The United States Republican Party
Looking at the Republican Party philosophically, my question is this: what do they stand for, at bottom? I’m talking about the leaders. For years it’s been tax cuts and claims of wanting smaller government.
What about today?
What about today?
Comments (90)
Narcissism.
Yep. Same as the Democrats.
Fear.
Donald Trump.
Some Republicans are on board with their base.
Some Republicans disagree with their base on principle, but subordinate that disagreement with a desire to keep the base.
Some Republicans disagree with their base and would not subordinate their disagreement with their base but they are under threat of physical violence or extortion from their base.
Fear.
It would be difficult to distill a consistent Republican philosophy from Nixon to Reagan to Bush Sr., to GW, to Trump, domestically or in foreign policy.
Today, it's a party of cult, with absolute allegiance to Trump required.
When not in power, it's an opposition party with little affirmative plans.
With the rise of groups like Qanon, the Proud Boys, etc and how they've been essentially endorsed by the Republicans during the Capitol attack, it's evident that the GOP only really believes in propagating fruitless, meaningless "culture wars" and retaining the myths of American exceptionalism without putting any thought into it. The contradictory nature of fascism was on full display too as seen from the recent banning of Critical Race Theory in school curriculums. Republicans go on and on about "FREE SPEECH" but are perfectly okay when bills are passed to erase essential history and sociology about the United States as a whole.
Well that's the base. All of that seems to be true: fear of being "replaced" by minorities, fear that their way of life is changing for the worse, some legitimate grievances about stagnation, etc. Most adore Trump. But I was talking about he leaders, the establishment. Most of them don't really like Trump at all. Like McConnell. What do they really stand for anymore? Or is it the same thing they've stood for since the 70s?
Quoting Cheshire
I think this is one piece of a larger picture of wealth transfer.
Quoting Hanover
True. Although I think since Reagan there's a few ideas which have stuck around: "Government is the problem," and cutting taxes.
It does seem like when they're not in power, their strategy is to make the government as dysfunctional as possible, so they can blame the Democrats and get re-elected. It would help perhaps if the Democrats fought a little harder.
It's roughly 700 Billion a year literally by the government to the military suppliers. What larger one did you have in mind?
The trillions of dollars transferred to the wealthy due to (mainly) Republican policies for the last 40 years.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html
It's a little concerning that DeSantis is a more experienced politician than Trump was.
Actually, I was not talking about the base. I was talking about the leader's fear of the base. They may agree with the base, or they may just want the base even if they secretly don't agree with them. Worst case is, they don't agree and don't even want the base, but they are under threat (physical or otherwise) from the base. Liz Cheney is the exception and has bigger balls than all of them. Of course, the base probably knows that if they fuck with Liz, her dad is the kind of guy who would have them disappeared.
Good question.
Usually parties would have an official webpage where this information would be easy to find. At least the information, what the party says itself it has as it's agenda. With the two American parties that is a bit difficult as they are far more looser entities than political parties in other countries. Hence one should not forget that it is the United States and the state-level shouldn't be forgotten.
Just to take an example, here are the stated guiding beliefs of the Republican Party of Texas. Texas is a red state and one of the most important states for the GOP. Here is the mission statement of the RPT:
When you look at that above, it actually does say what modern GOP is all about. Now just compare the above to what the Texas Democrats will tell about themselves and their values:
The idea that the parties don't have any ideology isn't the case. Them sharing the power as a duopoly in the US creates the environment for corruption and other problems. Yet the polarization of American politics can be understood just by looking at the principles and the values written above. Especially, when the two above are the only real alternatives.
Quoting ssu
I see no reason to take what’s written down too seriously. It’s kind of a joke, actually. For example:
The oil industry in Texas has received huge subsidies from the government— federally and state-wide.
What’s professed and what’s actually believed are two different things, of course, and we should look at real actions to determine which is which.
Both parties are beholden to wealthy interests, and the rest is a matter of degree. What the Republicans seem to stand for, ultimately, is complete loyalty to their corporate masters. It’s impressive.
Political agendas, principles and objectives aren't there to be taken literally, but to show what the political party favors and will think to be important. They are more a guide to the political discourse and viewpoints the politicians have than to actual policy decisions. When making actual individual decision there are other issues at hand also.
Yet what they emphasize is no joke. Similarily with the Texas Democrats.
That some industry is subsidized or, well, basically the whole government is running on money printed by the Central bank, doesn't change either the Democrats or the Republicans having their differences.
