting it and reinventing themselves ideologically as what they've practically come to be, the party of the rich and the special snowflakes who think they can be.
See, but if you think of it like that, then there's no such thing as a base, because anybody can be turned by slight adjustments in policy. Remember back when the Democratic base was the Klan?
Of course that's true. People identify with political parties for ideological reasons. If the party changes ideology, the followers will leave. It's not like a football team.
Except that's not always true. You still find people who vote either Democratic or Republican 'cause that the way their daddy and granddaddy voted.
Of course, people like that don't really have to be accounted for by political strategists.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 10:47:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2013, 10:43:48 AM
What about the racists?
Can be a part of either party's base. Bigoted union members and bigoted blacks for example are likely to be part of the Democratic base. Or they could very well be swing voters or apoltical.
I was kinda thinking like this this guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdjWLBT0DoE
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2013, 05:02:21 PM
I was kinda thinking like this this guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdjWLBT0DoE
Maybe you should have asked a question about him then.
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2013, 03:30:33 AM
That's true. Gays will be first to jump ship the moment Republicans start seeing gay marriage as fait accompli and focus on being a party of low taxes.
I've yet to see any evidence of this, present company excepted :P
On the other hand there's plenty of examples of minority groups continuing to vote Labour/Democrats despite moving up the income scale and their opponents doing their best (for the most part) to ditch their bigoted reputations.
QuoteThey need a Cameron.
They need a Blair/Clinton. Not a PR man.
QuoteThe former is still socially conservative, but presents a more modern, open, pro-economy focus and the latter is more religious social conservative with a mistrust of big business.
Not so in the UK. UKIP aren't terribly religious and they're very anti-tax, anti-regulation, anti-intervention, pro-business. They think the banks should just be left alone, for example. One of the main (coherent) arguments of Eurosceptic Tories and UKIPers is that the EU is too protectionist and regulatory and that it restricts British businesses and doesn't allow the UK to trade freely with countries like India and China.
Of course the idea that the UK could be a free-trading Singapore of the North Sea is rather implausible given both parties' fiercely anti-immigration views.
QuoteI thought the Tea Party is pretty mistrustful of big business.
God, I wish. I'd love the Tea Party if they'd become properly populist and raged against 'too big to fail' corporatist stitch ups whether in banking or Solyndra. Alas, no.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 06, 2013, 12:31:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 06, 2013, 10:58:45 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
Gays, like professional women, or any particular demographic, even blacks, are not part of the Democratic base--poor people and people who understand that stability requires intense government intervention in the economy are. Everyone else can be turned. That was my point made before: I hope the GOP doesn't realize this and continues to rely on their base instead of rejecting it and reinventing themselves ideologically as what they've practically come to be, the party of the rich and the special snowflakes who think they can be.
See, but if you think of it like that, then there's no such thing as a base, because anybody can be turned by slight adjustments in policy. Remember back when the Democratic base was the Klan?
Of course that's true. People identify with political parties for ideological reasons. If the party changes ideology, the followers will leave. It's not like a football team.
Indeed. The Dems basically dumped the Klan/Southern Democrats, who hadn't really been the base since the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.
My definition is based on the premise of "who would be the last to leave" or "who would be the hardest to cleave away"? Arguably this is still the rich for the Republicans--who were definitely the base of the Repubs until the fracture of the Democratic party in the 1960s--but the formerly southern-style Democrat, currently Tea Party crowd has had their wires crossed and is today as fiercely against liberal economic intervention (against their own interests usually, cutting off their white noses to spite a black face or two) as it is for conservative social intervention.
But you could argue that the Republican base is and always has been wealthy interests who would seek to use the government for their own ends, whether those ends be protection of their nascent industries, as in the late 19th century, free recruitment of global labor, as it is now, or destroying any regulation that would send the bill for their business' externalities back to them, as it has ever been. But the Democratic base is tax-and-spend liberals, or more generally economic interventionists, and has been since William Jennings Bryan (though thankfully they've become a lot more sophisticated since him).
And I don't know what Yi means when "statists" (whom he equates with economic interventionists) don't exist outside think tanks. Do I work at a think tank? Does Joan or CdM?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 05:04:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2013, 05:02:21 PM
I was kinda thinking like this this guy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdjWLBT0DoE
Maybe you should have asked a question about him then.
There's a lots of guys like that. I can't post them all.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 06, 2013, 08:00:36 PM
Indeed. The Dems basically dumped the Klan/Southern Democrats, who hadn't really been the base since the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.
