When did the Republican Party go off the rails?

[Shryke]

If a third party could actually successfully demonstrate that it stood for fiscally conservative (smaller government, balanced spending) and socially liberal (keep govt out of private matters) policies, I think they would be a force to be reckoned with. I'm pretty liberal across the board, and I would consider voting for such a group, just because I'm tired of the Democrats and their worthless pandering.

Of course, such a political party is always going to be better in theory. In practice it needs to be championed by real people, who will have real flaws, and probably sell out just as hard as the existing parties do.

Such a political party would probably lose is the issue. It would split the fiscal conservative vote. (basically straight down the socially liberal/conservative line)

The problem/truth is that the GOP as it currently exists, in all it's craziness, actually does represent people. A not insignificant chunk of them. And those people vote.

Not in numbers big enough to win on their own, but not in numbers small enough to be ignored.

[TerraPrime]

Re: FLoW

I think not. I believe my earlier post was perfectly clear to anyone who gave it a fair reading. Not only are political decionmakers acting on poorer quality information, but because they legislate on an incredibly wide range of subjects, they necessarily lack mastery of those issues. Jacks of all trades, masters of none.

If you insist. I don't think that was a reasonable reading of what you wrote, at all.

In that respect, they're no better than the average message board groupie. Worse, actually, because at least our opinions don't have the binding force of law.

No, they're still better than the average citizen, because we pay for staffers to help them with these issues. There's a research arm of the Congress where dedicated experts in areas as far apart as fossil fuel reserves to atomic physics are paid to answer questions and provide reports for Congress. I will not dispute that many Congressional people are gravely ill-informed on different subjects, but that is a reflection of their own laziness and their own lack of effort, because we provide them with the means to be better informed than the average citizen.

Re: Swordfish

I don't really have a comment on this other than to suggest that assuming that attitude among the populace is prevalent only among GOP voters would be something I'd strongly disagree with, if that is the implication.

If by "that attitude" you mean being easily distracted by nice-sounding slogans and soundbites, then yes, voters from both sides are guilty of falling prey to that. But if by "that attitude" you mean the deliberate promotion of manufactured folk wisdom to trump reasoned arguments, then no, I think it's more prevalent over in the GOP than in the Democratic side.

:rolleyes:

yes, that is what i'm advocating. obviously.

I didn't say that's what you're advocating. I was wondering what the alternative would be based on your reasoning.

there's a pretty big leap between attempting to legislate something despite not understanding it and leaving it alone completely.

Acknowledging that certain problems are simply to big and complicated to be solved by the federal government would be a good start, rather than defaulting to the position of instituting sweeping legislation and reform because 'hey, it's better than nothing, right?'

I'm not sure I get the distinction. What type of action do you see as appropriate that does not involve "sweeping legsilation and reform" in response to a problem that is too complicated to be solved entirely? Can you pick an issue to illustrate this distinction? I'm not seeing it.

[Kalbear]

Okay, if that is the case why do we allow everyone to vote? Under the standard you seem to be implying we should accept wouldn't it make more sense to limit the franchise to those who meet certian "intellegence" standards? If we should step back and simply accept what our intellectual betters see as the right path what purpose does "one person, one vote" really serve?

Good question. Merit-based voting would probably work better in the long run from a practical standpoint.

I think the difference between republicans and democrats is which intellectual elite they want to run things. Democrats want politicians and elected officials that are smart and know stuff to run things. Republicans want businessmen and oligarchs that know stuff to run things. Neither really disagree that they want elite to run things though, or that they don't know more than others.

Another way to put it: of COURSE they're elitist. They're trying to run the biggest country in the world. Do people tend to want those in office who don't think they're hot shit there?

