Still Strange
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Since I apparently haven’t talked enough about the stimulus bill, I’ll say a few words about it in connection with a topic I find to be interesting. Andrew cites a Gallup poll showing broad approval for Obama’s handling of the stimulus. Republicans receive very negative marks on the same question, which is consistent with being a wildly unpopular party that was just trounced in a second consecutive election and is loathed by more than half of the country. This brings me back to my initial reaction to the House Republican vote on the stimulus.
Suppose for a moment that all observers of the debate agreed that the House Republicans were right that the stimulus bill isn’t fast or effective enough and that it is larded down with all sorts of unnecessary spending, and let’s go one step beyond that and grant for the sake of argument that, say, a payroll tax cut alternative is far superior to what is being offered. Voting against the stimulus bill would still make no sense politically unless you believe two things: 1) the public is hostile to vast increases in spending; 2) the public judges these matters based on a high degree of wonkish detail. The first assumption is appealing to those of us who are hostile to vast increases in spending, but we make up a small portion of the electorate and are unrepresentative of the rest of the country. For that matter, such people make up a small portion of the GOP itself, which is why the sudden return of the GOP’s anti-spending enthusiasm seems so bizarre to me. Of all the times to acquire zeal for austerity, which is rarely popular in the best of times and risky even for popular majority parties, they have chosen the middle of a recession after having taken two huge electoral drubbings. This is something like discovering antiwar scruples only in the middle of an invasion. The second assumption about how the public judges the debate is simply fantastic. At most, these measures are judged by the parties’ stated priorities and their rhetoric.
During the bailout debate, the House Republican leadership voted for creating the TARP, which was also bad policy, and they were oblivious to the political toxicity of that measure among their own constituents. It’s not as if the leadership had some deep reservoir of populist credibility before the bailout. Even if the TARP had been a good idea and even if it had already had some success, it would still be perceived as nothing more than the scam and the giveaway to banks that it actually was. Even though the stimulus bill will probably have no desirable effects and will add vast sums to the debt, the stimulus and its supporters are going to continue to be perceived as acting on behalf of the public. Boehner and Cantor have twice managed to put themselves on the wrong side of public opinion on major pieces of legislation in the last five months, so again I have to wonder why it is they remain in the leadership. I have to assume it is because the members of the conference are as politically clueless as they are.
This brings me to an interesting survey of former Republicans from Pennsylvania who switched their registration last year (via Antle). Of course, most of them (54%) cited the war as a major reason, and many cited foreign policy generally and environmental issues, but 44% of those surveyed also gave taxes as their reason and 46% said their views on taxes were closer to the Democrats. That is, this 44% left the GOP in Pennsylvania because they thought it reduced taxes too much and not because it spent too much. To the extent that the GOP followed economic conservatives, it lost more voters in Pennsylvania because of that than it did because of social conservative positions. (Naturally, even though hawks and economic conservatives appear to be alienating more voters than social conservatives, the latter continue to be the scapegoats.) Most of the party-switchers identify as moderate and liberal, and just 26% defined themselves as conservative or very conservative, which on the one hand seems baffling to me given how much farther to the left of me the GOP has moved in just the last few years, and on the other it makes perfect sense considering the self-destructive embrace of Bush mainstream conservatives engaged in for most, if not all, of his Presidency.
Update: Commenting on FoxNews’ recent ratings bump, Dave Weigel says of the GOP:
They’re still losing, but now they’re doing it with more people watching.
Sounds like a recipe for success to me!
Filed under: politics
This post seems a tad churlish.
From a purely political standpoint- the almost unanimous GOP opposition to the stimulus package makes sense. Both short term and long term.
In terms of the short term, if the stimulus “works” or “appears to work” (ie the economy demonstrably improves before or around the 2010 midterms) then the GOP is in a no-win situation, ie even if they supported it- they would not likely make any gains based on this. But, if it doesn’t “work” or “appear not to work” then they will quite rightly be able to campaign against it.
As for the long-term- even if the stimulus does appear to work in the short term, there is going to be in not so many years, a mighty reckoning concerning US debt etc. So in 8 years, if the GOP (a big if) even in opposition, manages to continue this almost unanimous opposition to massive spending- they will be putting a marker down towards fiscal prudence. This may, may help to erase their record over the previous eight years.
I’m not really sure what you would have the GOP do in this case? I’m no big fan, or defender, but I think it’s probably very healthy that there is at least a somewhat strong (oddly strong) opposition (even in the minority) towards this rush towards even larger and more massive government.
