Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
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.
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.
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.
Extremism defined by a moderate is a contradiction, and moderation in defence of moderate views is a self-congratulatory vice. That's how I read the article, regardless of what point you or the author thought he was making. As you pointed out elsewhere, so-called "right wingers" in other "successful" countries (such as Australia--and, I presume, England) are to the left of American Democrat "left wingers." So, then, certainly their view of what is "extreme" in Amercian politics would be way left of what actual American "conservatives" would consider extreme. Reagan, Goldwater, or Buckley, would not consider the views that the Economist considered cranky or backward looking as extreme. They would not require a "litmus test" affidavit to be signed by candidates, but most Republicans don't require it either. That some do on abortion in order to get their vote, that's their prerogative. Most of the Republican electorate doesn't subscribe to that. If a candidate will support the pro-life view, he can so sign, or he can sign even if he doesn't--politicians are consumate liers. A hypocritically or sincerely signed affidavit is no different than a campaign promise. Campaign promises are not some new radical-right tactic that all of a sudden deviate from your "rational" moderate appeal. Campaign promises have always done that. No politician campaigns on maintaining a "rational" moderate status quo. Obama won on promises of Hope (not a rational methodolgy) and Change--fundamental transformation (not a moderate proposal).
It's like every issue has become a litmus test.
That's the picture the Economist, with exageration, tries to paint. They take the demands of some pro-lifers, not all Republicans, and magically spread the paint on the entire canvass of "every issue." It's just not true. By the way--Reagan, and Buckley were very pro-life. Especially Buckley, who was one of the strongest anti-abortion advocates on a natural law basis. Pro-life, anti-abortion is not an "extreme" view.
I know you don't like it when non-Americans comment on America, but this time I think they offer a nice perspective.
-spence
"Nice" perspective? I'd say its a British perspective imposed on American politics.
BTW--what happened to all the posts from Jan. 6. They seem to have been deleted?
I know you don't like it when non-Americans comment on America, but this time I think they offer a nice perspective.
-spence
I don't ALWAYS dislike it when non-Americans comment on America. Here is what I think is a nice perspective by a Brit. Please watch the whole video INCLUDING q and a at the end. It's about 47 minutes, but not boring. The guy is eloquent, incisive, and has a great command of the Queen's English.
I don't ALWAYS dislike it when non-Americans comment on America. Here is what I think is a nice perspective by a Brit. Please watch the whole video INCLUDING q and a at the end. It's about 47 minutes, but not boring. The guy is eloquent, incisive, and has a great command of the Queen's English.
if we could simply play this instead of the next State of the Union..it would be far more beneficial to America
I don't ALWAYS dislike it when non-Americans comment on America. Here is what I think is a nice perspective by a Brit. Please watch the whole video INCLUDING q and a at the end. It's about 47 minutes, but not boring. The guy is eloquent, incisive, and has a great command of the Queen's English.
It's interesting how few in US politics seem to develop the oratory skills of the Britts.
I did watch the entire video (or at least listen while I operated the meat grinder) and it was very good. I'll probably pick up his book.
Although I'd have to note that there is a flip side as we've discussed quite a bit. This was somewhat of a circle jerk, but at least a right proper one.
Perhaps the most important line was for elected officials to remember the institution is larger than they are. That's an element of conservatism that transcends politics and is getting lost in numerous ways...
Although I'd have to note that there is a flip side as we've discussed quite a bit. -spence
yes there is...the argument/agenda of the "half-smarts" as he clearly pointed out...who will simply continue to "grind meat".....ignoring history, reality.... and in our case....the Constitution
too bad about Huntsman...tough to win a Republican primary when most of your support is from liberals who say they are satisfied with Obama
Hybrid Mode
