@Lemernis Sorry for necro-raising this thread, but the other Republican candidates weren't much better than Romney was. Michelle Bachmann? She's batshit crazy. Rick Santorum? He's even more concerned with the state of my uterus than Romney was! At least some part of losing the election was the batshit crazy contingent and their war on women and women's right to control their own bodies and right to choose. And then you had Akin and Mourdock opining on "Legitimate/Real Rape". I know that left a really BAD taste in the mouths of a lot of young/younger women.
Its hard to say in that batch of people who could have won for the republicans (and if they should have at all) but I'd say of those primary candidates Johnson came across as being a better choice than Romney. In my opinion anyways.
I think Chris Christie has a strong shot in 2016, if he chooses to run. I think the Republican party has to become more moderate to survive, given the changing demographics of the country. Christie's the type of 'strong leader' personality who could pull that off in away that will minimize the appearance of sacrificing too many of the party's core principles. It could well be Christie versus Hillary.
Well, at this point, the Republican party can go a few ways. One is to not do anything (because being conservative is about tradition and not changing at all), and end up being completely irrelevant. Second is it could split between those who see a need to change and those who will double down on either not changing or dragging the party even futher to the right than it is already. In which case, it may survive, but there will be tons of infighting over who the "real" Republican party is. And the third is to go even further right, get more and more reactionary, and lose voters in droves.
Yea I kind of don't see the republican party becoming irrelevant. I mean, its possible. But even if it ends up being the party of old white men, they do have a lot of money to spend. Apart from the Roosevelt - Truman years in the 20th century the US has generally switched between being republican or democrat in the White House every 8 years, so there is a good possibility the republicans will get elected there in 2016. I mean its possible that the democrats will remain in office in 2016 (Bush Sr. followed Reagan), but its not likely unless Obama has a very good second term (or perhaps if Hillary runs).
Tea Partiers are most likely in shock and denial that their message didn't resonate as well as they presumed it would or should with the middle class. They were the ones who went in with a no-compromise, winner-take-all mentality, and have managed to hold the party hostage in a way, with the number of votes they have. And that did not click at all with the so-called 'swing voters' who tend to be centrist and moderate. This is the type of voter dismissed by conservative ideologues such as Rush Limbaugh, who hold so much sway in the Republican party. He sees them (and portrays them to his followers) as wifty, woolly-minded, and lacking core convictions.
But that fact is that many of these "swing" voters do, on the one hand, concur that government needs to trim itself down and operate much more efficiently, and keep taxes as low as possible, etc., but on the other hand they are not in agreement with many or most of the social issue positions that drive the right. The Republican party was for a while trying to 'build a bigger tent' for these voters, although there was still the strong risk for them of being marginalized within the party (and who wants that?). That of course ended abruptly when the Tea Party took Congress by storm in 2010.
The battle for control of the hearts and minds of the political center/middle class will be won by the party that can persuade voters that it can bring government spending under control, while also being social Libertarians. The Tea Party basically ceded that ground to the Democrats. Other voices in the Republican ranks will soon attempt to stake this territory for the party. Look for Republican governors to lead the way on this, eg, Jindal, Christie, et al.
One more observation along these lines: it is fascinating to see how either party will hang itself given enough rope. Whenever they believe they have a "mandate" the extremists amongst them push the party too far away from the center. And these days elections are won at the center.
@Lemernis The Democrats were helped by the fact that things *are* getting better. Home sales are up, people are starting to find jobs again (and not just temporary jobs). Things are getting better, and people know it. Yes, some Republican D-bags have claimed that they will have to let people go because Obama care passed, but even they are few and far between. And most of them seem to be using that as a mere excuse for other problems the business is also having.
@LadyRhian It helps that there has been some improvement, although, honestly, I think if the banks world don't get straightened out we're poised for an even worse economic recession or depression. They now are literally "too big to fail," such that if the banking industry experiences another meltdown the U.S. government absolutely will have no choice but to step in and bail them out again. And to do that yet again, thereby driving up the national debt by even more trillions, pushes the nation quite literally towards insolvency. That would be dire indeed, because we're already facing a scenario in the next two decades with the enormous babyboomer population receiving Medicare benefits/living to 100/with retirement funds depleted, and too few working age people paying into the system to support it. And if "extreme weather events" continue to pile up on us (the worst of which imo would be a massive solar flair that fries the nation's entire electrical grid--which is truly a nightmare scenario), the difficult and painful climb out of debt becomes all the steeper.
But back to the banks, the capitalist market fundamentals are thrown out of whack by the recent advent of a government bailout system. The banks essentially now have tacit permission to behave irresponsibly, i.e. , take risks that they otherwise would not, or rely on unsound business plans, etc., because they know they'll be bailed out. Bailouts remove the checks on risky/foolish behavior that the market already has in place and relies upon to function properly. The shotcallers at the banks make insane amounts of money personally, and are driven pretty much solely by the bottom line of profit for profit's sake alone. There's no real penalties for their malfeasance either, i.e., we saw none of them indicted after the last market crash from the mortgage industry meltdown. So it's not a good mix. These are also the same powerful interests that ultimately control (powerfully influence) legislation on both sides of the aisle, by the way.