You are of course entirely correct- in that the GOP are a little late to the party- but at least they have showed up!
Again, what would you have them do? I mean, I think I know your answer- you would rather have them just die already for their sins during the previous eight years.
As I keep saying, my problem is with the leadership. Am I upset that Ron Paul and the other anti-bailout Republicans voted against the stimulus? Of course not. As I said in this very post, the stimulus bill as proposed was lousy, but for the leadership to wait until now to start opposing lousy legislation seems crazy. They are doing it at a time when they can least afford to be the party of discipline and austerity after having been the party of insolvency and imperialism for all these years, and they think they are going to start winning elections as a result.
What I object to is the utter lack of imagination and lack of understanding. They think that if they just stick to their guns they will be rewarded with more seats, because they do not understand that their fiscal irresponsibility was not the reason they were thrown out of power. Spending did not doom the GOP. The war, among other things, did. If they can’t grasp that, they are never going to be able to mount a recovery. It is making “wasteful spending” their mantra that I find so absurd. As it happens, I think opposition to the stimulus is the right thing to do, but when it comes to fiscal policy I am not at all representative of what voters want. If I and the people over at Reason are satisfied with the substance of what they’re doing, they’re probably doing something politically stupid. That is the problem–the GOP leaders are politically stupid, which portends a long, long time in the minority and longer than is probably necessary. If I wanted them to die, I would urge them to keep doing what they’re doing.
But I don’t want the leadership to die; I want it to change, and I want a new leadership with some credibility to understand that their electoral woes are not really related to spending. If they want to be fiscally responsible now, I would be glad to see it, but that can’t be their entire agenda. It shouldn’t even be the centerpiece during a recession. They’re not gaining support by doing what they’re doing, which means they will be under even more pressure later to capitulate on far more important legislation. My guess is that stern resistance now will lead to weakness later when it comes to new entitlement programs.
[...] And Larison writes about this again, today: [...]
Ta Daniel.
I can’t help but conclude that the GOP is committing intentional suicide, in a “suicide by cop” manner. They are betting the entire farm, their entire electoral future, on blind opposition to the stimulus, betting that the stimulus will fail, the country will go down the tubes, and then they can blame the Democrats for it. They are goading the electorate into lining them up against a firting squad one way or the other. They have no way of hedging this bet now, by marginal support for the stimulus, because that goes against their own crazy attempt to fill an inside straight.
Even Rush admits that if the stimulus bill passes and the economy recovers, it will mean “the end of the Republican party”. I agree with him on that. What I can’t understand is why the GOP would suddenly make a stand here and now on this issue, when there is a very good chance they will lose everything, and even if they “win”, the country goes to shit in the process, and many people will still blame the GOP’s last eight years of mismanagement for it. So there seems very little serious upside, just a long-shot bet with everything to lose. They seem to be looking for someone to put them out of their misery, and just be retired to the sidelines of history. If the economy begins to recover during the next year, Obama and the democrats will be able to take sole credit for it, and trounce the GOP in a third straight election. They have no “plan B”, except handing the whole party over to Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, which will lead to the permanent marginalization of the GOP to wingnuttery. All the responsible folk will have left the GOP, and they will have nowhere to go but to become “centrist Democrats”.
This seems to be a pattern in the GOP. In the Bush years, the GOP went down several roads with no hedges, no “plan B”. The invasion of Iraq, the tax cuts, the deregulation of the finance sector, the foreign policy “fuck you” to the rest of the world – all this involved wild gambles with no hedges or protections, no alternatives but total commitment to walking the plank and hoping it leads to utopia. So I guess this situation is no difference. I just wonder where this gigantic death wish has come from. Do these people simply realize how destructive they are, and want to be done in by the cops, so they point guns in all directions hoping someone will finally do the right thing?
hey seem to be looking for someone to put them out of their misery, and just be retired to the sidelines of history. If the economy begins to recover during the next year, Obama and the democrats will be able to take sole credit for it, and trounce the GOP in a third straight election. They have no “plan Bâ€, except handing the whole party over to Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, which will lead to the permanent marginalization of the GOP to wingnuttery. All the responsible folk will have left the GOP, and they will have nowhere to go but to become “centrist Democratsâ€.
So do you see us becoming a one-party state, or do you some other party rising up in a few years to oppose the Democrats?
I’m not too worried about this, because I don’t think that we will have a recovery. The stimuus package will sadle us with more debt, and both Democrats and Republicans will get blamed for it – where we go from there is anyone’s guess. My hope is that a small remnant of Paulists and the like will start to mount an opposition to the socialist Keynesians of both parties.
