When did the Republican Party go off the rails?

[Annelise]

Research2000 polled the support for both Senate bill and public option in 7 states.

Yep, public option is very popular.

For more on this:

As Democratic and GOP lawmakers prepare for the upcoming health reform summit, the February Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds that at least six of every ten Republicans, Democrats and independents back at least some of the key provisions in the reform bills that have passed the House and Senate. They include measures that would: reform the way health insurance works, such as preventing insurers from excluding people because of pre-existing conditions; offer tax credits to small businesses to help their workers get coverage; create a new health insurance marketplace; help close the Medicare “doughnut hole” so that seniors would no longer face a period of having to pay the full cost of their medicines; and expand high-risk insurance pools for individuals who cannot get coverage elsewhere. Providing subsidies to lower and middle income people also received strong support from Democrats and independents and near majority support from Republicans.

It doesn't dip below 61% on any of the above, except for the 48% re: Republican support for subsidies to lower and middle income people. http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/posr022310nr.cfm

Additionally from the January poll:

The poll finds that even after a year of substantial media coverage of the health reform debate, many Americans remain unfamiliar with key elements of the major bills passed by the House and Senate. About half are aware that tax credits would be available to small businesses, one of the most popular provisions. And 44 percent recognize that the legislation would help close the Medicare “doughnut hole.”

Awareness can matter. Among the least known elements of the bills, those with the biggest potential to change minds include the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has said health reform would reduce the deficit (only 15% expect the legislation to reduce the deficit, but 56% said hearing that makes them more supportive) and that the legislation would stop insurers from charging women more than men (37% are aware that the legislation would do this, but 50% said this provision makes them more supportive). There were no lesser known provisions that would push a majority of supporters away from the bill.

[...]

The new survey finds that America’s seniors, a politically important group, lean against the proposed legislation, with 48 percent opposed, 37 percent in favor and 15 percent offering no opinion. However the survey finds that, somewhat surprisingly, seniors were less likely than younger Americans to be aware that the legislation includes provisions to close the “doughnut hole.” Thirty-seven percent of seniors were aware of such provisions, compared to 53 percent of those under age 40. Six in 10 seniors say that if the legislation did work to close the doughnut hole they would feel more supportive of it, a level of support identical to that found among younger Americans.

[Watcher]

I was thinking about this thread when I found this article on Slate.com comparing today's conservative movement to the left's counterculture movement in the '60s. It's title is "Glen Beck is today's Abbie Hoffman"

[Bad Idea]

Torture. And the subsequent ass-covering/moral riverdancing. Obviously the Republicans were pretty fucked up already to even consider the option to torture people, so I'm not saying this is where they went off the rails, just that torture is where the train skidded through the feed yards to hit the slaughterhouse.

I think the fact that we have tortured has scarred the psyche of all Americans, however in the GOP it seems to have induced a collective insanity. That fact (we torture people) is something we're all dealing with. That fact lingers in the brain, making people do all sorts of crazy, nigh-unexplainable shit.

I'm probably giving the GOP too much credit in suggesting that their crazy can be explained by an underlying sense of guilt (or whatever) anyway, since it seems they don't give a damn about it except to claim that we're not torturing people enough.

[Arlingzen Bill]

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

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.

You know if they actually force a filibuster, we could have filibuster parties... Bar don't close until the filibuster ends.

[Stubby]

This is an outsider's view. I'm not in the USA. I'm Australian. We have a society that is for the most part slightly left of centre. Even our conservatives party (The Liberals) have some socially conscious policies and ideas. That is changing though, as the religious right is starting ot make some inroads into the senate here. I don't get bombarded by US politics on a daily basis (except during the insane shenanigans of a lead up to an American Presidential election) but we get enough of it that we can make some assessments.

Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly are all on Pay TV down here (the only provider of Pay TV is Foxtel). These guys are fruitloops. O'Reilly is an ignorant numpty who seems to be constantly getting his arse handed to him by anyone from High School Student to Christopher Hitchens. Beck is just flat out malicious. We see it and don't understand why Americans do not. The more I see of the American conservatives and the way they idolise Palin for example the more concerned I get for the future of this world. If these commentators are truly driving GOP policy, and they are able to drive the popular vote, then the USA is doomed to a future where the lowest common demoninator wins.

I don't know which is a more depressing thought: That the GOP wants the general American populace to refrain from thinking - or that the general American populace actually does not want to think.

[Serious Callers Only]

A mind forever voyaging was right.

[Jaime L]

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

That's the technical definition of Conservatism but in the U.S., conservative is almost universally seen as roughly synonymous with the Republican Party, which is (or at least back when it had principles) roughly synonymous with small government, fiscal conservatism, individualism and state's rights. This has been true for as long as I know. Whenever Republicans talk about going back to "Conservative Values" (read: Not GWB policies) these are the things they're talking about.

I was thinking about this thread when I found this article on Slate.com comparing today's conservative movement to the left's counterculture movement in the '60s. It's title is "Glen Beck is today's Abbie Hoffman"

Wow. Wow.

