Are Republicans still a National Party?

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Frax

I always see this when I see an IRB post, it makes the thread more enjoyable

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Attachment 107953

Originally Posted by Arbiter

hahaha

Proud members of the 18%.

[Draegan]

Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis

I havn't finished catch up with this thread but this is an excellent essay on fascism and how it's name is being used. I havn't read nearly the whole thing but I suggest looking into it.

Edit:
This was written, I believe, in 2003 by the way.

[Zaniel]

Originally Posted by Borzak

Even if I had the opportunity I'm not sure I would. I wouldn't want every check going into the same bank.

Sorry I don't live in the US, what does this mean? You seem to be saying you don't trust the individual branch which is cosmically incomprehensible to me. Am I misinterpreting you?

[FulorianC]

U.S. banks are only insured for up to $100,000 by the FDIC. If you don't have faith in the banks, and have $200,000+ in cash laying around, you'll probably end up spreading your wealth between different banking institutions, for insurance reasons.

Make sense?

[Dworkk]

Originally Posted by FulorianC

U.S. banks are only insured for up to $100,000 by the FDIC. If you don't have faith in the banks, and have $200,000+ in cash laying around, you'll probably end up spreading your wealth between different banking institutions, for insurance reasons.

Make sense?

this was changed to $250,000 with TARP

[Haus]

As a lifelong Republican I can say with this last election cycle I finally came to the classic realization. I did not leave the Republican party, the Republican party has left me.

From the inside of the party I can let you know the conflict I personally see. This has to do with the fact that people reference a 1 dimensional political model (left(liberal)-right(conservative)) when in actuality you have a two dimensional one with social (liberal or conservative) and then fiscal (liberal or conservative) and they're very different things. (google for "political compass" to see more on this)

Within the Republican party you have both flavors of "conservative" (fiscal and social). The problem is there is a fundamental conflict between them. Fiscal conservatives are the classic Goldwater style "small government only where absolutely needed" types. They want the government to do what it needs, but ONLY what is absolutely required and to do it with as little interference/taxation as possible. Social conservatives feel the need to extend and expand law to regulate issues they feel need to be regulated for the "good of the people", often influenced by either a religion or some other external source of moral guidance they wish to codify into law. You can see where these two freight trains will collide and it's only a matter of which directions the body are flying. Reagan was able to assemble the party in the way he did because he espoused the fiscal conservative viewpoint while being personally social conservative enough to make that aspect of the party like him and embrace him. The first Bush rode his coattails into office, and it was a slide downhill into the abyss since IMHO.

The Democrats have their own version of this as well. Social liberals who want to increase personal liberty and fiscal liberals who want to spend more and increase the size of government as a means of addressing issues. One of the key differences is that the Democrats have been doing a better job of balancing these groups. Obama represents an embodiment of the fiscal liberal mindset while giving token nods to the social liberals. Somewhat Reaganesque while at the same moment being the "Anti-Reagan".

IMHO it will take the current people leading the party to fail to the point they can simply be shuffled out. A proverbial house cleaning. As younger people move into the party they are displacing several of the older mindsets, but this process takes time. I also agree with the "someone pretty" mantra. The american public tends to elect the better looking candidate, and McCain wasn't gonna cut it against a younger and better looking candidate. A key will be seeing things form up in the lead to 2012. I am betting you'll see the presidential line up coming down to Romney v. Gingrich. How the Republican primaries go will tell you if the party if ready to move on or keep rolling out the old school. I suspect personally Romney can win that. If he does look to see if he picks a "make the social conservatives happy" VP, or a "get away from legislating morality" VP. That's the second test.

As a black horse in the race, don't be surprised if some young up and coming political with a more Libertarian/Republican bent becomes the "new Ron Paul". If they can find that individual, hand up a Romney ticket with this person as the VP and you could re-invigorate the Goldwater types. The question then becoming is that enough to regain relevance.

Personally I think that the country as a whole would benefit greatly from the advancement/establishment of a legitimate third party which is on equal footing to the other two. This would require any party wishing to advance any agenda to make it palatable enough to get support from members of another group. But the two parties will NEVER let that happen.

[chaos]

I couldn't agree more, maybe with exception to Romney. I think that term limits are one thing that we really need in order to get new blood into the party, that would be a huge help. Some of these guys in Congress are so old, you have to wonder what the hell they are even doing. Do you think Robert Byrd is still active in drafting policy and refining old policy? Somehow, I doubt it.

I really think that mainstream Americans have drifted away from both parties on values and principles, and it's these ancient people in power who perpetuate the whole 2 party thing. Until we find a way to deal with them, it's going to take dramatic action to refresh the values that we govern with, when the ideals should be a constantly changing thing.

[Soriak]

If you look at the debate on campaign finance reform, the people apparently don't want to set the conditions for a third party either. Contribution limits mean you need a large number of donors to get somewhere, instead of having a few wealthy people helping to kick start the party. That alone is going to shut out third parties and only allow the super-wealthy (i.e. billionaires) to credibly run as independents. There would also have to be a way to donate anonymously, because your business might depend on good relationships with the established politicians, which would suffer if you start to bankroll a third party.