I just wonder where this gigantic death wish has come from. Do these people simply realize how destructive they are, and want to be done in by the cops, so they point guns in all directions hoping someone will finally do the right thing?
The right thing being to support the other destructive party?
All the responsible folk will have left the GOP, and they will have nowhere to go but to become “centrist Democratsâ€.
Actually, responsible people will join a third party. The Democrats, even centrist ones, are as irresponsible in their way as the GOP is in theirs.
Actually, I think that what is going to happen is that the directionlessness of the GOP will destroy it as an institution, although we will still have the party as an identification label. The failure of the stimu,us package to do anything but mire us in ever deeper debt as the economy sinks into a depression will do the same to the Democratic Party.
What will happen then is that out of the ashes will rise groups of radicals. Not necessarily independents or third partiers, but people whose ties to their parties are merely nominal. We’ll have the Keynesians/socialists on one side, demanding ever greater spending or even direct governmental control of the economy to wrok things out On the other side will be people like the Austrian schoolers, who want a true free market and who will fight against all of the corrupt parts of our current pseudo-capitalist system. Friedmanites and the like will be mostly discredied and on the sidelines. Basically, the fight will be between those who want a purer market and those who want a purer socialism.
The real question is whether the Austrian schoolers will be able to get enough people to hear and understand our message and to join us before the socialists take over everything. Currently, the socialists are winning because the major opposition are the corporatist and neocon clowns. But the Austrians (or [Ron] Paulists, if you would rather call them that) are growing in publicity, name recognition, numbers, and power, offering solutions that are outside those offered by the current major two players. It remains to be seen whether we will be able to become a major player in time to stop the current trends.
you can call this unfair, but i can’t help but notice how few discussions of what the R’s do ever seems to have much to do with effectively running a government. maybe if they thought more about how to make the damn thing run smoothly they wouldn’t be … in the wilderness to put it politely.
any discussion of how to do this or that in the government, always starts with Conservative principles….blah blah blah. yes we all need theories and principles but the R’s are beholden to dogma and what ever might actually work is irrelevent…
ooops i slipped into rant mode
Glaivester1,
Much as I might sympathize with the Ron Paul movement, it has no chance whatsoever of gaining mainstream popularity as a viable second or third party. Your arguments are of the esoteric, wonkish variety that only demonstrate how futile that hope actually is. People fleeing the GOP will not go to third parties in any great number, and I don’t see any of them actually replacing the GOP in the near future. Rather, I just see a long term minority status for the GOP. Most of the action will take place within the Democratic party, as its progressive and centrist wings clash.
Further, I think there will be a decent recovery relatively soon, and Obama and the Dems will get the credit for it. The reason the GOP won’t disappear is that it has a core 25% of the population who will stick with it through thick and thin. They are the hard economic right-social right, what is commonly called “movement conservatives”. They aren’t joining Ron Paul, and they aren’t becoming Democrats. They are idealists, and they will wait out the time in the wilderness with as much faith as they wait for the Second Coming of Christ – literally. And who knows, maybe history will reward them for waiting. The Dems can certainly succeed in screwing things up if they try hard enough. But I think that will be a long time off. It’s just as likely that in another generation the GOP will really begin to fade out entirely, and another social/political movement will replace it. I wouldn’t want to predict that far into the future, but I imagine it will have a very technological flavor to it.
The real conflict will come when the economy finally does recover. The last time this happened, after the Clinton boom years, the Republicans were “trusted” with the budget surplus he created. But having destroyed that surplus and wrecking the economy, the Republicans will have a very hard time arguing that they should ever be trusted again. Greginak is right that they simply don’t seem to have any arguments in favor of their being able to actually effectively run a government. Their only argument has been that they are best at destroying government. But now and for the forseeable future, that argument seems to have been rejected by the electorate. They are looking for a party that can govern responsibly, not one that will simply try to defund and delegitamize government. The only party making an attempt to do that is the Democrats. So the real question has become, which faction of the Democratic party should rule. And “bi-partisanship” is going to be viewed as an attempt to bring these various factions together, rather than enter into negotiations with hardcore Republicans, who simply having nothing constructive to contribute to the discussion of how government should be run.
Where does this leave limited government conservatives? Well, about where they stand in most European governments – On the fringe. Sorry, guys, that’s how the wind is blowing.