[Commodore]

Board Conservatives, nearly across the board, in contrast, believe in and hold to intellectual honesty. But to those who continue to support the Republican Party, I have to ask why? Even if you align far closer to Conservative philosophy than Liberal, how can you support a party that no longer seems to value facts, just catchphrases and easy to remember slogans? How can extreme anti-intellectualism not be seen as the greater problem? Or do you believe the two parties are equivalent in this regard?

You shouldn't support people or parties, only ideas and outcomes.

People always let you down, because they are human.

In the same vein, you didn't give any specifics when citing intellectual dishonesty and anti-intellectualism, you just proclaim them to be. It's never that simple. Anyone can be irrational at times, and can be intellectual at times, you have to look at each circumstance on its own.

I'm not a Beck fan (I listen to Rush daily), but he does hour long shows talking with historians on the roots of progressivism, hardly anti-intellectual. Outside of maybe Bill Moyers, you wont find anything on TV comparable on the other side politically.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

You might be shocked to know that on "political compass" type tests, I score in the center/slight left.

The fact that you think I'm "right of center" might signal your need to find where you really are by taking one of those tests ;)

Not really, you´re sane on social issues. I usually disregard most of those when assessing left/right.

[Annelise]

Hey, I feel that there's no longer room in the Democratic party for people like me - socially liberal but fiscally conservative. All the moderates have left the building, and everyone wants a handout. And the Democrats in charge are more than willing to give it to them.

I'm glad you plan to keep voting. :) Disgruntlement with the Dems and Republicans too often leads to apathy and that's a loss for everyone, except the Dems and Republicans.

[Shryke]

You might be shocked to know that on "political compass" type tests, I score in the center/slight left.

The fact that you think I'm "right of center" might signal your need to find where you really are by taking one of those tests ;)

Oh please Chats. You're smarter then this.

A "Political Compass" test only shows your position relative to whatever centre the test maker sets.

Again, look at some polls and see where you place.

[lokisnow]

That's where you contribute. Then the people responsible for implementing those policies go off and do their stuff, and in the eyes of the left this job is generally best left to the person most qualified. We aren't abdicating all our influence to the people in power, and nothing in my post could ever have given you that idea because it's nowhere near what I said.

Perhaps the greatest thing about having a democratic president and congress is the appointment of qualified people to run agencies like FEMA and the EPA, rather than brownnosing flunkies, and asshats out to run their agencies into the ground because they have a philosophical disagreement with the agency they're nominally in charge of.

The left has done a horrifically poor job of recognizing the fact that Bush made virtually no good appointments and Obama has made almost entirely worthy appointments.

[lokisnow]

That's a good point, but I'm not ascribing a virtue to being less than highly intelligent. It's obviously preferable if all else is equal. But I'd rather have a pretty smart person who recognizes those limitations and governs accordingly rather than a genius who doesn't. I know others disagree, and that's fine. As I said, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm simply trying to see that the opposing voice is heard.

In general, though, intelligent people are more likely to be more self-aware of their own limitations than less intelligent people. Certainly Lincoln and Obama are good examples of realizing their own limitations and surrounding themselves with an enormous group of rivals and fellows who would openly disagree with them. (to give an example from both parties)

On the other hand,you have a non-intellectual like Bush or Palin who surround themselves with Yes-men. Disagreement with the boss, in their case means treachery and backstabbing to the boss. Because to the boss, there is no such thing as reasonable disagreement. The less intelligent tend to generate an atmosphere that the boss is always right and the leader may never be questioned. Why? because they have a system where they don't recognize their limitations.

in the first system, with intellectual elitists, you have people who are not afraid to speak up and tell the driver that he's heading for a cliff and everyone will die. In the second system, with the non intellectual elitists you have everyone too terrified to speak up on their own behalf or on anyone else's behalf because it could be construed as treason to tell the boss he's driving off the cliff. typically in this situation, the boss somehow lives, after the crash, and then blames his flunkies for not telling him about the cliff he failed to recognize cause he was not very bright.