Quoting Xtrix
And as long as the ordinary people vote for the two-party system, this will go on.
Well, if the Republicans are a political party, then presumably there is a political position somewhere like conservatism, capitalism, anti-socialism, etc.
An important point, and worth mentioning again and again.
There are indeed differences between the parties, despite being beholden to special interests. Those who want to claim they’re “all the same” are being mentally lazy, and overlooks both what you’ve pointed out (written policies) as well as actions.
It seems these days the differences are becoming more extreme, with the Republicans going insane. The left are becoming more progressive, which I would argue is a good thing, though many would claim, predictably, is “just as insane” — while pointing to some misconception they’ve heard from Fox. But I’d hardly say that compares to QAnon or Trump worship— which is taking over the base.
In a powerful country, even small differences make a big impact.
Quoting Apollodorus
They do seem to love “capitalism,” yes. But a particular brand of capitalism: namely, anti-New Deal capitalism. The last 40 years has been a reaction to those policies, in a sense. No surprise it’s been a complete disaster.
It started in the 1980s. Read David Harvey's Brief History of Neoliberalism.
Or it's the polarization of politics in the US.
The Republicans just look more insane for you. Here it should be good to take a few steps back a glance at the politics from another viewpoint.
The reason is that for both parties it has worked well to portray the other party simply going off their rocker. It's the idiotic "Culture war" discourse that takes over nearly every aspect of political discussion. Yet it works. It's the modern social media way of portraying the other side. Claiming to be on the center doesn't work.
The fact is that it seems that there is nobody in the center anymore and the those on the extremes will surely attack people who are in the center. Yet I think many Americans still are in the center.
Yet even if Trump himself was a quite disaster, notice that many Trump administration policies have been continued by the Biden administration (of course not with any public declaration). Hence there is continuity, just as there was when Obama took office from Bush.
I think that the storming of the Capitol has calmed down the desire to embrace the polarization as the US hasn't had huge political fights during the spring and summer. At least many politicians have had enough of this and it tells. Of course, the situation is still tense in the US. One act of violence can again light the flames again. Yet for some time I have not picked up video clips of burning cars, protesters and the police clashing or the military deployed to the streets of some American city. I'd hope it would stay that way.
And now time will tell how much influence Trump actually has with the party. Will all those Trump endorses succeed in getting the nominations in the party? Trump isn't a leader, he is more like an influencer at this stage.
I think Trump's success was from the fact that he seemed like a disruptor, so it's not really two sides at odds. It's a growing grassroots movement to ditch both parties.
Trump was the rightist version. He sold his supporters out because he has no morals. His leftist counterpart was Bernie. All morals, but radioactive due to socialist.
I think Mark Blyth is right:. we missed a system reset in 2008. Hopefully we won't miss the next one and a transformed US will appear out of the economic collapse.
My read of American history during my lifetime (since 1963), which has been congruent with my lived experience socially and politically since at least the late 1970s, is that the GOP is the trojan horse, or avatar, of populist white grievance catalyzed by the 2-steps-forward-1-step-back erosion of "Jim Crow" segregation & discrimination policies since the 1950s that has culminated in recent decades with active backlashes against a "perceived" demographic crisis that's coming (Götterdämmerung!). All the rest of it e.g. low taxes, small government, strong military defense, prayer in schools, pro-life, family values, second amendment rights, "America First", reverse discrimination, "Law & Order", "War on Drugs", etc are just window-dressing and bloody chum tossed out to lure sufficient numbers of unwitting, know-nothing/opportunistic centrists to their "cause" in order to cobble together electoral majorities as needed. Right wingnuts believe none of it, of course, except as evergreen talking points (& dog whistles) used as doubletalk in support of "the cause". The maga-moronic tr45h presidency simply made explicit and overt what had for several decades been implicit and mostly covert.
This is true.
So far it has been the GOP that has felt this more. Yet both parties have had the ability to somehow cope with this when you look at the timeline.
With the GOP it was first the Ron Paul candidacy, then that transformed to the "Tea Party" and then finally to Trump getting the nomination and becoming president. With the DNC it has been a somewaht similar line: first it was the Occupy Movement, then the Bernie Sanders tickets. The DNC has for at least now has not lost the control of the party and has been able to counter the protest movement and criticism with AOC and Bernie etc.
Yet it's doubtful if the two party system can refrain the political turmoil IF their is a hard economic downturn. If the economy survives well enough, there will be no problem. But if you have now a downturn after all the stimulus, then it might get really, really ugly.
