Iowa

[detbuch]

He's slightly more caustic than you (sometimes) are . Pretty funny.

[justplugit]

What would your Dad think, Spence?
Have you converted him yet.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

What would your Dad think, Spence?
Have you converted him yet.

He thought it was hilarious.

There's no conversion necessary. We talk politics all the time and usually agree on most things.

Aside from an evangelical contingent, most Iowan Republicans are pretty moderate.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

He thought it was hilarious.

There's no conversion necessary. We talk politics all the time and usually agree on most things.

Aside from an evangelical contingent, most Iowan Republicans are pretty moderate.

-spence

Oh, my memory must be failing me as I thought you mentioned one time
your Dad was a Repub, and if so being most Iowans are Mod Repubs he
would be on a different page than you.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Oh, my memory must be failing me as I thought you mentioned one time
your Dad was a Repub, and if so being most Iowans are Mod Repubs he would be on a different page than you.

I said most Iowa Republicans were more moderate. Overall registration is about 50:50 and the state tends to vote Democratic.

My father is a pragmatist, I'd say more aligned with a later Goldwater brand of conservatism that's nearly absent in the modern GOP.

He completely agreed with this good piece from the Economist. I agree with it as well...

The right Republican

Although the presidency is theirs for the taking, America’s Republicans are in danger of throwing it away

Dec 31st 2011 Print Edition

IN JANUARY the battle to become the world’s most powerful person begins—with small groups of Iowans “caucusing” to choose a Republican nominee for the White House. It is a great opportunity for them. Barack Obama is clearly beatable. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has been re-elected with unemployment as high as it is now; Mr Obama’s approval rating, which tends to translate accurately into vote-share, is down in the mid-40s. Swing states like Florida, Ohio and even Pennsylvania look well within the Republicans’ grasp.

Yet recent polls show the president leading all his rivals: an average of two points ahead of Mitt Romney, eight points over Ron Paul and nine points over Newt Gingrich, according to RealClearPolitics.com. No doubt some rather flawed personalities play a part in that; but so does the notion that something has gone badly wrong with the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Rather than answering the call for a credible right-of-centre, pro-business party to provide independents, including this newspaper, with a choice in November, it is saddling its candidate with a set of ideas that are cranky, extreme and backward-looking.

That matters far beyond this election—and indeed America’s shores. Across the West nations are struggling to reform government. At their best the Republicans have combined a muscular foreign policy with sound economics, individualism and entrepreneurial pragmatism. It is in everybody’s interests that they become champions of such policies again. That is not impossible, but there is a lot of catching up to do.

Please sign on the dotted line

Optimists will point out that the Republicans, no less than the Democrats, tend to flirt with extremes in the primaries, then select an electable moderate (with Mr Romney being the likely winner this time). America is a conservative place; every Republican nominee, including those The Economist has backed in the past, has signed up to pretty uncompromising views on God, gays and guns. But even allowing for that, the party has been dragged further and further to the right. Gone are the days when a smiling Reagan could be forgiven for raising taxes and ignoring abortion once in office. As the Republican base has become ever more detached from the mainstream, its list of unconditional demands has become ever more stringent.

Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases; that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it; that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.

These fatwas explain the rum list of candidates: you either have to be an unelectable extremist who genuinely believes all this, or a dissembler prepared to tie yourself in ever more elaborate knots (the flexible Mr Romney). Several promisingly pragmatic governors, including Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, never even sought the nomination. Jon Huntsman, the closest thing to a moderate in the race (who supports gay marriage and action to combat climate change), is polling in low single figures.