Anyway, not to be overly pessimistic about it all, but we could be in for some real deep doo-doo if government doesn't truly get itself together. It will take a president with exceptional leadership skills and the ability to cut through all the crap by appealing directly to the hearts and minds of a politically divided electorate (a la Reagan or Kennedy) to get compromises from both sides. I hope Obama is that person. I think of the two candidates in the 2012 presidential election, he was more likely to accomplish it than Romney. But his presidency will be judged by history according to his performance with that ability in the next four years, I believe. It won't be for striving/failing to achieve all the party platform planks that warm the cockles of progressives' hearts.
@Lemernis I don't disagree with you, but part of the reason Obama didn't get much done in his first four years was that he tried to work with the Republicans, who flatly refused to work with him. When he decided to just ram stuff through Congress, like Obamacare, then they whined about that, too. What other choice did they give him? They wanted to block him from doing anything so they could dub him a "do-nothing President". Well, that didn't work, but we'll see if they force him to ram stuff through again. They can still whine, but I hope if they try this shit again, he picks up on it faster this time.
All I know is I'm sick of all the focus on social issues. I don't give a shit about all these details; gay marriage, abortion, war on drugs. I don't freakin' care. And honestly, unless you're a homosexual in a dedicated relationship, you're planning on getting an abortion some day in your life (wut?), or you're a huge coke addict, WHY DO THESE MATTER SO MUCH? Stop pushing your ideals on other people, it doesn't even work! I just want the economy fixed.
Honestly, people make fun of Bill Clinton a lot, and they should, but I'd prefer him over all of the morons we have right now. "It's the economy, stupid!" That slogan could really, really come in handy right about now. On top of that, while I didn't agree with his politics, he was a President who saw the ways the winds were blowing and ADAPTED! Adapted, instead of putting up walls and pointless fights that hinder any sort of progress whatsoever! Like this "hope and change" horse shit, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. I have not seen a single candidate in over 16 years who was inspiring in any way. The closest was Ron Paul, but while his policies are good, his charisma is stiflingly pitiful.
The two-party system sucks ass, all it is is an excuse to blame all your problems on your predecessor, and squabble amongst each other when the fight isn't truly between Republicans and Democrats, it's between the Government and the People. Seriously, when the Executive Branch has become a celebrity position, and when you're voting "hmm, who sucks slightly less than the other?" you know there's a problem!
The Democrats were helped by the fact that things *are* getting better. Home sales are up, people are starting to find jobs again (and not just temporary jobs). Things are getting better, and people know it.
Well, wherever you are, I am genuinely happy that things are getting better; unlike my state. California is in shambles. I found a list just the other day, "10 worst cities for getting a job" and 7/10 of the cities were in California. Worse yet, 4 of these cities are within an hour of where I live. Gahh.
@Quartz I'm sorry to hear that, honestly. But then again, the Republicans kinda scraped the bottom of the barrel with their current crop of candidates. I mean, seriously... That was the best they could do? Rick Santorum? Michelle Bachmann? And the vibe I got from Herman Cain was that he was there to be blacker than Obama so that black people would vote for him based on the color of his skin, and that's just pitiful as well as racist. Now they are going after Marco Rubio because he might hand them the Hispanic vote, being Hispanic himself. It's even more racist to try and promote people who are of a race you want to get the vote of without putting any thought into the ideas they have. "We need Hispanics... Rubio is Hispanic, let's get him. It doesn't matter what kind of guy he is or what ideas he might have, we need Hispanics, and he can get us that." It's the most blinkered, cynical try at a vote grab ever. And it's offensive, because they are ultimately implying that they think non-whites only see skin color and not a candidate's ideas or positions. And as long as they think that way, they deserve to lose.
And... I'm not gay, but I am for gay rights to get married. Because they should have the same right to marry the person they love that I do. It's an equal rights thing. It's not so much abortion as the right of a woman to control her own body. It's men deciding what women are allowed to do with their own bodies rather than the woman and her doctor deciding. It's as if a man had to get the consent of his mother, wife or some female administrator before getting viagra or similar erectile dysfunction medication. It's intrusive. Nobody but the person in question and the doctor performing the procedure should have the right to have a say in these things. And that's the way I feel. And it also smacks of Republicans (because it always seems to be the Republicans putting forward this sort of legislation) controlling the bodies and sexuality of women. As a woman, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I have no intention of ever getting pregnant or being pregnant, but I want that right for women who do happen to become pregnant. And it's especially galling when so many of these bills don't even give the woman a right to have an abortion even in cases of rape or incest. I think a precedent of having to give birth to the child of a scumbag who raped you is not one I would be willing to support.
It's not that social issues don't matter or are inconsequential. They can have enormous consequences. But practically speaking they become used politically as wedges that result in immobility. And right now gridlock is not something we can afford. Many Republican voters like gridlock because they're antagonistic towards government itself. As guarded as I am about government bloat, inefficiency, and bureaucracy, I've never bought into the conservative argument that "government is the problem." At this point in history we need government to function well!--not screech to grinding halt. The government truly is us, but we do have to find a sober, rational way to make it accountable. I honestly believe that the hope for the future lies with unaffiliated centrist pragmatists--which is why I remain independent and will never fully side with either party.
@LadyRhian Re: Republican intransigence, truth to tell, actually both sides share a lot of blame in playing politics and refusing to make concessions.