An insurmountable credit crunch would make the economy spiral downward, right?
That might not be so nice. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time when a lot of people lose their life savings.
At this rate, the party is coming to represent nothing more or less than personal loyalty and subservience to the infallible personage of Donald Trump.
I haven't yet, but this is the second time it's been recommended to me. Look forward to getting around to it.
Quoting ssu
They do look more insane to me, yes. That goes without saying. But I have no loyalty to the Democratic party either. I see what more conservative minded people think of the Democrats, and a lot of it does appear crazy as well. But I'd challenge anyone to show any kind of parity these days.
Quoting ssu
It certainly seems that way, from the numbers. It's worth remembering that of the population that votes, the biggest group are the independents. They split fairly evenly in where they "lean," but it's a surprising fact for many people. Especially if you spend all your time on Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
A pretty damn good summary, in my opinion.
I see it a little differently. I would add racism and fear of "White replacement" on your list of bloody chum. It's become just as embedded in the party as the anti-abortion position, no doubt. As far as being the first priority upon which the others rest, I think that honor goes to anti-New Deal sentiments, exemplified by the thinking of Milton Friedman and others, and enacted under Reagan. It's neoliberalism through and through.
Today it's embodied completely by McConnell, and Paul Ryan before him. Privatize everything by defunding the programs that work for people -- education, Medicare, social security. They were (and are) up front about it. They've been trying to reverse New Deal programs for years, and have systematically succeeded -- especially in the 80s. You recall Shad's appointment to the SEC, as one example. Can't get more obvious than that.
The rest is, as you say, convenient positions taken to secure a patchwork of a coalition. Whip them into a frenzy about "culture issues" like transgender bathrooms, kneeling athletes, Mr. Potato Head, and of course the "crisis" du jour: critical race theory. Distract them, demonize the left as much as possible, and even embrace Donald Trump as the face of your party -- as long as you get to push through those tax cuts, and as long as nothing fundamentally changes in this country, who cares? That's the current Republican party, in my view.
Well, it's good to know that they are not intent on repealing the law of gravity.
That's a pretty damning document. They know the laws of god and what he looks like, and the intent of the writers of the constitutions.
Sure.
You're an extremely angry person. It's gonna get worse after you read that
The financial sector has become a giant tumor. I'm not sure the patient's going to survive. :grin:
A Crack-up Boom is surely a possibility that is happening just now. Doubling the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve IN ONE YEAR has to have effects. Last time it was during the 2007 recession. How many more times will it work? Inflation is picking up, yet hyperinflation is a totally different creature. And the monetary velocity is plunging. At least with the lockdown.
Balance sheet of the Federal Reserve:
A financial collapse could spell doom for the two-party system. After the pandemic lockdown the last thing the American voter wants is a repeat financial crisis (or the same one coming back). At least it would be a severe political crisis under any circumstance. Basically the US would start to resemble more and more Mexico and less Canada. Yet it should it be noted that the doomsayers have been predicting imminent collapse since 2007 (or earlier). That's fourteen years ago.
Seems like an odd thing to say, but OK.
:100:
Doesn't that seem childishly black and white? As if the other side isn't equally corrupt?
There are some philosophical differences, otherwise people are people.
Why odd?
I'll stand by this.
While narcissism is also apparent in the Democrats, it is perhaps not as institutionalised there as in the Republican Party.
The obsession with self leads to the rejection of the very notion of a common wealth; that sharing has nothing in it for me. Narcissism sits behind the desire for small government - the simplistic view that a smaller government taxes less, or otherwise impedes me less. Narcissism sits behind "Self-sufficient families, founded on the traditional marriage of a natural man and a natural
woman", the family being seen as no more than an extension of the self, as my property.
No, Frank, it does not. We are not talking about "the other side." We are talking about fascist nationalist racist evil. The truth has a liberal bias. Good does not sit around and give the benefit of the doubt to King George, Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Emperor of Japan, Adolf Hitler, Donald Trump or any other worthless POS. The Republicans made their bed when they threw Elizabeth Cheney under the bus. She was the last conservative Republican. She was the last straw. She was their last chance. They can't un-fuck that mess. True conservative Americans need a new party. They don't need to jump in bed with "the other side". But they need to disown America's enemies. They need a real leader.
Yet conservatives are pretty generous when it comes to private aid to communities. There are three religious charity groups where I live. They're busy feeding, clothing, and providing medical care while the state legislators appear to be most successful at getting federal aid to people who don't need it.
