Jump to content

When did the Republican Party go off the rails?


Jaime L

Recommended Posts

I will simply say on this point that I don't think the GOP has a monopoly on anti-intellectualism. The educated elite of the Democratic party may think of themselves as preferring intellectualism, and that may be accurate. But I think you are fooling yourselves if you think that is representative of everyone in your party either. Of course, almost by definition, anyone who posts on this kind of message board is not anti-intellectual, and its overwhelmingly liberal. But there are a lot of conservative counters out there that are just as intellectual.

Oh, I'm definitely not denying that there are conservative intellectuals, or that there are dumb liberals out there. Not at all. I'm saying that intellectual conservatives are not the face of the party. The face of the party has become Palin, Beck, etc.

Whether I agree or disagree with Obama on a particular issue, I can see that he is a person that thinks things through. When I hear Obama speak I can tell that he has weighed his words, thought about why he wants to go in this direction. Now, there are surely a lot of conservative thinkers who are the same. But the face of conservatism has become Glen freakin' Beck.

There is just no comparison. Say you wanted some personal advice, would you call Obama and get his reasoned opinion, or would you call up Beck to get his knee-jerk reaction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many aspects of conservatism that I find appealing. To me, the federal government is an overwhelming bureaucracy and I feel tiny and utterly helpless in the face of that monster. To the point of near political apathy on my part. Mainly, I just want to be left alone. Less taxes for less services is a trade that I would probably take 9 times out of 10. I do sometimes wish that I had the ability to make that trade. While I do not harbor any ill will toward the socialist and socialist-lite governments of Europe and Canada, and can even admit that some of them have a good thing going, I am not convinced that that is the path for the United States. I guess I'm a bit of an individualist. Beyond things like basic infrastructure, postal service, and military, I'd like to have the option of taking care of myself. I think that the federal government doesn't need to be bigger, it needs to be smarter. I'd like us to identify and cut wasteful spending, and I'm sure there is plenty, and see those extra funds not reallocated but instead be dedicated to paying down some national debt. Show the world that we're good for the money, instead of begging for more.

I like the idea of small federal government, and I'd like to see a lot more things decided at the state or local level. I think that if more were left up to state and local governments then government would be more approachable, and possibly, less susceptible to national trends of bullshit.

Small Government, states rights, Individualist, not into intervening in people's lives (either financially or socially)...this is classic conservatism. Or at least conservative as I understood it as a kid. This is what the Tea Partiers would be standing for if they too hadn't been co-opted by the lunatic fringe. Everything just seems to get corrupted by this insanity. There's no reason S. John should have to find himself pushed to the Democratic party.

I feel like it wasn't that long ago there wa a type of Republican who existed in congress (I'm thinking New England: often in New Hampshire and Maine) that would represent the views S. John exprssed here. But as the Republican Party has decided to cater to its extremely vocal (and I'd argue, malignant) aspects: the evangelicals and neocons, it has left classic conservatism in the dust. And those moderate Republican politicans that once existed now end up under the Democratic big tent: hasn't New England gone entirely blue?

I can see where this is going. My bad for posting here.

No, you were exactly among whom I was hoping would weigh in. You're clearly a smart guy who engages in reasonable debate despite a ton of opposition on this left-leaning board. I'm interested in your take on all this and how you view the evolution of the two parties. Not to sound flippant, but I need to better understand how smart Republicans view their party, because I admit, I don't understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No really ...... who is the Democratic equivalent of Sarah Palin?

Well, I wouldn't trade too hard on that stock. It only takes one example of a rabidly vapid politician to ruin the day. I think a better angle to make the anti-intellectualism charge stick might be to analyze how many GOP versus Democrats support Intelligent Design or other non-science claptrap.

At any rate, I don't think Democratic voters, as a group, is that much more intellectual than GOP voters, as a group. I think that the average voter is, well, average, in terms of emotional engagement in political issues and in terms of how much they know or care to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware, no he can't.