@Lemernis I don't think gay marriage is going to be able to be used as a wedge for much longer. As time goes on, more people support it, so it gets the conservative right less traction. Let's not forget, two more states now allow gay marriage after the last election. So it may be a wedge issue now, but so many states have had gay marriage, and the world hasn't ended, and traditional marriage is still happening and strong, so people are seeing the Doomsayers were just being overly alarmist.
And the vibe I got from Herman Cain was that he was there to be blacker than Obama so that black people would vote for him based on the color of his skin, and that's just pitiful as well as racist. Now they are going after Marco Rubio because he might hand them the Hispanic vote, being Hispanic himself. It's even more racist to try and promote people who are of a race you want to get the vote of without putting any thought into the ideas they have. "We need Hispanics... Rubio is Hispanic, let's get him. It doesn't matter what kind of guy he is or what ideas he might have, we need Hispanics, and he can get us that." It's the most blinkered, cynical try at a vote grab ever. And it's offensive, because they are ultimately implying that they think non-whites only see skin color and not a candidate's ideas or positions. And as long as they think that way, they deserve to lose.
Umm, the democrats did not exactly nominate Obama as their candidate in 2008 for his years of leadership governing a state, his experience growing a business from the ground up, his economic education, or any kind of extensive voting record (because frankly 4 years of a voting record at the national level and 7 years at the state level is not very extensive given he was running for the job of president). They voted him in because he is a decent speaker with a decent platform, but him being visually black (and therefore representing change) was a big part of his nomination. So its not like the republicans are the only party that sees the benefit politically of using a racial minority candidate, their methods are just a little more direct. I'd also point out that the strategy worked in the democrats favour in 2008 as (assuming the exit polls are reasonably accurate) 95% of black people polled voted for Obama.
Alright, so this is going to come off as mean, but honestly @LadyRhian you are sounding like a broken record. You are basically saying three things over and over: 1. The Republican candidates sucked. 2. Abortion laws shouldn't be delegated by, like, some ~90% men or so. (Rough estimate, I don't care it gets the point across) 3. Gay marriage should be legal.
To which I say. 1. Agreed. Again Ron Paul was okay but he's so awkward and unconvincing it was never going to happen. 2. Agreed. I'm of the standpoint that abortion should be fully legalized and then heavily discouraged. If it's illegal then there will always be women who are going to die in alleyways with a coat hanger. Rather grotesque image but it's true. 3. Agreed. Marriage shouldn't even be controlled by the government in the first place, but since it is, then yes legalize gay marriage it doesn't affect me why should my opinion matter?
So my point remains. I may agree with 95% of what you're saying, but at the same time, as I said, I really don't give a shit about all that. I want the economy fixed and I'm not the only one. I'm glad we can all prance about, saying life is so good and we are the privileged Americans who are entitled to everything (*cough* Wallstreet protests *cough*) so we don't have to worry about anything, so let's all whine about social issues so we can gridlock, but shit's sake the economy should be the government's first and foremost concern.
-------
Oh, and I'm not Republican in the slightest obviously, but the term "Republican war on women" is so full of fail, please stop using it. I have known a lot, I mean a lot of Republican women and it isn't about some "war against their own rights" or whatever the hell, to them it is taking a stand for what they believe in. Now clearly, I'm Libertarian and I believe people should do whatever the hell they want and I can't shove my ideals on others, but said Republican women DO shove their ideals on others. Now without discussing whether it is right or wrong to shove your ideals on others, they are standing for what they believe in, they believe that abortion is sick and wrong and that's as far as it goes. "Republican war on women" is an idiotic term because it is a large group of women saying, "come on guys, we can aspire to more than this!", not "hahaha, screw your rights!!" I know loads of Republican women. This is a fact, this is how they feel about it.
That's all well and good, but I would never tell anyone what to do with their body based on my beliefs. They are trying to dictate their beliefs on other people's bodies. But you know what? Their right to their beliefs stops where my body begins. If they don't like abortions, they don't have to get one. But they are being hypocrites by forcing other people to live lives by their beliefs alone. Would they agree to live their lives by Muslim beliefs if enough people in the US agreed? You know they wouldn't. But apparently, it's okay to force other people to live their lives by a specific set of Christian beliefs, because THEY think it's okay.
That's all well and good, but I would never tell anyone what to do with their body based on my beliefs. They are trying to dictate their beliefs on other people's bodies. But you know what? Their right to their beliefs stops where my body begins. If they don't like abortions, they don't have to get one. But they are being hypocrites by forcing other people to live lives by their beliefs alone. Would they agree to live their lives by Muslim beliefs if enough people in the US agreed? You know they wouldn't. But apparently, it's okay to force other people to live their lives by a specific set of Christian beliefs, because THEY think it's okay.
Just to add that there are probably many people who take the stances you describe on abortion who also would have no problem with putting the ten commandments in or outside court buildings, even if it is a jewish/christian passage of which the roughly half doesn't actually deal with modern laws in any respect (honour the sabbath, no other gods before me etc). So its not just abortions and that kind of social policy that they are pushy on.
@Quartz While I kinda agree with what you're saying (about how social issues should take a backseat to more pressing matters), I'm not sure your argument is the best. It seems that you're pretty much just saying that nobody should give a shit about anything that doesn't directly affect them. Probably not the greatest mindset to have.
True. Somewhere is a list of the ten commandments with one of them saying "Remember the Sabbeth and keep it holy." Yes, misspelling. I found it amusing that they spent all that money putting up this large monument, and then can't even get the spelling correct!
