Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates - WTF?!!

[Piggy]

I get it. You don't want government screwing around in your life, but screwing around in the lives of others is fine with you.

That has always been the stance of the far left and right wings.

 

[Piggy]

So you think you can have lots of politicians with out them forming power blocks of people with similar beliefs? A two party system is the result of the constitution, it doesn't have to mention parties it is a logical consequence of the electoral system it does describe.

I don't believe the US Constitution inevitably leads to a 2 party system. That's what we have, though, and it's hard to shake once you have it. But I don't see that there's anything in the Constitution that would naturally prohibit a mutli-party system with de-facto coalition governments.

 

[Thunder]

so, what is the status of this Republican Aryan...I mean litmus test?

 

[Sporanox]

I get it. You don't want government screwing around in your life, but screwing around in the lives of others is fine with you.

Submit platitudes, and you shall receive: You don't want government screwing around in your life women's lives, but screwing around in the lives of others babies is fine with you.

How is that a mark of backbone? How much of the contract with america did they even make an effort to get passed into law?

It was great propaganda but pretty meaningless in terms of legislation.

That's the point. Once they got into office, Republicans forgot about their principles. Their legislative dominance was, from then on, as much of a liability as an asset.

And what makes you think ideological purity is going to put us in any position to have enough muscle to push your ideals?

I concede that there is a possibility that Americans might decide they don't like the basic Republican principles. But the GOP hasn't been pushing basic Republican principles over the past decade, so there's no reason to keep the status quo.

See, that's the problem: those who want to keep the GOP the way it is don't consider that doing so will not really succeed in passing any true Republican solutions. There must be some room for disagreement, of course, but less than there has been in the past. If that leads to a new centrist party springing up, then that's fine with me.


By the way, why make four separate posts in a row? Same goes to ponderingturtle...

 

[SezMe]

So you think you can have lots of politicians with out them forming power blocks of people with similar beliefs?

Of course not. But you've been talking about needing to amend the Constitution to allow more parties. Right now, numerous parties run presidential candidates such as the Greens. That they don't get many votes does not mean they don't exist.

A two party system is the result of the constitution, it doesn't have to mention parties it is a logical consequence of the electoral system it does describe.

Again, we do NOT have a two party system. We have a multi-party system dominated by the two largest parties.

 

[Piggy]

I concede that there is a possibility that Americans might decide they don't like the basic Republican principles. But the GOP hasn't been pushing basic Republican principles over the past decade, so there's no reason to keep the status quo.

See, that's the problem: those who want to keep the GOP the way it is don't consider that doing so will not really succeed in passing any true Republican solutions. There must be some room for disagreement, of course, but less than there has been in the past. If that leads to a new centrist party springing up, then that's fine with me.


By the way, why make four separate posts in a row? Same goes to ponderingturtle...

Re the split posts, I find them easier to read. I hate slogging through epic posts on a dozen different points, and prefer it if folks split up the points and deal with them separately. Just my style.

As for what you consider "basic Republican principles", seems to me you're merely pointing out that the campaign rhetoric is just that.

But perhaps the problem is with the campaign rhetoric. I mean, look where it's gotten us... beholden to the Palinistas and Beck-heads.

To say that we actually need to follow through on a radical reduction of government (a decidedly non-conservative way to go about things, btw) in order to make things match up just doesn't make sense to me.

First of all, consider what would happen if we really did that, throwing thousands of people out of work, cutting many tax-funded programs that are working fine (which would have to be done) and further reducing regulatory oversight while constricting the social safety net. There'd be outrage.

People like the idea of small government, but they're not too hot about the reality of small government.

Also consider that we just got trounced by a campaign that did not use that tack, and that the most adored Republican icon is a textbook 20th-century big-government Republican, Ronald Reagan, who ballooned both the size of government and federal deficits.

No, I just don't see any reason to believe that attempting to follow thru on the talking points would work at all.

Like him or not, Obama was right when he said that a choice between "big government" and "small government" is not the issue. The question is how much government we need to do the things we want government to do.