[lokisnow]

In reply to someone's question of who the Left's version of Sarah Palin is, we have an answer:

Jesse Jackson

http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2010/02/24/is-sarah-palin-the-2012-version-of-jesse-jackson-in-1988/

[DanteGabriel]

In reply to someone's question of who the Left's version of Sarah Palin is, we have an answer:

Jesse Jackson

http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2010/02/24/is-sarah-palin-the-2012-version-of-jesse-jackson-in-1988/

That's a stupid fucking answer.

I'm not terribly surprised that's a WSJ editorial. It manages to make some reasonable-sounding comparisons between Jackson and Palin, while ignoring the giant elephant in the room, which is that Jackson, while certainly something of a bullshit artist and attention whore, is nowhere near the perniciously ignorant reality-denying conniver that Palin is.

[Shryke]

Nor is he near as popular.

[Lightning Lord]

He's not exactly top-ticket in national polls, so how are they comparable? He's just an attention whore that no one on the left wants to run.

ETA: What Shryke said. Didn't see his response.

[litechick]

I'm just tipsy enough to say what I want to say. What follows is my opinion. I'm not going to defend it--take it or leave it.

The left doesn't need a Palin, they've got Sean Penn, Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks, etc, etc. They have plenty of charismatic figures who sway popular opinion against the opposing party.

The right has Stannis and the left has Littlefinger.

Skepticism with regards to experts gets labelled as anti-intellectualism. I prefer to think of it as keeping in mind that intellectuals are human beings too. Experts are subject to the same human vices of greed, vanity, and blindness as the rest of the human race.

You can't assume that a man of God is immune to lust, you can't assume that a man of science is immune to hubris.

In general, though, intelligent people are more likely to be more self-aware of their own limitations than less intelligent people.

Nope. That's wisdom, not intelligence.

[Ocean of Notions]

etc

The right has Stannis and the left has Littlefinger.

etc

You can't assume that a man of God is immune to lust, you can't assume that a man of science is immune to hubris.

I'm not quite tipsy (yet), but I giggled. And I raise my glass to you. :cheers:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

Good question. Merit-based voting would probably work better in the long run from a practical standpoint.

I think the difference between republicans and democrats is which intellectual elite they want to run things. Democrats want politicians and elected officials that are smart and know stuff to run things. Republicans want businessmen and oligarchs that know stuff to run things. Neither really disagree that they want elite to run things though, or that they don't know more than others.

Another way to put it: of COURSE they're elitist. They're trying to run the biggest country in the world. Do people tend to want those in office who don't think they're hot shit there?

Actually, I really don't want people who think they're "hot shit" to run things. I've said for years one of the fundemental problems with any form of democracy is that we give power to people who want power. I think it's not just that they get drunk on power, but that they want to get drunk on power.

I would prefer a system that gives power to smart people who don't want power. People who don't see power as their birthright. People who see governing their nation as a pain in the ass duty they have to do and want to set aside as quickly as possible.

Sadly, this last person is very rarely the one we actually get.

[Ormond]

I would prefer a system that gives power to smart people who don't want power. People who don't see power as their birthright. People who see governing their nation as a pain in the ass duty they have to do and want to set aside as quickly as possible.

Sadly, this last person is very rarely the one we actually get.

Just a question:

Do you think that such a "system" could ever come about?

It seems rather un-Libertarian and antidemocratic to try to force people who don't want to govern to become the governors.

Plus I really think that the idea that people who "don't want power" would be better at governing is an unrealistic fantasy. Politics is all about power, and people who don't want power are not the people who are likely to understand power and its relationship to governing, and so I think would actually be more likely to make incorrect decisions about governance. Expecting someone who doesn't like power to govern well is like expecting someone who doesn't like heights to become a mountain climber. You really wouldn't get peak performance that way.

[Guest Raidne]

Don't know if it's been mentioned, but time has a great cover story on this right now. They trace the start of what they call this "circular approach" (i.e. claim that government is terrible and inefficient, and then to do everything in your power as a member of the government to insure that it's true in order to win elections) to the Gingrich years back during the Clinton Adminstration.