That's all well and good, but I would never tell anyone what to do with their body based on my beliefs. They are trying to dictate their beliefs on other people's bodies. But you know what? Their right to their beliefs stops where my body begins. If they don't like abortions, they don't have to get one. But they are being hypocrites by forcing other people to live lives by their beliefs alone. Would they agree to live their lives by Muslim beliefs if enough people in the US agreed? You know they wouldn't. But apparently, it's okay to force other people to live their lives by a specific set of Christian beliefs, because THEY think it's okay.
Here you go on your broken record again. How many times do I have to say that I completely agree with you?
I literally just got done saying I disagree with that mindset too, and that just because they have what we both feel is an unfair mindset, does not mean they are "warring against rights/war on women/whatever." That is NOT how they feel about it. They feel they are "saving the country from going morally downhill" or some such ... which again we both disagree with this, but this is how THEY feel. My point had nothing to do with whether they were proper in doing as such, my point was that they are NOT in some "war against women."
Now that I just got done repeating myself, are you getting where I'm coming from now? I hope you are understanding what I'm meaning. What I mean is that all these folks firmly believe they are voting for the greater good of their country, NOT that they are trying to rob people of their rights. I dislike your attitude that they are "the bad guys." Broadly speaking, no one is "the bad guys." There are, of course, a few select individuals who are chaotic evil but those are exceptions.
Basically. Don't use the term "Republican war on women." It's wrong. It's "Republicans trying to force ideals on people they don't know, because they think that they are doing their country a favor." Which, again, we both think is stupid, but that is irrelephant.
@Quartz While I kinda agree with what you're saying (about how social issues should take a backseat to more pressing matters), I'm not sure your argument is the best. It seems that you're pretty much just saying that nobody should give a shit about anything that doesn't directly affect them. Probably not the greatest mindset to have.
I was indeed exaggerating, you are right. The proper way to phrase it is "social issues should take a backseat to more pressing matters." That is well said, so thank you.
@Quartz I call it a "War on Women" because that's what it is. They spend no time thinking about the men who get these women pregnant-it's only on the woman to change themselves. Why not spend time tracking down the men who are the fathers and force them to support the kid as well? But the men get off scott-free. That's why its a war on women. Men aren't blamed, men aren't held to account. And yet, they are half responsible for the problem, They only penalize the woman. If it's not a war on women, it's holding women unequally responsible for a supposed problem. So I'll continue to call it a Republican "war on women" because women are the only one being punished for the "sin" of having sex. When they hold men equally responsible for the problem? Then I'll stop calling it an unequal punishment of women at best.
@LadyRhian Thank you for finally just saying it, seriously. The circular logic was getting very old. That said, child support happens. It should probably happen more often, and other such actions as you point out. Well put. Of course, I believe none of it should be in the government's hands in the first place, but that's another problem entirely.
One of the other things related that bothers me is that a lot of parents are over-protective of their daughters but not their sons. Just a coincidence? Yeah, not so much.
I suppose this is directed at the entire thread. I find it a pretty good discussion. I come from a background (southern, conservative Christian family) where I was taught abortion is wrong, gay marriage (gay anything) is wrong, etc.... I have come to accept a completely different worldview based on my desire for all humans to have equal rights. I was a direct supporter of Obama in 2008 and 2012... anyway I just wanted to provide some background information on myself having been raised my entire life in a community which is 90% "republican fundamentalist"... I think many of these people are mostly nice, mostly well meaning. Some of them are certainly self-righteous, ignorant, willfully harmful people (seriously, many church-going Republican voters really are Lawful Evil lol)... The problem is they really don't understand anyone else's worldview - or how it could possibly be valid. This leads them to the strong beliefs such as disregarding the rights of others for the sake of their own sense of morality.
I know a lot of people who grew up in backgrounds like mine, some that are even family, who HATE fundamentalists after escaping the background and will rant for days about their views. I on the other hand look at it as a case of ignorance and do not really blame them. I blame no one really - in time these views will almost entirely fade out (I really do believe this). We'll end up with a much more balanced political discussion revolving about how we should change the government/economy for the better - not IF we should.
Oh also, I'm a straight married man who seriously supports gay rights, gay marriage, etc. So the idea that only "gay people", cocaine addicts, and people planning to have an abortion care about these issues is kind of silly. That said, I can see the argument for more of a focus on the economy - the catch is I really do believe that this would have been the case in this election if the right would stop pushing their negative agenda and just accept change (not change for themselves, but the possibility of change for their countrymen with opposing views). At that point we can have an election more based in economics and plans for the future. I think this will be the case for the Republican party - at least I hope so. I'd like to have to actually think more about who I'm voting for (like in the Clinton vs. Bush era). Maybe someday soon we can get back to that level of discussion.
I think the main reason the Republicans lost the election is because they alienated too many of their potential voters. As others have said, their stance on abortion and certain Republican candidates' statements about rape did not come across well to a large number of female voters. Granted, not every female voter would vote the same way. Every person of any demographic will not vote as a cohesive block, since they are all individuals who have different opinions and may weight certain issues higher than others.