And when you consider that this is a nation of 300 million people, encompassing 50 states, and spanning an entire continent, the very notion that a shoestring government could effectively administer the country is dubious at best.

That's probably why the notion of small government is more popular among talk show hosts and campaign managers than it is on Pennsylvania Avenue.

 

[Thunder]

Now, what happens if the Democrats offer to let in those Republicans who fail the litmus test, or decide they cannot be a member of a party that has a litmus test?

 

[Piggy]

Now, what happens if the Democrats offer to let in those Republicans who fail the litmus test, or decide they cannot be a member of a party that has a litmus test?

Then they form a coalition with the Blue Dogs and take the party away from the traditional liberals. Which means that such an offer is not forthcoming.

 

[Sporanox]

Re the split posts, I find them easier to read. I hate slogging through epic posts on a dozen different points, and prefer it if folks split up the points and deal with them separately. Just my style.

Ah, gotcha.

As for what you consider "basic Republican principles", seems to me you're merely pointing out that the campaign rhetoric is just that.

But perhaps the problem is with the campaign rhetoric. I mean, look where it's gotten us... beholden to the Palinistas and Beck-heads.

(I'll address the point about rhetoric later.) First, Palin and Beck aren't (currently) running for office, so they aren't running us aground directly. Second, are we really beholden to them? Given how eclectic the mix of Tea Partiers is, I don't buy that they all take marching orders from either. That is simply a stereotype read into the news by liberals. Third, are they actually following through with basic conservatism in their proposals? (this is not a rhetorical question, just something I would like to hear your opinion on.) And fourth, if they are, is that a bad thing?

To say that we actually need to follow through on a radical reduction of government (a decidedly non-conservative way to go about things, btw) in order to make things match up just doesn't make sense to me.

First of all, consider what would happen if we really did that, throwing thousands of people out of work, cutting many tax-funded programs that are working fine (which would have to be done) and further reducing regulatory oversight while constricting the social safety net. There'd be outrage.

People like the idea of small government, but they're not too hot about the reality of small government.

Hold up: you're saying that one way to move in the direction of small government is too drastic and unwarranted. Perhaps it is. But would it be too much to ask that those who proclaim themselves Republicans would avoid big-government solutions and actually try to come up with conservative answers?

We can argue about whether reducing our dependency on social help/handouts is a bad thing or not. Perhaps it is - perhaps our society has been incorrigibly altered. But it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me to run with intelligent small-government proposals, instead of going "moderate" (read: deficit spending). We've had plenty of examples of that in the past decade.

To give you an idea of how I believe Republican principles can work in practice, I'll give some examples:

1: Small, nonintrusive government. We get government out of people's sexual preferences wrt gay marriage (by legalizing it or getting out of marriage altogether) and submit to the rights of private American citizens in regards to wiretapping by making sure we do it legally.

2: Fiscal conservatism. We stop signing costly boondoggles like Medicare Part D and the bailouts into law. We let capitalism take its course, e.g. allowing firms to fail. We actually move to balance the budget.

3: Strong national defense. We avoid overexerting the U.S. Army by modeling it for a conventional war it wasn't meant to fight; we recognize changes on the ground and respond to them when appropriate (the surge was too long in coming); and we actually PLAN RESPONSIBLY for war.

I don't think those proposals are too far from the mainstream.

 

[Thunder]

Then they form a coalition with the Blue Dogs and take the party away from the traditional liberals. Which means that such an offer is not forthcoming.

well, if social liberal/fiscal conservatives are no longer welcome in the RNC, and the Democrats won't have them, then new party we shall see!!



or, they could stay Republican, but vote with the Democrats. boy..would that sting.

 

[Thunder]

3: Strong national defense. We avoid overexerting the U.S. Army by modeling it for a conventional war it wasn't meant to fight; we recognize changes on the ground and respond to them when appropriate (the surge was too long in coming); and we actually PLAN RESPONSIBLY for war.

and how about, getting American troops out of Europe and Japan? that might save us a good $100 billion a year.

or do you think we still need to protect the Europeans from the USSR, and the Japanese from Mao?