Does it?
Yes.
'kay
Not to say that 'liberals' don't have their own vices and blind-spots - sure as hell do - but the 'conservative' movement in the USA has become so utterly corrupted by lies and falsehoods that it is incapable of standing for anything other than the lust for power and conniving ways to get it. They have utterly, completely and totally repudiated the Constitution and the principle of democracy, bedazzled by the TV ratings they presume their 'reality show' leader will get them. (Honorable mention to Adam Kinzinger and the other lone voices trying to stand up for actual Republicanism.)
Where they lose me on the Big Lie is the fact they disavow numerous different court decisions from numerous different judges in numerous different jurisdictions, many of which have a known conservative bent, and some of which were even appointed by Trump. That is a Q-level conspiracy that would have those judges towing a line. And Q is indisputably bat shit crazy.
They Big Lie dummies had the Executive so that's off the plate. Congress is corrupt, so I will throw them that bone. And the media does lack credibility, so they've got that too. But to say the judiciary somehow is overlooking the notion that Trump won the election? That's just fundamental stupidity.
I often wonder why Congressmen/Senators don't stand up on their hind legs and call out the base (Trump is beyond hope). I know some of the legislators disagree with the base, and I know some of them are willing to lose their seat on principle. So the only thing remaining that would keep them from standing up is personal threats of physical violence against them or their family. That I can understand. I would hope the FBI would be looking into that as much, or more than even the January 6 BS.
If you can make an otherwise honorable legislator tow your political line under threat against them or their family, then you are irretrievably a villain and should be dealt with summarily.
But if it's not that, then fuck 'em.
Speaking of which, https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/12/politics/texas-democrats-washington-voting-rights/index.html
The effect is the same: to be hooked into the news, is to be in emotional turmoil. People on both sides believe their anger is justified.
The question is: is this something new? Or Is it business as usual, just with increased speed due to the quick access people have to the group-think? I think it's probably the latter.
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives..."
When pressed to explain his statement, he replied:
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the law of its constitution, be the stupidest party; and I do not see why honorable gentlemen should see that position as at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party . . . There is so much dense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle, and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power."
I can't say that I agree with Mill when it comes to those who once were Conservatives here in God's Favorite Country (though there's always been a Birchist streak), but I wonder whether this may be true of what the Republican Party--the party of the Big Lie, Trump, "election reform," anti-vaxxers, evangelicals, etc.--seems to have become.
Moral: tr45h should have quit the race for the nomination during the GOP primaries when his campaign learned that the Obama administration (ergo also the DLC, RNC, PRC, NATO & EU intelligence services, et al) was on to his campaign's collusion with the Russians. Not 20-20 hindsight either. Willingness to cheat other GOP elites and their not fake-billionaire backers in broad daylight made the tangerine douche DOA ... even after, for protection, he bribed his elite victims with $1.5 trillion dollars in tax cuts (the only piece of significant legistlation the GOP-controlled Congress allowed tr45h during his squalid term – did you notice that?)
The hometown & state long knives are out and decades of partisan and elite payback are coming due because lil fat stupid orange Donnie shat where he ate one too many times – on the world stage no less! It seem to me a good bet this obese grifting hate-spewing Kovid Killer Klown will meet the undertaker before he meets his new soap-on-a-rope buddies in a state or federal prison near you. Either way I'm confident he won't get what he so richly deserves on this side of the grave. Them's the perks.
This is true. Even if he got a real cell, instead of a golf-course spa prison for rich people, he'd still have Secret Service guys standing outside his cell making sure bubba didn't make him his bitch. There is no justice, especially when it comes to the likes of him.
Quoting James Riley
So the history that Jefferson Davis was from the Democratic Party is totally unimportant here? It doesn't matter what a political party was for earlier (before the parties switched voters)? I'd still think that both parties have their own skeletons in their closet. You can just argue that one has more than the other.
Quoting 180 Proof
You should not forget the most important thing with Madoff: He pleaded guilty basically immediately and did not plea bargain with the government. When the person is so exhausted from upholding the ponzi scheme, that he voluntarily gives it up....then US laws are enforced. Hooray.
A lot of similar con men just waited for the stocks to recover...and didn't go to jail. In fact, nearly nobody else went to jail (unlike back in time with the Savings & Loans crisis).
Yes, it is totally unimportant. You see, the United States Republican Party used to be liberal and the United States Democrat Party used to be conservative.
Quoting ssu
No, it does not. The OP said "What about today?"