Although not everyone in any demographic will vote one way or the other, doing things that will antagonize certain groups of people is not a good way to win their votes. In the years and months leading up to the election, the Republican party was involved in several high-profile controversies in which they imposed on the civil rights of various groups. Arizona's anti-illegal immigrant laws that many saw as racially profiling Hispanics, for example, may not cause every Hispanic to vote Democrat, but will likely cause many who were otherwise undecided to vote for the party that wasn't enacting discriminatory laws against them. Hispanics make up a very large percentage of the population in some states, in Florida, for example, so this may have affected the election. Similarly, the Republican stance on gay marriage will likely not endear homosexuals to them, although again there are probably homosexuals who will vote for either party due to their own individual beliefs. I myself disagree with the Republican party on almost every issue, so I would never vote for them anyway, but if all other things were equal, the fact that many Republicans discriminate against Atheists and try to force their religion into schools does not endear me, as an Atheist, to them. Even if I were indifferent to the other aspects of the Democrat and Republican platforms (which I'm not) I wouldn't vote for the Republicans because they have gone out of their way to alienate my demographic and the Democrats have not done so.
A good example of this is Hawaii. In the decades before Hawaii became a state it was a U.S. territory, which was firmly under Republican control. It's a lot more complicated than this, but in summary, the Republican party was mostly white and enacted laws that were very discriminatory towards Asian people. Although there was a large Asian population in Hawaii at that time, most of them were immigrants who could not vote because they weren't American citizens. Eventually, however, the Hawaii-born children of these immigrants grew up, and they could vote. The Republicans wouldn't change their policies, but they now made up a very small proportion of the state's voters (today Asian people make up over half Hawaii's population). The result is that the Democratic party has been in control of Hawaii, with very rare deviation, from the mid-1950s to the present. Indeed in the 2012 election, 70% of Hawaii's vote went to Obama (72% in 2008) and the senate and representative races were similarly stacked in favor of Democrats. For that matter, there is currently only one Republican in Hawaii's entire state senate. Sure there are other factors that affect this, but historically the Republicans alienated over half their voters, and they are still paying the price.
Just to be fair... A lot of folks forget that it was actually Republican senators who got America's civil rights laws passed, over and against the southern Dixiecrats (i.e., Dems--eg, George Wallace). Republicans also ended slavery during the Civil War (the worst of the carpetbaggers that followed notwithstanding).
At least today, I think the notion that Republicans are somehow racist at heart is kind of a canard. Their leading exponents like Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthhammer, Rich Lowry, Jonha Goldeberg, et al, are not racists. Inded, their arguments are based on a principle that everyone should be approached in a racially neutral way. But the fact that the party takes positions that are reasonably perceived as anti-minority is a major disconnect, though.
I think where the Republican party is most vulnerable is in its arguments that are so transparently protectionist towards corporations and the mega-rich. Imo, it is true that if we over-regulate business and overtax people that's not good for the economy (emphasis on "over," and obviously there is going to be perpetual disagreement over what that means), at least in a capitalist society. But the 'trickle down' arguments (philosophically epitomized by Ayn Rand) really haven't proven to hold water very well in recent cycles. That said, I'll be honest that I do not see a clear solution to the problem of striking some sort of balance that neatly satisfies everything. And this is where I fault both sides for essentially trying to brainnwash their faithful that they do have have those solutions.
Just to be fair... A lot of folks forget that it was actually Republican senators who got America's civil rights laws passed, over and against the southern Dixiecrats (i.e., Dems--eg, George Wallace). Republicans also ended slavery during the Civil War (the worst of the carpetbaggers that followed notwithstanding).
At least today, I think the notion that Republicans are somehow racist at heart is kind of a canard. Their leading exponents like Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthhammer, Rich Lowry, Jonha Goldeberg, et al, are not racists. Inded, their arguments are based on a principle that everyone should be approached in a racially neutral way. But the fact that the party takes positions that are reasonably perceived as anti-minority is a major disconnect, though.
I think where the Republican party is most vulnerable is in its arguments that are so transparently protectionist towards corporations and the mega-rich. Imo, it is true that if we over-regulate business and overtax people that's not good for the economy (emphasis on "over," and obviously there is going to be perpetual disagreement over what that means), at least in a capitalist society. But the 'trickle down' arguments (philosophically epitomized by Ayn Rand) really haven't proven to hold water very well in recent cycles. That said, I'll be honest that I do not see a clear solution to the problem of striking some sort of balance that neatly satisfies everything. And this is where I fault both sides for essentially trying to brainnwash their faithful that they do have have those solutions.
The parties have essentially switched places (between progressive and conservative) in the last century though so much of what you discussed is kind of, super dated. While it is true that the Republican party did represent such things in the past, and they one were the "more progressive" party this has not been the case in decades. Arguing for the validity of a parties stances based on 50+ year old views doesn't seem like a very strong case. I like to view the distinctions as "conservative party" vs "progressive/liberal party" since those have been at least slightly more consistent over our countries history - but truthfully the parties look so different now compared to how they looked 40-50 years ago that it is hard to discuss anything other than their current stances. Currently there are many Republicans who are not racist and are upstanding members of society - that does not however keep the fundamentalist nutjobs from ruining it for the rest of the bunch. Which I believe is the major point myself and some other posters are trying to make: they need to clean up their party's stances on social issues if they want to be taken more seriously. (opinion)
I'm just pointing out that things like the reflexive cries from the left of racism for Republicans not supporting Affirmative Action in more recent times, for example, tend to reflect a misunderstanding of the reasons why they oppose it. (FWIW, my own feeling is that in time it truly will no longer be necessary, but we're not there yet.)