That article is equal parts fascinating and terrifying. Is Salon trying to destroy my fascination with the 60s? Analogizing the Tea Partiers to the 60s Counter Culture made me throw up in my mouth a little bit, but mainly because it's kinda true. The article makes a lot of really compelling points. Though this one was particularly great:

When Buckley came on the scene in the mid-1950s, the American right was dominated by kooks: right-wing isolationists, Pearl Harbor and Yalta conspiracy theorists, anti-Semites and members of the John Birch Society like the palindromically named professor Revilo P. Oliver. Buckley and his movement conservatives, and later the early neoconservatives, struggled to purge the right of crackpots and create an intellectually serious movement capable of governing the country.

And yet the right of 2010 looks like the fever-swamp right of 1950 instead of the triumphant right of 1980. The John Birch Society, which Buckley and Goldwater expelled from the conservative movement in the early 1960s, was a co-sponsor of this year's Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC)

[ThinkerX]

From where I'm standing, both parties are little more than labels for this or that corporate or special interest. If the democrats have a majority, then one set of corporate or special interests takes center stage and is given the legal right to rip off the rest of us. If it is the republicans, it is a different set of corporate or special interests. Some corporate/special interests, such as the financial industry, have vast sway in both parties.

Neither party is really interested, or genuinly acts on behalf of ordinary, politically unconnected US citizens. Does it matter what political logo is on the bus that runs over you? Does it matter if the guy taking your money is from the government, or from a corporation given a 'right to steal' by the government?

[Shryke]

From where I'm standing, both parties are little more than labels for this or that corporate or special interest. If the democrats have a majority, then one set of corporate or special interests takes center stage and is given the legal right to rip off the rest of us. If it is the republicans, it is a different set of corporate or special interests. Some corporate/special interests, such as the financial industry, have vast sway in both parties.

Neither party is really interested, or genuinly acts on behalf of ordinary, politically unconnected US citizens. Does it matter what political logo is on the bus that runs over you? Does it matter if the guy taking your money is from the government, or from a corporation given a 'right to steal' by the government?

Yes.

Because no matter how many times you say it, the parties are not the same.

They may both be shilltastic, but they are a different flavour their of.

[Piper]

The smart-arse answer to the original question would be 1876, when the Republicans dropped Reconstruction in return for the Presidency.

The super-duper-smart-ass answer would be 1877, but who's counting :P

[Elrick]

Lev - you are ignoring the polls:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Feb 23, 2010 - "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of voters favor the proposed health care plan, while 56% oppose it. Those figures include 45% who strongly oppose the plan and just 23% who strongly favor it.

Support for and opposition to the plan are at the same levels they’ve been at since just after Thanksgiving."

And freaking google the campaign promise to cut the deficit in half, will ya? Do I have to do it all for you??

I don't trust Rasmussen polls at all for one they seem highly biased and are based in part on some idealism which to me is not a trustworthy poll. I prefer gallup or look at realclearpolitics.com but even than I don't trust them completely either.

[The Marquis de Leech]

That's the technical definition of Conservatism but in the U.S., conservative is almost universally seen as roughly synonymous with the Republican Party, which is (or at least back when it had principles) roughly synonymous with small government, fiscal conservatism, individualism and state's rights. This has been true for as long as I know. Whenever Republicans talk about going back to "Conservative Values" (read: Not GWB policies) these are the things they're talking about.

The problem with this is that the Republican Party has never actually represented those values in their entirity.

Reagan and the two Bushes ran gigantic deficits.

Nixon and Ford at least tried to keep a lid on the deficit, but don't exactly count as practitioners of small government.

Eisenhower (in his actions at Little Rock) put human rights over state's rights (and presided over a top tax rate of 90%).

Hoover, Coolidge, and Harding are better fits, but do the Republicans really want to idolise those guys?

[ThinkerX]

Yes.

Your agreeing with me?

Because no matter how many times you say it, the parties are not the same.

True...each is dominated by a differing (yet occasionally overlapping) set of corporate/special interests. And they do take differing approaches when it comes to enforcing the whims of these corporate/special interests on the rest of us. However, the end result is still the same - we ordinary folks get screwed over.

They may both be shilltastic, but they are a different flavour their of.

Fair enough.

[Shryke]

Your agreeing with me?

True...each is dominated by a differing (yet occasionally overlapping) set of corporate/special interests. And they do take differing approaches when it comes to enforcing the whims of these corporate/special interests on the rest of us. However, the end result is still the same - we ordinary folks get screwed over.

Fair enough.

I'm not agreeing with you, I'm answering the questions posed in your post. The summary of which is basically "Does it matter which side is in charge?".

And the answer is "Of course it does dummy".

"Both sides suck, their all the same man" is the most facile and meaningless kind of cynical stupidity that parades itself around as insight.

Neither side is perfect or exactly what we may wish it was, but that in no way implies equality in either their shittiness or in their results.

[The Marquis de Leech]

"Both sides suck, their all the same man" is the most facile and meaningless kind of cynical stupidity that parades itself around as insight.