Don't "love your enemies", because what comes of it is not love, it's passive aggressiveness.
Social Darwinism, as always.
I know, right? How am I supposed to work around that, all MLK and Gandhi and shit? I know very well what the alternative is and I'm trying to avoid that. It's certainly not my nature.
But I've always been attracted to being different from the pack, and doing things the hard way; and loving these worthless bastards has got to be the hardest thing in the world!
Oh, come on, you have got to be more creative than that!
After the misgendering thread, I'm thinking I'm just a curmudgeon and plum out of creativity. :yikes:
That parties have dramatically changed in time is in my view a noteworthy fact, not something totally unimportant.
The reason I discount it is because I'm sick and tired of all the MAGAttes trying to act like they stopped slavery. They use it as a selling point to blacks: "Hey, how can you trust Dems? They fought against your emancipation and us righteous Republicans liberated you." BS. It's not a party thing, it's a liberal/conservative thing.
Republicans, and democrats, are the political equivalent of sports teams. Both sides hate each other simply because they're on a different team.
They are two sides of the same authoritarian coin. They both look for ways to control, regulate and erode freedom away from the American people. Democrats take away your economic freedom and republicans take away your social freedom. I hate them both.
I long for the day when utterly selfish profit-seeking homosexuals can get filthy rich selling weed.
Republicans in particular, quite recently, are turning their back on capitalism (economic freedom). They criticize capitalism for eroding traditional values. They aren't that different from leftists economically, but are actually much worse overall because they're racists and sexists. They are moving towards fascism.
What is also important to notice that these parties can change quite rapidly, basically last time it happened in just one decade. Today's parties might not be the ones from five years from now.
And the sad thing is that these two parties sustain their power grab of the political field by making it so toxic and polarizing.
The utter failure in your reasoning is interesting, but very typical. In the United States we call it "Butwhataboutism". It's a stupid, intentionally distracting tactic designed to take the attention off of one side that is under discussion. Please go see the title of this thread. If you want to start a thread about the Democrats, go head on. Or, if you want to try to bring them into this discussion, go head on. I can't stop you. But don't pretend to tell me what I think about the Democrats and their faults or absence thereof. That's BS. Keep your eye on the ball. You don't have a single fucking clue what I think about Democrats. You know why? Because I'm not talking about them.
Your efforts to school us on history also fail. See the OP. It says "What about today?" Not yesterday. Not the Civil War. Not the 60s. TODAY!
Quoting ssu
This also smacks of another disgusting trait we find here in America. It's that proclivity of the media to give equal time to both sides of an issue, even if that means giving equal time to facts, on one side, and blatant fucking lies on the other. That is not journalism and it's the cause of, and not the result of, a toxic and polarizing situation.
Your dragging the Democrats into this is seen as an effort to take the focus off of Republicans. Your effort to toss in a token "they both do it" argument is seen as giving oxygen to liars.
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. We are talking about Republicans here. They will never understand they are enemies of the Unites States of America if everyone is always giving them aid and comfort by attacking Democrats, or by giving Republican lies equal time, as if there is any credibility there.
You want to fix Dems? Go there. But don't try to school me about what I think on that issue.
The Republican Party is the party that is demonstrably mounting an attack on the Constitution and on democratic principles. As Biden says these attempts to 'fix' the vote are just that - attempts to stay in power by vote-rigging. It's an absolute disgrace and a travesty of democracy.
Take your Ayn Rand bullshit and stick it.. No one is interested -- least of all me.
I agree with ssu that history is important, and that both parties are similar in that both have been bought off by corporate interests (among other things). I like Chomsky's assessment on this: "The Democrats are what used to be called moderate Republicans." I think that's true of the establishment to this day, while the Republicans have gone off the spectrum. But with the influence of Bernie's movement, I think that's beginning to change. We're hearing more sensible (and modest, by international standards) proposals -- universal healthcare, free public education, action on climate change, taxing the wealthy, etc. -- and that's having an effect.
On the other hand, I've been arguing along similar lines with James. It's simply false equivalence to throw our hands up and say "both parties are awful" and leave it at that. That may have been the case as far back as 1996 or even to some degree up to 2008 (at least John McCain had a climate change policy), but it's just obvious now that one party is clearly preferable to the other, despite all their flaws. If for no other reason than what we're seeing with Biden: they're at least capable of being persuaded/pushed into making decent moves. The Republicans? Forget it. They want to go the complete opposite way, so it's hopeless. I use climate change as a good contrast: one party says it's important and makes proposals (usually way to weak, etc), and the other does what? Says it's a hoax. Doesn't get more clear than that. So any kind of variation on the "What about the other side" argument is a pretty tired move to make at this point. Yes, most of us are well aware of the flaws of the Democrats. I'd like to see the two-party system change. But it's what we have right now. So given the choices, I think it's clear which is preferable -- IF we profess to care about the planet, healthcare, the poor, etc.