Fifty years is not a lot of time, really! When it comes to a political philosophy principles endure. The arguments for basic liberties, civil rights, human rights are timeless, for example. That's why we still hold to the basic Constitution the framers gave us, even if there were some staggering contradictions in it that needed amendments down the road.
The Republicans just happen to favor limiting government right now above all else--and at least for the Tea party to the point of cutting it to the bone. And that is not necessarily the right answer at this time. That is anathema to them!
@Quartz I call it a "War on Women" because that's what it is. They spend no time thinking about the men who get these women pregnant-it's only on the woman to change themselves. Why not spend time tracking down the men who are the fathers and force them to support the kid as well? But the men get off scott-free. That's why its a war on women. Men aren't blamed, men aren't held to account. And yet, they are half responsible for the problem, They only penalize the woman. If it's not a war on women, it's holding women unequally responsible for a supposed problem. So I'll continue to call it a Republican "war on women" because women are the only one being punished for the "sin" of having sex. When they hold men equally responsible for the problem? Then I'll stop calling it an unequal punishment of women at best.
The law (in the US and Canada depending of course by the state/province) gets men back by screwing them over in cases of paternity fraud and in some cases by making men pay absurd and unaffordable amounts of alimony and child support.
@Elminster The Republicans want to make it harder for women to get abortions, unfairly penalizing them for sex that they are not a single participant in (hard to argue a woman got pregnant from masturbation), but they don't hold men responsible in the same way. No Republican is demanding a man keep it in his pants, or making sure a man pays equally for his "fun". It's the woman who gets tarred for being a "whore" and putting out- and will even get penalized if she got pregnant when she didn't want to (rape or incest).
For me, this is a very personal thing because one of my cousins was conceived before abortions were available without shame. (middle to late 50's- her mother is my Dad's sister). Her mother never wanted her and actively resented her and told her how much she was unwanted all the while she was growing up, including telling her, pointedly, that if abortions had been freely available while she was in the womb, she wouldn't be here today. Today, she is one of the most (if not the most) mentally and emotionally screwed up person I have ever met, bar none. Despite the fact that she is a pretty horrible person herself (she's taken after her mother in that they are both users of the first order and try to leech off every family member they can), I would not want anyone to have to go through that sort of experience growing up that she did. Nobody deserves that- everybody deserves to be wanted, and if allowing abortions means that at least one kid ducks that sort of shitty parenting- I'm all for it.
Comments
But that fact is that many of these "swing" voters do, on the one hand, concur that government needs to trim itself down and operate much more efficiently, and keep taxes as low as possible, etc., but on the other hand they are not in agreement with many or most of the social issue positions that drive the right. The Republican party was for a while trying to 'build a bigger tent' for these voters, although there was still the strong risk for them of being marginalized within the party (and who wants that?). That of course ended abruptly when the Tea Party took Congress by storm in 2010.
The battle for control of the hearts and minds of the political center/middle class will be won by the party that can persuade voters that it can bring government spending under control, while also being social Libertarians. The Tea Party basically ceded that ground to the Democrats. Other voices in the Republican ranks will soon attempt to stake this territory for the party. Look for Republican governors to lead the way on this, eg, Jindal, Christie, et al.
One more observation along these lines: it is fascinating to see how either party will hang itself given enough rope. Whenever they believe they have a "mandate" the extremists amongst them push the party too far away from the center. And these days elections are won at the center.
But back to the banks, the capitalist market fundamentals are thrown out of whack by the recent advent of a government bailout system. The banks essentially now have tacit permission to behave irresponsibly, i.e. , take risks that they otherwise would not, or rely on unsound business plans, etc., because they know they'll be bailed out. Bailouts remove the checks on risky/foolish behavior that the market already has in place and relies upon to function properly. The shotcallers at the banks make insane amounts of money personally, and are driven pretty much solely by the bottom line of profit for profit's sake alone. There's no real penalties for their malfeasance either, i.e., we saw none of them indicted after the last market crash from the mortgage industry meltdown. So it's not a good mix. These are also the same powerful interests that ultimately control (powerfully influence) legislation on both sides of the aisle, by the way.
Anyway, not to be overly pessimistic about it all, but we could be in for some real deep doo-doo if government doesn't truly get itself together. It will take a president with exceptional leadership skills and the ability to cut through all the crap by appealing directly to the hearts and minds of a politically divided electorate (a la Reagan or Kennedy) to get compromises from both sides. I hope Obama is that person. I think of the two candidates in the 2012 presidential election, he was more likely to accomplish it than Romney. But his presidency will be judged by history according to his performance with that ability in the next four years, I believe. It won't be for striving/failing to achieve all the party platform planks that warm the cockles of progressives' hearts.
Honestly, people make fun of Bill Clinton a lot, and they should, but I'd prefer him over all of the morons we have right now. "It's the economy, stupid!" That slogan could really, really come in handy right about now. On top of that, while I didn't agree with his politics, he was a President who saw the ways the winds were blowing and ADAPTED! Adapted, instead of putting up walls and pointless fights that hinder any sort of progress whatsoever! Like this "hope and change" horse shit, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. I have not seen a single candidate in over 16 years who was inspiring in any way. The closest was Ron Paul, but while his policies are good, his charisma is stiflingly pitiful.