Gosh darnit. You're right. I could have sworn I read it somewhere, but a quick check of wiki turns up nothing. Awwww, I'm kind of dispointed now. I remember being pretty excited when I heard it, remembering Doris Kearns Goodwin's predictions on the Daily Show that the Democrats should let the Republicans filibuster and look like idiots :(

EDIT: Oh, no wait. I knew I read it!

[From Wiki]In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.[28]
It's sourced to a PDF file that looks lengthy and scary, however which I don't want to go digging around in at this time of night, but I'm willing to trust it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small Government, states rights, Individualist, not into intervening in people's lives (either financially or socially)...this is classic conservatism. Or at least conservative as I understood it as a kid. This is what the Tea Partiers would be standing for if they too hadn't been co-opted by the lunatic fringe. Everything just seems to get corrupted by this insanity. There's no reason S. John should have to find himself pushed to the Democratic party.

I feel like it wasn't that long ago there wa a type of Republican who existed in congress (I'm thinking New England: often in New Hampshire and Maine) that would represent the views S. John exprssed here. But as the Republican Party has decided to cater to its extremely vocal (and I'd argue, malignant) aspects: the evangelicals and neocons, it has left classic conservatism in the dust. And those moderate Republican politicans that once existed now end up under the Democratic big tent: hasn't New England gone entirely blue?

No, you were exactly among whom I was hoping would weigh in. You're clearly a smart guy who engages in reasonable debate despite a ton of opposition on this left-leaning board. I'm interested in your take on all this and how you view the evolution of the two parties. Not to sound flippant, but I need to better understand how smart Republicans view their party, because I admit, I don't understand it.

Jaime, thanks for the courteous response, but I think the ship has sailed on your original intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaime, thanks for the courteous response, but I think the ship has sailed on your original intention.

Well, seriously now. No one is claiming that the Republicans have a monopoly on anti-intellectualism. There are plenty of dumb-ass Democrats and there are plenty of smart Republicans. But one party makes anti-intellectualism part of its national platform. One party regularly derides its opponents as out-of-touch egghead elitists.

The Democratic Party isn't the one making hay out of anti-intellectual leaders like Sarah Palin. It isn't the Democrats who turned SamJoe the Dumbass Sorta-Plumber into a campaign mascot.

I'd like to see an honest effort at convincing us that anti-intellectualism and distrust of education and nuance has as big a place in the national practices of Democratic Party as it does in the Republican Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admit it, your just jealous. :drool:

heh.... Well.....

Actually, i'd be fired for fucking one of my interns. power imbalance, all that....

i guess my company just has a higher standard of behavior for me than can be expected of the POTUS.

Of course, i suppose i could lie about it and try to cover it up. I'm sure that would ease their concerns, and convince them to think of it as no big deal

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Root has an interesting (and biased) perspective on the CPAC convention currently going on in Washington that articulates a lot of my feelings about the increasingly concerning direction in which the conservative movement seems to be heading.

I know people are going to claim this is just politics as usual. But it's not. The Democrats engage in the typical campaigns of exaggeration and mischaracterization of an opponent's position. The Republicans (and Beck, Limbaugh and Conservative Columnists who now, BTW, provide the marching orders for the party) though take this to an entirely different level: propogating and encouraging the spread of blatant misinformation and purposeful obstufucation of complex issues (like Health Care, The Bailout, the Stimulus etc.) There's a difference here and it's entirely in degree. To equate the two as equal is to engage in the kind of false equivalency that not only condones the campaign of misinformation, it engages in it.

I've been thinking some on this, too. As I see it, it's not that these anti intellectual Republicans didn't exist before, or a corresponding group doesn't exist among Democrats, but that they've become dominant. And moderate Republicans have gone nearly silent in the public discourse. I wonder if that latter is more cause or effect? If the key question is when, I'm not sure, but for the current trend, I think the Bush years is the correct period. Both for what that administration was, and the bankruptcy of the neocon movement allowing the current wave. (For you are wrong that this is run by the 'old' neocons. As the article mention, even Dickie has been out in the cold for years.)