Should I stick up Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead? I guess Atlas because it's bigger. Ahhh yeah let's go. That's super nice. Uggghhhhhh!!!
Americans have this strange idea of "changing the party from the inside". The revolutionary thing that these two parties have done is to brainwash American voters to think that the parties own invention, "the primaries", are part of the actual election.
Bernie is more like the lure for those young Americans who basically are for social democracy (or that kind of stuff), yet Bernie will bow down to the party machine once the actual decision time comes. Bernie is all too happy to be "the second runner up" to what the party leaders want. And if he gets some legislation through, some success in moving the party to left, that is all he wants. You see, the Democratic Party isn't a social democratic party. Hence it simply won't go for universal health care or workers rights as a fully fledged social democratic party would do. In the US you have a centrist and a right-wing party. Simple as that.
(Yes....Bernie. An alternative? Really? Change will happen?)
Same way Ron Paul lured libertarians to vote for the Republican party, I should add.
(Are these guys supposed to be libertarians or Republicans or RINOs?)
But this leaves out crucial details of the actual circumstances. There's a difference between "bowing down" and being a realist. Right now Manchin is in the way of most progressive legislation. Maybe some members like Manchin being the fall guy, since it lets them off the hook, and if any of it came to a vote they'd be on the fence themselves. Still, he and Sinema are outspoken, so that's the reality in a 50-50 senate.
We'll see what gets done -- if they can pass this latest bill through reconciliation, that'll be a good start. Not sure how much more Bernie can do essentially by himself (with maybe a handful of others on board).
So I really don't see this as fair criticism, especially once the reality of the situation is understood. Given the stakes in the world today, and the senate context, it's necessary to compromise -- otherwise the alternative is that nothing gets done. Given the situation we find ourselves in -- climate change, inequality, etc. -- we can't simply pout it all away. Much like the election last year, and those who advocated for not voting or voting third party because Bernie didn't advance, this is completely irrational.
Quoting ssu
Yes, truisms and cheap cynicism gets us much farther. Too bad the approach of wishing things away doesn't work.
True, the two-party system is awful. That the DNC didn't want Bernie and managed to beat him back is also true. The fact that they're not in favor of many of Bernie's proposals -- also true. I've said all that before myself, and this is widely known. Move on from that.
I don't care for Biden or the Democrats. They happen to be our only realistic bet for anything close to being done, and they're clearly more susceptible to being pushed in the right direction. Right now it's all proposals, and not much has been enacted -- but the proposals themselves are a change. To overlook this is just as unrealistic as being an "optimist" about things.
Well, do you have an universal health care system that other western countries have? Or do you think Biden will give you basically free tertiary (university-level) education like my country has?
Put that to be the benchmark.
Quoting Xtrix
Well, if you accept the two party system, then don't be surprised when nothing really changes.
Besides, a lot of younger Americans don't actually want socialism in the classic sense. What they want is a welfare system equivalent to other western countries in the most richest country and not all the wealth going to the wealthiest.
Quoting Xtrix
And some conservatives will hope that the Republicans would push things to their liking also. So you both will uphold the two party system.
Well, those two parties are counting on you to do that. And then it's just business as usual.
And, of course, there was once the Democratic-Republican Party.
Such an ironic name.
What exactly are you implying by "accept"? I accept the electoral college too, and death for that matter. I don't like any of them. I work to change what can be changed. But at present, they're a reality. So yes, I accept reality despite my feelings, and work within that reality. I encourage everyone to do so.
Quoting ssu
"in the classic sense" is meaningless. Socialism is like talking about "god" -- it can mean almost anything you want. If universal health care and free public education is socialism, fine. If not, that's fine too. Who cares.
Quoting ssu
:roll: :yawn:
Right, because you're doing so much to change it by complaining about it on the internet.
You accept the party when you just hope that the party would change it's course as an internal event. Or think that it's meaningless to vote for any other party however disappointed you are in the party: that your vote would be then "lost".