The two-party system sucks ass, all it is is an excuse to blame all your problems on your predecessor, and squabble amongst each other when the fight isn't truly between Republicans and Democrats, it's between the Government and the People. Seriously, when the Executive Branch has become a celebrity position, and when you're voting "hmm, who sucks slightly less than the other?" you know there's a problem! Well, wherever you are, I am genuinely happy that things are getting better; unlike my state. California is in shambles. I found a list just the other day, "10 worst cities for getting a job" and 7/10 of the cities were in California. Worse yet, 4 of these cities are within an hour of where I live. Gahh.
And... I'm not gay, but I am for gay rights to get married. Because they should have the same right to marry the person they love that I do. It's an equal rights thing. It's not so much abortion as the right of a woman to control her own body. It's men deciding what women are allowed to do with their own bodies rather than the woman and her doctor deciding. It's as if a man had to get the consent of his mother, wife or some female administrator before getting viagra or similar erectile dysfunction medication. It's intrusive. Nobody but the person in question and the doctor performing the procedure should have the right to have a say in these things. And that's the way I feel. And it also smacks of Republicans (because it always seems to be the Republicans putting forward this sort of legislation) controlling the bodies and sexuality of women. As a woman, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I have no intention of ever getting pregnant or being pregnant, but I want that right for women who do happen to become pregnant. And it's especially galling when so many of these bills don't even give the woman a right to have an abortion even in cases of rape or incest. I think a precedent of having to give birth to the child of a scumbag who raped you is not one I would be willing to support.
It's not that social issues don't matter or are inconsequential. They can have enormous consequences. But practically speaking they become used politically as wedges that result in immobility. And right now gridlock is not something we can afford. Many Republican voters like gridlock because they're antagonistic towards government itself. As guarded as I am about government bloat, inefficiency, and bureaucracy, I've never bought into the conservative argument that "government is the problem." At this point in history we need government to function well!--not screech to grinding halt. The government truly is us, but we do have to find a sober, rational way to make it accountable. I honestly believe that the hope for the future lies with unaffiliated centrist pragmatists--which is why I remain independent and will never fully side with either party.
@LadyRhian Re: Republican intransigence, truth to tell, actually both sides share a lot of blame in playing politics and refusing to make concessions.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1
I agree with the rest of what you had to say just felt the need to point out that blaming the Republicans for this is not fair.
1. The Republican candidates sucked.
2. Abortion laws shouldn't be delegated by, like, some ~90% men or so. (Rough estimate, I don't care it gets the point across)
3. Gay marriage should be legal.
To which I say.
1. Agreed. Again Ron Paul was okay but he's so awkward and unconvincing it was never going to happen.
2. Agreed. I'm of the standpoint that abortion should be fully legalized and then heavily discouraged. If it's illegal then there will always be women who are going to die in alleyways with a coat hanger. Rather grotesque image but it's true.
3. Agreed. Marriage shouldn't even be controlled by the government in the first place, but since it is, then yes legalize gay marriage it doesn't affect me why should my opinion matter?
So my point remains. I may agree with 95% of what you're saying, but at the same time, as I said, I really don't give a shit about all that. I want the economy fixed and I'm not the only one. I'm glad we can all prance about, saying life is so good and we are the privileged Americans who are entitled to everything (*cough* Wallstreet protests *cough*) so we don't have to worry about anything, so let's all whine about social issues so we can gridlock, but shit's sake the economy should be the government's first and foremost concern.
-------
Oh, and I'm not Republican in the slightest obviously, but the term "Republican war on women" is so full of fail, please stop using it. I have known a lot, I mean a lot of Republican women and it isn't about some "war against their own rights" or whatever the hell, to them it is taking a stand for what they believe in. Now clearly, I'm Libertarian and I believe people should do whatever the hell they want and I can't shove my ideals on others, but said Republican women DO shove their ideals on others. Now without discussing whether it is right or wrong to shove your ideals on others, they are standing for what they believe in, they believe that abortion is sick and wrong and that's as far as it goes. "Republican war on women" is an idiotic term because it is a large group of women saying, "come on guys, we can aspire to more than this!", not "hahaha, screw your rights!!" I know loads of Republican women. This is a fact, this is how they feel about it.
I literally just got done saying I disagree with that mindset too, and that just because they have what we both feel is an unfair mindset, does not mean they are "warring against rights/war on women/whatever." That is NOT how they feel about it. They feel they are "saving the country from going morally downhill" or some such ... which again we both disagree with this, but this is how THEY feel. My point had nothing to do with whether they were proper in doing as such, my point was that they are NOT in some "war against women."
Now that I just got done repeating myself, are you getting where I'm coming from now? I hope you are understanding what I'm meaning. What I mean is that all these folks firmly believe they are voting for the greater good of their country, NOT that they are trying to rob people of their rights. I dislike your attitude that they are "the bad guys." Broadly speaking, no one is "the bad guys." There are, of course, a few select individuals who are chaotic evil but those are exceptions.
Basically. Don't use the term "Republican war on women." It's wrong. It's "Republicans trying to force ideals on people they don't know, because they think that they are doing their country a favor." Which, again, we both think is stupid, but that is irrelephant. I was indeed exaggerating, you are right. The proper way to phrase it is "social issues should take a backseat to more pressing matters." That is well said, so thank you.