More depressingly, the fatwas have stifled ideas, making the Republican Party the enemy of creative positions it once pioneered. The idea of requiring every American to carry health insurance (thus broadening the insurance pool and reducing costs) originated in the conservative Heritage Foundation as a response to Clinton-care, and was put into practice by then-Governor Romney in Massachusetts. All this Mr Romney has had to disavow, just as Mr Gingrich has had to recant his ideas on climate change, while Rick Perry is still explaining his appalling laxity as governor of Texas in allowing the children of illegal immigrants to receive subsidised college education.
On the economy, where this newspaper has often found the most common ground with the Republicans, the impact has been especially unfortunate. America’s commercial classes are fed up with a president they associate with big government, red tape and class warfare. A Republican could stake out a way to cut the deficit, reform taxes and refashion government. But instead of businesslike pragmatism, there is zealotry. The candidates have made a fetish out of never raising taxes (even when it involves getting rid of loopholes), while mostly ignoring tough decisions about cutting spending on defence or pensions. Such compassionless conservatism (slashing taxes for the rich and expenditure on the poor) comes with little thought as to which bits of government spending are useful. Investing in infrastructure, redesigning public education and maintaining unemployment benefits in the worst downturn since the Depression are hardly acts of communism.

We didn’t leave you; you left us

Elections are decided in the middle. If the Republicans choose an extreme candidate, they can hardly be surprised if independents plump for Mr Obama, or look to a third-party candidate. But there could be two better outcomes for them.

The first would be if Mr Romney secures a quick victory, defies his base and moves firmly to the centre. In theory, there is enough in his record to suggest that he may yet be the chief executive America needs, though such boldness is asking a lot of a man who still seems several vertebrae short of a backbone (John McCain, a generally braver man, flunked it in 2008). The alternative is that the primary race grinds to a stalemate, with neither Mr Romney nor one of his rivals able to secure victory. Then a Bush, Daniels or Christie just might be tempted into the contest. It is a sad commentary that this late in the day “the right Republican” does not even seem to be running yet.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I said most Iowa Republicans were more moderate. Overall registration is about 50:50 and the state tends to vote Democratic.

My father is a pragmatist, I'd say more aligned with a later Goldwater brand of conservatism that's nearly absent in the modern GOP.

He completely agreed with this good piece from the Economist. I agree with it as well...

Is it possible to "combine a muscular foreign policy with sound economics, individualism and entrepenurial pragmatism," yet still have differing opionions on "God, gays, and guns"? Or different views on taxes, abortion, immigration, environment, health insurance, Israel, and regulatory agencies? Or must the "right Republican" have the "correct" views on all these issues (presumably the infallilble middle/moderate position). And if it is not possible to have different (extreme--that which differs from the middle) views, the middle will automatically "plump for Mr. Obama" who must then, presumably, have the correct middle views. But if he does, then wouldn't the middle vote for him regardless? This is presuming, of course, that he also has the correct "muscular foreign policy with sound economics, individualsim and entrepeneurial pragmatism," or that they either aren't paying attention, don't care, or don't have a clue about those things. Of course, If Obama does have those correct attributes as well as the correct middle views on the other stuff--he's in! Why bother about "the right Republican?"

But if the middle insists that it will only vote for a candidate with those correct middle views, then isn't it being as extreme as those even further to the right Republicans?

Isn't it more likely that different "Republican" candidates, as well as different Republican voters, have different views and are not all going to insist that candidates must "sign on the dotted line" for all the correct views? When it comes to the final vote, won't some more simple common threads that divide the parties make the difference, and won't the middle/independent voters have to decide on the difference in those common threads? And when we speak of that middle, aren't there, even in it, differing opinions in all those points ascribed to it?

But, I suppose, it's comforting to compartmentalized minds to have solid categories--right, left, middle--in order to percieve a well-ordered, predictable world.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Isn't it more likely that different "Republican" candidates, as well as different Republican voters, have different views and are not all going to insist that candidates must "sign on the dotted line" for all the correct views?

I think this is the crux of the article.

Hell. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are running for the same slot!

The identity of the "conservative" is a much bigger tent than the identity of the "liberal" in American politics. Usually less than 20 percent of Americans would even self describe themselves as "liberals".

Compare the USA to other successful nations like Australia and most of our Democrats are to the "right" of their Right Wing!

Icons like Reagan wouldn't even be on the GOP primary ballot given the politics of today, yet he led in many ways (not all certainly) as a pragmatist.

There's ideology and there's leadership. The joke that is the Republican primary is all the proof necessary that the party doesn't seem to understand what it really wants.