Quoting Xtrix
One should care what parties are in favor of them. It's not actually socialism, you know. Many right-wing parties at least in Europe are for them. Good example is Sweden. Put often to be an example of socialism, the country is quite capitalistic and "capitalism friendly". Modern Social Democracy isn't totally against capitalism.
Quoting Xtrix
It really isn't my thing as a foreigner to do that. I'm still quite happy at politics in my country. The US-type polarization hasn't yet landed here. Hopefully the bullying never reaches these shores.
What I'm saying is that many people have these illusions on how much power the current political parties have and assume that the landscape is totally fixed. It isn't. In the US example a third party could rise to oppose the duopoly if it would have the strategy to start from the grass roots level, from communal and state level. Not thinking that a rapid dash of a third contender in the Presidential elections would do the job. It won't. To improve (or restore) democracy, one first has to believe in it.
You're completely wrong about the first point. It's typical of those who apparently believe voting is the only political action available, in fact (not to say you're one of them, but this line of argument is often used by them).
But no, it's not about sitting back and "hoping." As I've said many times, it's about doing the opposite: not simply sitting down after voting and passively watching with fingers crossed, but organizing, activism, involvement, educating oneself and others, developing and pushing for programs, etc. The Sunrise Movement is a good example of this. There would be no Green New deal proposal if not for them. That's significant, and it's not simply a matter of voting. It's what happens after you vote where real change is created. I've said this all along.
As for the second, you're somewhat correct -- except in the case of a non-swing state, in which case there's some argument to be made for voting third party. To not vote at all, or to give your vote to a third party, in a swing state, rather than to the least damaging of the two parties (who will realistically come into power) is irrational and irresponsible. That's just a matter of counting. Whether it's meaningful is not the point -- it may very well be meaningful to you. But that doesn't circumvent arithmetic, our feelings of disappointment aside.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting ssu
Again: talk of "socialism" and "capitalism" are essentially useless, at least until we define our terms. The point is the policies. So saying a country is "capitalist friendly" is meaningless to me. Most countries, as I think you're aware, are mixed economies. In the US, we're a state-capitalist economy. Massive state intervention on all levels. That's not the capitalism of Friedman or Smith or Ricardo.
So the point is the policies, and you're right -- we should see which parties support these policies, all labels aside. And it just so happens that the Democratic party in the United States are becoming more receptive to these policies, though we have a LONG way to go. Still, there's a progressive wing within in Sanders, AOC, Warren, Markey, and others. We can and should constantly hold them accountable criticize them mercilessly, push them further and further, etc. But given the Republican party, and how dangerous they are, the Democrats are also currently the best shot we have at getting anything through whatsoever. With the Republicans, there's no chance. Zero. In fact they now stand for the polar opposite of what we want policy-wise.
Quoting ssu
OK -- where do you live?
Quoting ssu
Well count me as a believer. Count me as a believer in abolishing the electoral college. Count me in for overthrowing capitalism, for that matter.
There are lots of things I'd like to see happen, and I'll continuing pushing for them as long as I'm alive. But as you said, a national third party hasn't gained any traction yet. Ross Perot, oddly enough, garnered the most votes of any third party in decades with his "Reform Party" in 1992. Some say he only helped Clinton get elected. But regardless, if it's a matter of belief, then it's up to us to build up that belief, start small, and build up a third party and then hopefully spread to other states and, eventually, on a national level.
You're right, it's not inevitable. It's actually extremely odd that a country like ours doesn't have some kind of labor party. But as long as most people don't find that strange, it's unlikely to change.
There are obviously a multitude of ways to participate in politics and the democratic process, but usually the thing for many is voting.
Quoting Xtrix
Wasn't the term essentially useless to you, as many other terms?
Quoting Xtrix
That is the way people look at it, yet there is the illogical idea of a third party being a spoiler: that especially if the third party is going for the voters that have voted for your party, it will cause the opposite side to win. This is why polarization works for the duopoly.
Good that you mentioned Perot. I think he was an unfortunate kind of "third party" is the political movement was centered around one person, likely who will run for the highest executive position. These parties are so loose, are totally dependent on the whims of this single person and will simply vanish once the great leader has died. In fact, Ross Perot isn't the only example, Teddy Roosevelt even tried the third party gambit after already been a President.
(He was fit as a Bull Moose for the Progressive Party.)
I think they have been incredibly consistent.