That seems apt to me. Before, government understood it was about the business of making laws, and whatever authority any party had was used to influence the result. Nobody tried to throw a legislative temper tantrum to shut down the whole thing for 4 to 8 years under a strategy that dictates that they wait until the people cave in and finally let them have control again, lest nothing at all ever get passed.

(It's funny - the article includes a few examples of occasions where they accidentally filibustered their own proposals)

And that's what it is - a temper tantrum. I would ask our conservatives if they weren't ashamed to be aligned with a party that is so, well, immature, except that the Republicans have struck on truth about their base: a lot of people really don't want the government to do anything. Whatsoever. And that's a philosophical position, although I think it's stupid and premised upon the idea that whatever the status quo is now is the best of all possible worlds, since, of course, you actually have to pass laws to have less government.

It's like the people who used the current snowstorms on the east coast as evidence against global warming.

But it's all working. And I don't see any way to break it. People are not going to convinced, and we are literally not going to have, well, government during any Democratic administration until something happens.

I propose we undertake whatever action is necessary to kill, kill, kill the filibuster. It's not constitutional that it takes more than a bare majority to govern.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ormond,

Just a question:

Do you think that such a "system" could ever come about?

It seems rather un-Libertarian and antidemocratic to try to force people who don't want to govern to become the governors.

Plus I really think that the idea that people who "don't want power" would be better at governing is an unrealistic fantasy. Politics is all about power, and people who don't want power are not the people who are likely to understand power and its relationship to governing, and so I think would actually be more likely to make incorrect decisions about governance. Expecting someone who doesn't like power to govern well is like expecting someone who doesn't like heights to become a mountain climber. You really wouldn't get peak performance that way.

I disagree in part. First, understanding power and disliking power are not necessarily mutually exclusive. What I'm saying that someone who enjoys power will want more. Most of the time they enjoy the personal perks that come with that power. In my experience this is the last person we would want to give more power to.

Second, I'm not suggesting Bob who really prefers doing nothing to work is going to be better than an ambitous motivated politico at governing. I'm suggesting that individuals who like power for power's sake are a large part of the problem in our system. They don't want to do what they believe is right they want to continue to increase their own personal power. Democracy, by it's nature rewards those who want to glom power to themselves because we only give power to those who actively seek it.

The kicker is that I don't see a way to fix this problem in democracy other than hoping, really hard, that people who see governing as a duty rather than a right will run for office and that somehow I and others will have the discernment to pick those individuals and not the power hungry when we vote.

Raidne,

And that's what it is - a temper tantrum. I would ask our conservatives if they weren't ashamed to be aligned with a party that is so, well, immature, except that the Republicans have struck on truth about their base: a lot of people really don't want the government to do anything. Whatsoever. And that's a philosophical position, although I think it's stupid and premised upon the idea that whatever the status quo is now is the best of all possible worlds, since, of course, you actually have to pass laws to have less government.

We believe less government is a good thing. That doesn't mean we like the status quo. It means we do not have the power to change or remove the things we don't like right now. We do have the power to at least attempt to stop the government from getting bigger than it has already become.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

a lot of people really don't want the government to do anything. Whatsoever. And that's a philosophical position, although I think it's stupid and premised upon the idea that whatever the status quo is now is the best of all possible worlds, since, of course, you actually have to pass laws to have less government.

I don't think its fair to imply that those folks would oppose repeal of laws currently in existence. The truth is that repealing of substantive legislation is rare enough that it's not something people think about very much. So when people use the shorthand of "I don't want the government to do anything", they're really saying "I don't want the government to do anything more than it's doing right now." And they generally favor doing a lot less.

To me, it seems that some on the left who advocate "progress" seem to take as a given that progress must come from government rather than private action.