 

[Cain]

Cain: This doesn't follow from what I said.

And moral outrage is pointless here.

And yet, your original argument still doesn't follow. I'm just putting my words in a context.

Unless you are proposing violent revolution things are the way they are.

How is a violent revolution even implied?

And it means squat nationally.

You were talking about unspecified elections. Local level politics is subject to institutional reform; such reforms have to start somewhere and then work their way up.

Sure so is anything you care to name. Trial by jury, income tax...

Now you're just ********ting. There are varying degrees of ****ed-up-ness. Moreover, there's also a huge chasm between where people are today philosophically -- "my vote for president should count, all votes should count equally" -- and the way institutions actually function. Voting is also, um, sort of important, because it's how we change everything else -- provided you do want to avoid violent revolution.

 

[Sporanox]

and how about, getting American troops out of Europe and Japan? that might save us a good $100 billion a year.

or do you think we still need to protect the Europeans from the USSR, and the Japanese from Mao?

I believe the reality is a little more complicated. For example, Poland and other Eastern European countries threw a fit when we appeared to withdraw the missile shield...because of Russian aggression. Ahem.

Also, those bases allow us to respond flexibly to threats that occur anywhere in the world, and they provide a convenient midpoint for both supplies and wounded troops.

 

[Thunder]

I believe the reality is a little more complicated. For example, Poland and other Eastern European countries threw a fit when we appeared to withdraw the missile shield...because of Russian aggression. Ahem.

Russian aggression..against whom??

since when does our national security decisions depend on the temporary political needs of Poland and the Czech Republic?

 

[Sporanox]

Russian aggression..against whom??

since when does our national security decisions depend on the temporary political needs of Poland and the Czech Republic?

Don't take it from me.

 

[Thunder]

Don't take it from me.

Right....Czar Nicholas is gonna send his troops into neighboring Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria.

uh huh.

 

[Sporanox]

Right....Czar Nicholas is gonna send his troops into neighboring Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria.

uh huh.

It's more complicated than that, parky. Although I do notice your need to reduce everything to a caricature of Palin's thought process.

 

[Thunder]

It's more complicated than that, parky. Although I do notice your need to reduce everything to a caricature of Palin's thought process.

funny...i didn't even think of that.

 

[Piggy]

First, Palin and Beck aren't (currently) running for office, so they aren't running us aground directly. Second, are we really beholden to them? Given how eclectic the mix of Tea Partiers is, I don't buy that they all take marching orders from either. That is simply a stereotype read into the news by liberals. Third, are they actually following through with basic conservatism in their proposals? (this is not a rhetorical question, just something I would like to hear your opinion on.) And fourth, if they are, is that a bad thing?

I'm not saying that Beck and Palin in particular are calling any shots.

When I say that the party is beholden to the Palinistas and Beck-heads, I mean that most Republicans in office now cannot continue to hold their seats if they lose the support of the kind of people who are the core audience for folks like Beck and Palin -- that is, people who buy into conspiracy theories and extreme rhetoric, and don't have any clear grasp of political, economic, environmental, and cultural realities.

That's who we've wound up in bed with. And now we find that there's no one else to shack up with, so most Republican office-holders dare not risk getting kicked out of that flea-infested bed for fear of being left out in the cold altogether.

Do I consider Beck and Palin to be core conservatives? Hell no! They're radicals. And disengagement from reality, which is the hallmark of their agenda, is decidedly not a basic conservative tenet. It's mere populist nuttery wrapping itself in the conservative banner.

 

[Piggy]

Hold up: you're saying that one way to move in the direction of small government is too drastic and unwarranted. Perhaps it is. But would it be too much to ask that those who proclaim themselves Republicans would avoid big-government solutions and actually try to come up with conservative answers?

Where did you get this idea that the core of conservative governance is a devotion to abandoning the responsibility to govern at all?