Ultimately they'll settle on what the enthusiastic crowd sees as the least worst. Fortunately for all of us he's not a terrible choice...

I have confidence in the end we'll have a good race for the next POTUS.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I said most Iowa Republicans were more moderate. Overall registration is about 50:50 and the state tends to vote Democratic.

My father is a pragmatist, I'd say more aligned with a later Goldwater brand of conservatism that's nearly absent in the modern GOP.

He completely agreed with this good piece from the Economist. I agree with it as well...

Copy slower, I can't read that fast.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I said most Iowa Republicans were more moderate. Overall registration is about 50:50 and the state tends to vote Democratic.

My father is a pragmatist, I'd say more aligned with a later Goldwater brand of conservatism that's nearly absent in the modern GOP.

He completely agreed with this good piece from the Economist. I agree with it as well...

The Economist, by implying that Republicans are flirting with extremist requirements of their candidates, is, as Spence likes to say, the pot calling the kettle black. It narrows the requirements to extremely narrow and untrue parameters, and disregards the apparent diversity of views both by the candidates and the voters. It's not true that all require that abortion has to be illegal in all cases, nor even in common cases. Most understand that it should be, as it once was, a State issue, and some have called for a federal ammendment only because in those States that have voted for the ban, the constitutional will of the people has been overturned by a Court. But such an ammendment is not the responsibility of the POTUS, so is not an election issue, and there is no debate or requirement in the campaigns. There is no unanimous requirement that all illegal immigrants summarily be deported--not by all voters nor by all candidates. But there is a consensus that illegal is illegal and some method of legalization must be accomplished and the continued influx of illegal entry be stopped. Neither the voters nor the candidates believe that the 46 million that don't have health insurance "have only themselves to blame," but most believe that the Federal Gvt. has no authority to mandate that all must buy it. Again, most believe it is a State issue. There is no solid Republican conspiracy that says global warming is a conspiracy. Most believe there is warming, most don't believe it is either as serious, nor as man made as claimed, and some do believe that there is a political agenda influencing the attempt to create a worldwide government control of emmisions which would unnecessarily cripple the global and especially the U.S. economy. There is no massive belief that any form of gun control is unconstitutional. Most believe in at least some form of basic licensing qualifications and there is a diversity even in the degree of regulation. There is no irrevocable requirement against any or all forms of tax increase. There is certainly a strong desire to reform the tax code. I have not heard the extreme view that Israel can do no wrong or that the Palestinians can do no right. There is strong discussion and desire, but no absolute requirement to abolish all regulatory agencies. And there is a very valid discussion as to the Constitutionality and propriety of those agencies, and to the defacto legislative transfer of power to them so that we have a growing and already huge administrative form of central gvt. rather than a representative one, which is not only unconstitutional, but goes against the Economist's call for sound economics, individualism, and entrepeneurial pragmatism--as do, frankly, lax immigration, government mandated insurance, and unsound anti-business tax increases.