If it's any consolation ,the trend I'm seeing is that, after Obama's empty hope faded, this anti intellectualism has been the lefts greatest inspiration, and we might have ha balanced situation soon enough.

Small Government, states rights, Individualist, not into intervening in people's lives (either financially or socially)...this is classic conservatism. Or at least conservative as I understood it as a kid.

I don't know where you got you're information as a kid, but that has little to do with Conservatism either as practiced or theorised. Sounds mostly like Libertarianism to me, if all the listed points are read as anti government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know where you got you're information as a kid, but that has little to do with Conservatism either as practiced or theorised. Sounds mostly like Libertarianism to me, if all the listed points are read as anti government.

Agreed. Conservatism is not about small government - it is about adherance to the past and emphasis on tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally would suggest getting a second legal opinion on that.

It needs to be clarify that if the relationship is consensual, then the parties involved can't be fire for sexual harassment.

Regardless, it's probably a better, and cheaper, idea to consult the HR department on the company's policy regarding workplace romance. If there's a blanket policy prohibiting such, then the parties involved could be fire for violating said policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small Government, states rights, Individualist, not into intervening in people's lives (either financially or socially)...this is classic conservatism. Or at least conservative as I understood it as a kid. This is what the Tea Partiers would be standing for if they too hadn't been co-opted by the lunatic fringe. Everything just seems to get corrupted by this insanity. There's no reason S. John should have to find himself pushed to the Democratic party.

I feel like it wasn't that long ago there wa a type of Republican who existed in congress (I'm thinking New England: often in New Hampshire and Maine) that would represent the views S. John exprssed here. But as the Republican Party has decided to cater to its extremely vocal (and I'd argue, malignant) aspects: the evangelicals and neocons, it has left classic conservatism in the dust. And those moderate Republican politicans that once existed now end up under the Democratic big tent: hasn't New England gone entirely blue?

Yea I definitely agree, you don't see too many of the old schoolers around anymore. The funny part is that it's probably people like me that helped put Obama, solidly liberal by most standards, in office. People who were fed up with the party of Bush Jr. and didn't want to see Sarah Palin just one old guys' death from running the country.

Today's republicans have no problem spending and inflating government, as long as it suits their agenda. So that leaves me with two parties to choose from who can't wait to spend my money. Whats left? Social issues. Its the only thing left that I can even sorta / kinda vote on. And on that score today's republicans have really gone haywire, the complete opposite of my 'hands off' ideal towards victim-less crimes and domestic issues.

Under the circumstances I don't regret voting for Obama one bit. Hell, I flat out like the guy, but we only align politically on a few things. He was simply a candidate I could respect, that the world could respect. McCain could have vied for my vote if he had picked a different VP and not generally sold out to the neocon elements of the party to try and shore up support. I saw the Palin nomination as an obvious attempt to counterbalance the historic nature of Obama's campaign (a black guy who might actually win!) by presenting an option that would be historic in its own right. Which, is fine, but Palin offered very little substance and pretty much confirmed I'd be voting Obama. I'd been leaning that way anyway 'cause the Republicans had been sucking for 8 years and I think it really was time to get them outta there for a while. Bob Barr wasn't doing much for me either. I still don't think McCain is a bad guy, but if I was going to vote Republican after Bush I was going to need to see that party get its shit together, and that didn't happen.

So... that's why I voted Democrat in reality (again) when I'm more of a traditional conservative in theory. I don't see any signs that that will change any time soon. I guess I'm disenfranchised. :crying:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... that's why I voted Democrat in reality (again) when I'm more of a traditional conservative in theory. I don't see any signs that that will change any time soon. I guess I'm disenfranchised. :crying:

If it makes you feel any better, there are plenty of us putative Democrats who don't really feel like we have a home in our party any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Conservatism is not about small government - it is about adherance to the past and emphasis on tradition.

Just so. I honestly do not care if the government is small or large, powerful or weak, so long as it does its job effectively and righteously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...