Exactly. That particular line was peddled by Ralph Nader in 2000. I think it's safe to say that Al Gore was not the same as George W. Bush.

[Lord O' Bones]

And the answer is "Of course it does dummy".

For like, the three thousandth time, I agree with you completely, but I wish you weren't such an asshole about it.

I almost feel like we should exchange passports.

[Stalker]

So, apparently the "Mount Vernon" statement is an attempt by the Republican establishment to take control of Teabaggers, Beck viewers, and their ilk. Seems relevant to this thread.

[Jaime L]

The problem with this is that the Republican Party has never actually represented those values in their entirity.

Reagan and the two Bushes ran gigantic deficits.

Nixon and Ford at least tried to keep a lid on the deficit, but don't exactly count as practitioners of small government.

Eisenhower (in his actions at Little Rock) put human rights over state's rights (and presided over a top tax rate of 90%).

Hoover, Coolidge, and Harding are better fits, but do the Republicans really want to idolise those guys?

Yeah, very true.

I often feel like the form Conservatism takes in the Republican party harkens back to an era that never existed.

So, apparently the "Mount Vernon" statement is an attempt by the Republican establishment to take control of Teabaggers, Beck viewers, and their ilk. Seems relevant to this thread.

The article Watcher linked talked a little about this. But honestly, when "The Big Tent" becomes this much of a full-on Circus, I don't know how you put a lid on it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

I'm going to hop into this to address this specific point of anti-intellectualism among some in the GOP because I think it partially illuminates a very core difference in political philosophies. The real issue is not anti-intellectualism, but anti-intellectual elitism. I despise the former but strongly endorse the latter. Trying to flesh this out in this format is difficult without rambling, and without making generalizations upon which some jackals likely will pounce, but I'm going to give it a quick shot if anyone cares. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, and I don't expect any agreement. I'm simply trying to present an opposing view.

I don't think it is possible for any one person, or any group of people, to be smart enough to do the things that many on the left want done. To me, an intellectual can recognizes those limitations. An intellectual can believe that decentralization, pushing decision-making down to the lowest level possible, which often is the individual, is the most rational principle on which to order a society. A true intellectual can recognize that nobody, including himself, is smart enough to "run things".

Intellectual elitists, on the other hand, have the hubris to believe they can actually "figure things out", and manage society much better than it can manage on its own. Intellectual elitists believe that they are smarter than the rest of us, and so know better than we as individuals what should be done with matters that relate to our lives and our decisions. They are the philosopher-kings of Plato's Republic, wisely ruling for the benefit of their intellectual inferiors. They don't want the hoi polloi to hear different viewpoints because they're not intelligent enough to think for themselves. Let the elitists decide what is best because, after all, they know better.

Now I'm drawing those as partial caricatures to make the point more clear, and because that's what I my fellow anti-intellectual elistists really think. But exaggeration to make a point aside, I do think those fundamentally different worldviews exist. And many small government types in particular have that "anti-intellectual elitist" approach because they rightly mistrust people who claim to be smart enough to "fix things". Folks on the left value that super-smart guy because they want him to fix things, and think you need to be really smart to do that. Some folks on the right believe that if government was doing only what it should be doing, it doesn't require a brainiac to be President. It requires someone with clear thinking, good judgment, and the right values, but it does not require great intellect. A guy who really thinks he is that smart, but doesn't have the wisdom to know the inherent limitations of more centralized planning and direction, is dangerous.

These opposing worldviews collide directly in the current health care debate. Proponents of the bill say how it will fix and improve things, create efficiencies, save money, etc. They'll cite to favorable studies or analyses, etc. The "anti-intellectual elistists" will say all that is bullshit. They'll claim that nobody can possibly predict with any degree of accuracy what is going to happen when all 2000 pages of that bill hit the fan, and anyone who pretends otherwise is either guilty of monumental hubris, or have a greatly misplaced faith in the hubris of others. Debate between those sides is almost impossible to some extent because of what amounts to a metaphysical/epistemological chasm between what is possible to know, and what is not.

I think the best intellectual validation of those who oppose what I've described as intellectual elitism are some of the works of Friedrich von Hayek, and in particular his theory of Division of Knowledge. You do not need to believe in the perfection of a completely free market (I don't) to grasp Hayek's insight that governmental knowledge, and therefore its decisions, are inherently flawed, and consider that principle as a guide whenever discussing the proper role of government.

[ljkeane]

I think the best intellectual validation of those who oppose what I've described as intellectual elitism are some of the works of Friedrich von Hayek, and in particular his theory of Division of Knowledge. You do not need to believe in the perfection of a completely free market (I don't) to grasp Hayek's insight that governmental knowledge, and therefore its decisions, are inherently flawed, and consider that principle as a guide whenever discussing the proper role of government.

Of course the Austrian School of Economics was considered outdated and wrong by most economists by the 1930's, if Milton Friedman thinks that you are too enthusiastic in your analysis of the benefits of the free market then perhaps the theory needs reevaluating.