The above views are characterized as cranky, extreme and backward-looking. That is certainly debateable, but they can be colored so if the views are distorted toward the extreme as the Economist has done. And the Economist has some further cranky and extreme depictions such as "uncompromising views on god." So what God does the Economist understand to call for a compromised belief? The Republican electorate is religiously diverse. As are the candidates. Some voters may not vote for a Mormon. Most will. John Kennedy overcame the anti-Catholic prejudice. Such is the price of individualism. And this business that the Republican party is being "dragged further to the right" instead of remaining predominantly right of center. To the right of what? To the right of the Founders? To the right of Abe Lincoln or, to the right of Teddy Roosevelt, all of whom it mentions as models? Or Reagan, who had a very different Democratic party to deal with. A Democrat party that was farther to the right of the present day Democrats than the Republican party is to the right of the Founders, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or Reagan. The Republican party, in case the Economist has not noticed, has been dragged far to the left of what it once was. Any shift to the right is a necessary corrective if we wish to preserve the republican, representative, constitutional form of government which, I assume, the economist would wish to be preserved. "Right of center" has shifted to the left as well, since the "center" moved with the leftward shifted parties. If elections depend on the vote of the "center," we need a national, educational, discussion on what the center should be--citizens of a government founded on established principles of individual liberty, or collective dependants of centrally orchestrated social experiments.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Economist, by implying that Republicans are flirting with extremist requirements of their candidates, is, as Spence likes to say, the pot calling the kettle black. It narrows the requirements to extremely narrow and untrue parameters, and disregards the apparent diversity of views both by the candidates and the voters. It's not true that all require that abortion has to be illegal in all cases, nor even in common cases. Most understand that it should be, as it once was, a State issue, and some have called for a federal ammendment only because in those States that have voted for the ban, the constitutional will of the people has been overturned by a Court. But such an ammendment is not the responsibility of the POTUS, so is not an election issue, and there is no debate or requirement in the campaigns. There is no unanimous requirement that all illegal immigrants summarily be deported--not by all voters nor by all candidates. But there is a consensus that illegal is illegal and some method of legalization must be accomplished and the continued influx of illegal entry be stopped. Neither the voters nor the candidates believe that the 46 million that don't have health insurance "have only themselves to blame," but most believe that the Federal Gvt. has no authority to mandate that all must buy it. Again, most believe it is a State issue. There is no solid Republican conspiracy that says global warming is a conspiracy. Most believe there is warming, most don't believe it is either as serious, nor as man made as claimed, and some do believe that there is a political agenda influencing the attempt to create a worldwide government control of emmisions which would unnecessarily cripple the global and especially the U.S. economy. There is no massive belief that any form of gun control is unconstitutional. Most believe in at least some form of basic licensing qualifications and there is a diversity even in the degree of regulation. There is no irrevocable requirement against any or all forms of tax increase. There is certainly a strong desire to reform the tax code. I have not heard the extreme view that Israel can do no wrong or that the Palestinians can do no right. There is strong discussion and desire, but no absolute requirement to abolish all regulatory agencies. And there is a very valid discussion as to the Constitutionality and propriety of those agencies, and to the defacto legislative transfer of power to them so that we have a growing and already huge administrative form of central gvt. rather than a representative one, which is not only unconstitutional, but goes against the Economist's call for sound economics, individualism, and entrepeneurial pragmatism--as do, frankly, lax immigration, government mandated insurance, and unsound anti-business tax increases.

The above views are characterized as cranky, extreme and backward-looking. That is certainly debateable, but they can be colored so if the views are distorted toward the extreme as the Economist has done. And the Economist has some further cranky and extreme depictions such as "uncompromising views on god." So what God does the Economist understand to call for a compromised belief? The Republican electorate is religiously diverse. As are the candidates. Some voters may not vote for a Mormon. Most will. John Kennedy overcame the anti-Catholic prejudice. Such is the price of individualism. And this business that the Republican party is being "dragged further to the right" instead of remaining predominantly right of center. To the right of what? To the right of the Founders? To the right of Abe Lincoln or, to the right of Teddy Roosevelt, all of whom it mentions as models? Or Reagan, who had a very different Democratic party to deal with. A Democrat party that was farther to the right of the present day Democrats than the Republican party is to the right of the Founders, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, or Reagan. The Republican party, in case the Economist has not noticed, has been dragged far to the left of what it once was. Any shift to the right is a necessary corrective if we wish to preserve the republican, representative, constitutional form of government which, I assume, the economist would wish to be preserved. "Right of center" has shifted to the left as well, since the "center" moved with the leftward shifted parties. If elections depend on the vote of the "center," we need a national, educational, discussion on what the center should be--citizens of a government founded on established principles of individual liberty, or collective dependants of centrally orchestrated social experiments.

While I'd agree that there is some rationality within identified Republicans themselves, the point of the article is that inside the beltway things are so extreme the GOP has lost the rational moderate appeal found in a Reagan, Goldwater or Bill Buckley.

It's like every issue has become a litmus test.

I know you don't like it when non-Americans comment on America, but this time I think they offer a nice perspective.

-spence