They stand for, at bottom, no less than the complete destruction of the United States. Just look at some of their recent accomplishments:
* They actively made Covid as destructive and painful for us as they possibly could have
By first hoaxing, to politicizing masks, to politicizing vaccines, to legislating against any mandates, they have successfully brought the most powerful and resourced country to its knees with this virus. They are directly responsible for dozens of 9/11s worth of excess deaths.
* They facilitated and covered for the ransack of the Capitol, in order to end democracy.
Let that indisputable sentence sink in. And those most unpatriotic of all goons had the nerve to wave their stupid flags and bald eagles.
* They punished and humiliated the nation with Trump
Had they just flown a cargo jet full of manure and literally taken a dump on lady liberty's face, America would not have suffered 1/100th the humiliation and loss of face in the world than we did with 4 years or Trump. While crying about us being global laughingstocks, they simultaneously made us into one.
* They revel in, and don't just do nothing, they actively accelerate the climate catastrophe
What more effective way to bring down a nation than to bring down the whole planet with it?
They are the autophages gobbling up the dying cells of American empire.
Can't argue with any of that. They bring their voters with them in their media, then when the voters get too insane, they're left with a dilemma: either be insane ourselves, or pretend to be so we can stay in power. They've mostly chosen the latter. And why? For what end? Simple: to gain even more power for the class they represent -- the corporate class. The Republicans are much more loyal to business than the Democrats are, and even the Democrats are loyal. The Dems also aren't being bought off by the worst type of scum in history: the fossil fuel industry. Worse than tobacco companies, by far.
So bring down the country -- kill people by denying pandemics, masks and vaccines; get people unnecessarily riled up and divided against the "liberal elites" as "Anti-American" or "Communists" or "Destroyers of America"; destroy the environment by acerbating climate change. All for more power.
It's incredible. Chomsky is right: "The Republican party is the most dangerous in human history."
Freedom.
:rofl:
"Republicans are America's Problem" by Charles M. Blow
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/opinion/republicans-cheney-trump-democracy.html
I saw that too.
I think people are beginning to realize that Chomsky's statement a few years ago, that "The Republican party is the most dangerous organization" in human history, although criticized at the time, is absolutely true. Not just for their being vehemently anti-democracy, but because of their rush to destroy the prospects of human life on earth, through their unanimous denial of global warming and promotion of fossil fuel use.
And yet there's a good chance they take over congress in a couple months and obtain the presidency in 2024. Pretty scary.
No I don't think so. Don't believe the hype. Individual-1 is dead man trundling. Desantis is loathsome even in Florida. Maybe Tucker Carlson will run ... :sweat:
No need to fret just yet about 2024.
Anyway, as for 2022, long before Moscow Mitch conceded this week (or last) that the Dems are likely to pick up seats in the Senate, I'd been saying at least since SCOTUS wantonly shat on Reproductive Freedom that the Dems chances of holding the House & Senate were good. Recall the anti-abortion referendum got crushed in ruby red Kansas just a couple of weeks ago! (Iirc, about a third of rural Republicans – women no doubt – voted against the GOP measure!)
And since the public J6 Hearings have significantly moved polls on Independents away from the GOP this summer and extreme Trumpstains are on so many ballots around the country making otherwise safe seats competitive, Dems midterm chances have only improved. The latest news about tr45h being investigated for Espionage, etc can only turn off / frighten the same Independent and moderate Republican suburban voters who bailed on the GOP in 2018 and 2020. And y'know there's at least a footlocker's worth of boots to drop before November, don't ya? :up:
Lastly, inflation is inching down and gas prices have been dropping – that'll ease up the anti-Biden/Dems negatives a little. Improvements on the margins in a number of areas will add up to significant, maybe general election size turn-out which always favors Dems.
As far as the Charles Blow op-ed goes, he gives greater voice to something I've been crowing about for years on a number of threads (re: posted a link above the op-ed link in my previous post) about the long-term "populist" trends and anti-democratic decades-long trajectory in America which has culminated in this historical moment: Make Apartheid Great Again. :angry:
Er, I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. I think the Republicans have gerrymandered their way to control of the House no matter what. Polling doesn't look great on that front either. Slightly better in the Senate.
Quoting 180 Proof
Like I said, I hope so. But I'm not counting on it, given the historical trends. This could be very different, however -- if the turnout is high. The last two elections they've been high, and I have no idea if they will be for this one or not. Maybe young people will get out to vote, maybe not. Older people generally vote, and I think they have to be liking the bill regarding prescription drugs.
There's also Biden's approval numbers, which aren't great.
Overall, I'm not as optimistic but there certainly are some positive trends. Fingers crossed.