By the way: that should also make influence buying a lot more expensive - and thus discourage it. It's hard to get excited over $100k total donations by firms when an individual can throw in tens of millions. Maybe it just shifts influence buying from firms to individuals, but I doubt the latter have all that different views. Maybe they are more concerned with individual liberties instead of corporate advantages and possibly less organized. (most individuals don't have lobbyists working for them) Neither seems like a bad outcome.

[Heylel Teomim]

While I agree with you on the fact that the spectrum is not one dimensional, I'm having a hard time understanding how any young new firebrand of the Republican doctrine could even exist. Social conservatism is inherently anti-modern, given that it's entire reason for existing is to preserve culture as it has existed in the past and not allow it to evolve or change over time (which is always seen as a negative). For someone to bring fresh new ideas into the party, that person would have to be non-conservative by definition.

Now, you could argue that someone could rise up on the right who is not socially conservative, but is only fiscally conservative. That's one of those "duh" stances. *Everyone* wants to save as much money as possible, even the people who feel the need to spend money in order to do so. It's just a difference in approach, rather than ultimate goal.

I think any near future leader, Obama included, that pulls America out of its current mess will have to be at least somewhat liberal, simply due to the nature of the ideas espoused by both sides. Whether the ideas are good or bad, only new ideas will move us forward, and conservatism is the ideology of the dead.

[chaos]

Social conservatism isn't going anywhere. It may become more marginalized, but it won't fade out, not in our lifetimes anyway. Ultimately I think that is how the Republican party will be redeemed, by marginalizing the social conservatives and moving towards a platform based around fiscal conservatism, specifically tax cuts (and actually delivering on those tax cuts, rahter than just running on them every 4 years).

[Haus]

Originally Posted by Heylel Teomim

While I agree with you on the fact that the spectrum is not one dimensional, I'm having a hard time understanding how any young new firebrand of the Republican doctrine could even exist. Social conservatism is inherently anti-modern, given that it's entire reason for existing is to preserve culture as it has existed in the past and not allow it to evolve or change over time (which is always seen as a negative).

My real point which might have gotten lost in my statement is that the "new face" to revitalize the republican party needs to be a fiscal conservative who can give the needed appearance/lip service to the social conservative movement to get buy in. (The same way Obama is a fiscal liberal who gives enough lip service to the social liberal base to get buy in)

The reality IMHO, is that for governing most things your best governance occurs at levels closer to those being governed because the people doing it are more immediately responsible to the constituents. The higher the level of government the less it needs to do. Fiscal conservatism maintains that you "right size" each level of government to what is optimal. Large entitlement programs from the federal level are more prone to being manipulated than those with controls closer to the end users.

Also this leans into a strong stance on states rights. This is why the constitution was built in such a way to as to only allow explicit rights to the federal government, further rights to the state government, and all rights not explicitly defined to the individual, which I personally believe is best.

The litmus test you can most commonly apply is that a fiscal conservative in their purest form will believe in minimalist government only where absolutely needed, and only to the minimal size needed to accomplish the goal. Right now both parties on the federal level are fiscally liberal, it's just that the Democrats aren't in denial over it. Both parties want to expand the federal governments power and jurisdiction, but only for different base motivations. The Republicans want to protect us from the evil outside the US (i.e. the Patriot Act), and the Democrats for the most part want to protect us from ourselves and/or protect the world from us. (i.e. upcoming climate control legislation and the nationalizing of businesses) Both parties firmly believe that they are smarter than the people who vote them in, and ergo should be given the reins of power and control.

One reason the Democrats can capitalize on things right now is that we are at a point where many in the electorate are voting based on what the politician promises to get "for them". This lets any politician willing to promise more "government cheese" to the masses to get elected more easily because the people getting the cheese in question rarely question or care where the money for this cheese comes from. This leans towards a fiscally liberal approach to government, which is what the Democrats do best.

[Sharmai]

Originally Posted by Haus

......Goldwater style "small government only where absolutely needed" types. ........Social conservatives feel the need to extend and expand law to regulate issues they feel need to be regulated for the "good of the people",.......

Honest Question? What is the difference between these two? Any examples? I read wiki on the topic and what I get from it is Fiscal conservative means spending only the money for which you have not the money which you expect to get when making your budget. While social might well spend on what they expect to have.


Is that accurate?

I ask because from your definition I feel I am both fiscal and social which doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it? I want whats best for the people and only where needed government.

[Heylel Teomim]

This is why fiscal conservatism is really just a smokescreen. In the end, we all want "only the government we need". Where we all differ is in where the line is drawn. From that perspective, we're all fiscally conservative.

[Soriak]

Fiscal conservatives favor spending on police and other methods directly targeted at a problem. Those further on the left favor spending on the (perceived) causes of the problem. It's a lot more expensive to fund social programs than a police force, but there's a causal link between poverty and crime. Imo it's also more productive though, especially in the long term. (educated labor force, fewer issues with outsourcing/globalization, better informed voters)

But that's where the political/ideological difference is.

[Sharmai]

In that case I'm most definitely closer to social conservatism. I don't believe in just going for the simpler solution simply because it's cheaper but it's not actually better.