One of the other things related that bothers me is that a lot of parents are over-protective of their daughters but not their sons. Just a coincidence? Yeah, not so much.
I know a lot of people who grew up in backgrounds like mine, some that are even family, who HATE fundamentalists after escaping the background and will rant for days about their views. I on the other hand look at it as a case of ignorance and do not really blame them. I blame no one really - in time these views will almost entirely fade out (I really do believe this). We'll end up with a much more balanced political discussion revolving about how we should change the government/economy for the better - not IF we should.
Oh also, I'm a straight married man who seriously supports gay rights, gay marriage, etc. So the idea that only "gay people", cocaine addicts, and people planning to have an abortion care about these issues is kind of silly. That said, I can see the argument for more of a focus on the economy - the catch is I really do believe that this would have been the case in this election if the right would stop pushing their negative agenda and just accept change (not change for themselves, but the possibility of change for their countrymen with opposing views). At that point we can have an election more based in economics and plans for the future. I think this will be the case for the Republican party - at least I hope so. I'd like to have to actually think more about who I'm voting for (like in the Clinton vs. Bush era). Maybe someday soon we can get back to that level of discussion.
Although not everyone in any demographic will vote one way or the other, doing things that will antagonize certain groups of people is not a good way to win their votes. In the years and months leading up to the election, the Republican party was involved in several high-profile controversies in which they imposed on the civil rights of various groups. Arizona's anti-illegal immigrant laws that many saw as racially profiling Hispanics, for example, may not cause every Hispanic to vote Democrat, but will likely cause many who were otherwise undecided to vote for the party that wasn't enacting discriminatory laws against them. Hispanics make up a very large percentage of the population in some states, in Florida, for example, so this may have affected the election. Similarly, the Republican stance on gay marriage will likely not endear homosexuals to them, although again there are probably homosexuals who will vote for either party due to their own individual beliefs. I myself disagree with the Republican party on almost every issue, so I would never vote for them anyway, but if all other things were equal, the fact that many Republicans discriminate against Atheists and try to force their religion into schools does not endear me, as an Atheist, to them. Even if I were indifferent to the other aspects of the Democrat and Republican platforms (which I'm not) I wouldn't vote for the Republicans because they have gone out of their way to alienate my demographic and the Democrats have not done so.
A good example of this is Hawaii. In the decades before Hawaii became a state it was a U.S. territory, which was firmly under Republican control. It's a lot more complicated than this, but in summary, the Republican party was mostly white and enacted laws that were very discriminatory towards Asian people. Although there was a large Asian population in Hawaii at that time, most of them were immigrants who could not vote because they weren't American citizens. Eventually, however, the Hawaii-born children of these immigrants grew up, and they could vote. The Republicans wouldn't change their policies, but they now made up a very small proportion of the state's voters (today Asian people make up over half Hawaii's population). The result is that the Democratic party has been in control of Hawaii, with very rare deviation, from the mid-1950s to the present. Indeed in the 2012 election, 70% of Hawaii's vote went to Obama (72% in 2008) and the senate and representative races were similarly stacked in favor of Democrats. For that matter, there is currently only one Republican in Hawaii's entire state senate. Sure there are other factors that affect this, but historically the Republicans alienated over half their voters, and they are still paying the price.
At least today, I think the notion that Republicans are somehow racist at heart is kind of a canard. Their leading exponents like Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthhammer, Rich Lowry, Jonha Goldeberg, et al, are not racists. Inded, their arguments are based on a principle that everyone should be approached in a racially neutral way. But the fact that the party takes positions that are reasonably perceived as anti-minority is a major disconnect, though.
I think where the Republican party is most vulnerable is in its arguments that are so transparently protectionist towards corporations and the mega-rich. Imo, it is true that if we over-regulate business and overtax people that's not good for the economy (emphasis on "over," and obviously there is going to be perpetual disagreement over what that means), at least in a capitalist society. But the 'trickle down' arguments (philosophically epitomized by Ayn Rand) really haven't proven to hold water very well in recent cycles. That said, I'll be honest that I do not see a clear solution to the problem of striking some sort of balance that neatly satisfies everything. And this is where I fault both sides for essentially trying to brainnwash their faithful that they do have have those solutions.
Fifty years is not a lot of time, really! When it comes to a political philosophy principles endure. The arguments for basic liberties, civil rights, human rights are timeless, for example. That's why we still hold to the basic Constitution the framers gave us, even if there were some staggering contradictions in it that needed amendments down the road.
The Republicans just happen to favor limiting government right now above all else--and at least for the Tea party to the point of cutting it to the bone. And that is not necessarily the right answer at this time. That is anathema to them!
For me, this is a very personal thing because one of my cousins was conceived before abortions were available without shame. (middle to late 50's- her mother is my Dad's sister). Her mother never wanted her and actively resented her and told her how much she was unwanted all the while she was growing up, including telling her, pointedly, that if abortions had been freely available while she was in the womb, she wouldn't be here today. Today, she is one of the most (if not the most) mentally and emotionally screwed up person I have ever met, bar none. Despite the fact that she is a pretty horrible person herself (she's taken after her mother in that they are both users of the first order and try to leech off every family member they can), I would not want anyone to have to go through that sort of experience growing up that she did. Nobody deserves that- everybody deserves to be wanted, and if allowing abortions means that at least one kid ducks that sort of shitty parenting- I'm all for it.