Think you got that backdated by about 100 years.
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2013, 10:47:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 06, 2013, 08:00:36 PM
Indeed. The Dems basically dumped the Klan/Southern Democrats, who hadn't really been the base since the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.
Think you got that backdated by about 100 years.
You think? Democrats on the national level didn't seem to give them much shrift. They did what they wanted in their shitty states and generally benefited from Dem interventionism, but Democratic policy at the national level was definitely indifferent or inimical to their "regional" interests, e.g. Truman's integrating the armed forces and the Roosevelt and Kennedy appointments to the Warren Court that formed Warren's majority in major "judicially activist" decisions. If KlanDems were their base, they do not appear to be very beholden to them.
Didn't Woodrow Wilson segregate the federal governent because of his love of racial hatred?
Yeah, I think so.
1912 is pretty shortly after the Civil War. -_-
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2013, 12:39:22 AM
Yeah, I think so.
1912 is pretty shortly after the Civil War. -_-
It really isn't. You're a racist for loving your party.
Quote from: Neil on February 07, 2013, 12:36:26 AM
Didn't Woodrow Wilson segregate the federal governent because of his love of racial hatred?
Yeah the thing Ide is missing is the New Deal coalition when Blacks joined the KKK in the Dem base...which is pretty weird but it just shows the ridiculous power of that coalition. For decades it was unbeatable if it could somehow keep its internal contradictions in check.
The point is KlanDems were marginalized nationally, splintered, and began voting GOP long before the present day. A base that not only leaves but is practically pushed out isn't much of a base.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2013, 12:52:17 AM
The point is KlanDems were marginalized nationally, splintered, and began voting GOP long before the present day. A base that not only leaves but is practically pushed out isn't much of a base.
They weren't marginalized, they were a powerful force. The Dems tried to hold onto them as long as they could, heck there were a few hanging around into the 80s. It was ridiculous how much Roosevelt went out of his way to assure them the US would stay racist.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2013, 12:31:01 AM
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2013, 10:47:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 06, 2013, 08:00:36 PM
Indeed. The Dems basically dumped the Klan/Southern Democrats, who hadn't really been the base since the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.
Think you got that backdated by about 100 years.
You think? Democrats on the national level didn't seem to give them much shrift. They did what they wanted in their shitty states and generally benefited from Dem interventionism, but Democratic policy at the national level was definitely indifferent or inimical to their "regional" interests, e.g. Truman's integrating the armed forces and the Roosevelt and Kennedy appointments to the Warren Court that formed Warren's majority in major "judicially activist" decisions. If KlanDems were their base, they do not appear to be very beholden to them.
Democrats definitely enabled Jim Crow laws. I'm going to side with dps; while Democrats gradually moved away from the KKK faction, it wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that it stopped being their base.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2013, 12:52:17 AM
The point is KlanDems were marginalized nationally, splintered, and began voting GOP long before the present day. A base that not only leaves but is practically pushed out isn't much of a base.
They didn't really, their grandkids did.
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2013, 01:42:30 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2013, 12:31:01 AM
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2013, 10:47:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 06, 2013, 08:00:36 PM
Indeed. The Dems basically dumped the Klan/Southern Democrats, who hadn't really been the base since the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.
Think you got that backdated by about 100 years.
You think? Democrats on the national level didn't seem to give them much shrift. They did what they wanted in their shitty states and generally benefited from Dem interventionism, but Democratic policy at the national level was definitely indifferent or inimical to their "regional" interests, e.g. Truman's integrating the armed forces and the Roosevelt and Kennedy appointments to the Warren Court that formed Warren's majority in major "judicially activist" decisions. If KlanDems were their base, they do not appear to be very beholden to them.
Democrats definitely enabled Jim Crow laws. I'm going to side with dps; while Democrats gradually moved away from the KKK faction, it wasn't until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that it stopped being their base.
Yeah, I don't know what Ide's smoking. You see gradual moving away in the early 20th century with some northern Dems supporting anti-lynching laws. The first real big split was desegregation of the army, but even that wasn't permanent. The Civil rights acts of the 1960's is what did it, and the transition from Dem to Republican took about a decade for the GOP to completely lured in the "Wallace voters".
i'm still amazed heitkamp actually beat berg. but after north dakota voted no on all the awful measures it tried to pass a year ago, i suppose i should place some trust in the voters here