Their only argument has been that they are best at destroying government. But now and for the forseeable future, that argument seems to have been rejected by the electorate.
No, that argument was not rejecetd by the electorate, because that was not the argument that in real terms the Republicans made. The actual Republican argument has been to increase the portion of the government that is focused on killing Arabs and on surveillance.
I actually don’t think that the electorate was thinking about the size of government per se when they rejected the GOP, they just did not like the things the GOP was using the government to do.
Further, I think there will be a decent recovery relatively soon, and Obama and the Dems will get the credit for it.
I doubt it. What will happen is that the Keynesianism will make things better short-term, before it is discovered that our actual productivity has not increased and prices start rising rapidly as they did in the 1970s, and unemployment begins to rise again due to the fact that the government used too many resources away in the stimulus package.
The reason the GOP won’t disappear is that it has a core 25% of the population who will stick with it through thick and thin.
Okay, I was assuming that your talk about the GOP destroying itself were suggestng that it would go the way of the Whigs.
All the responsible folk will have left the GOP, and they will have nowhere to go but to become “centrist Democratsâ€.
Where does this leave limited government conservatives? Well, about where they stand in most European governments – On the fringe. Sorry, guys, that’s how the wind is blowing.
So my argument still stands. Responsible people will not join the Democrats. There just won’t be that many responsible people, just a lot of parasites and friends of parasites (the Democrat base). And, of course, the neocon core of imperialists in the GOP.
ducinaltum, on February 9th, 2009 at 2:20 pm Said:
“In terms of the short term, if the stimulus “works†or “appears to work†(ie the economy demonstrably improves before or around the 2010 midterms) then the GOP is in a no-win situation, ie even if they supported it- they would not likely make any gains based on this. But, if it doesn’t “work†or “appear not to work†then they will quite rightly be able to campaign against it.”
I agree, and the clear GOP strategy is to make sure that the stimulus won’t work. In the meantime, they’ll get more tax cuts for the rich.
“As for the long-term- even if the stimulus does appear to work in the short term, there is going to be in not so many years, a mighty reckoning concerning US debt etc. So in 8 years, if the GOP (a big if) even in opposition, manages to continue this almost unanimous opposition to massive spending- they will be putting a marker down towards fiscal prudence. This may, may help to erase their record over the previous eight years.”
First, it’s not the previous 8 years, but since 1980. Massive GOP financial irresponsibility dates back to *at least* Reagan – and not by accident. There was a clear and public change of course, which the GOP has adhered to.
Second, opposing the other party’s spending is not a marker on prudence, any more than Corp. VP A opposing VP B’s favorite projects would be.
Now, OTOH, it’s quite likely that enough of the American people will have forgotten (or can be persuaded to forget). In addition, the economic elites have clearly shown that they prefer corrupt and incompetant right-wingers, unless and until disaster is actually close enough to smell.
conradg, on February 9th, 2009 at 7:55 pm Said:
“Even Rush admits that if the stimulus bill passes and the economy recovers, it will mean “the end of the Republican partyâ€. I agree with him on that. What I can’t understand is why the GOP would suddenly make a stand here and now on this issue, when there is a very good chance they will lose everything, and even if they “winâ€, the country goes to shit in the process, and many people will still blame the GOP’s last eight years of mismanagement for it. So there seems very little serious upside, just a long-shot bet with everything to lose. ”
First, there’s the old scorpion and frog tale – ‘that’s just my nature’. The GOP has been highly irresponsible for quite a while, and has actually achieved quite a bit, in terms of sheer looting. Second, I think that they feel that they can cast Obama as Hoover. Remember, if things truly go to sh*t, most of the downslope will have occured under the Obama administration, which will hurt like h*ll in 2012. Unless Obama can pin four years of misery on the opposing party, which would be a first for an American president. It’s not like 1933, when the GOP had been thoroughly discredited by 3 straight years on the tobaggan ride to Hooverville.
If the GOP is going to be the fiscal responsible party, it has to oppose Geithner’s TARP II. That is where the real test is, not on this fiscal stimulus.
I actually don’t think that the electorate was thinking about the size of government per se when they rejected the GOP, they just did not like the things the GOP was using the government to do.
I think there was a fundamental distrust not only of what the GOP wanted to do, but of both it’s ability to govern at all, and its interest in genuine governing, other than “deconstructing” government as a front for raping and pillaging for the rich and privileged. The only solution they have for any economic problem is tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, which means defunding government and enriching the upper classes. The financial crisis brought home the need to bring a different kind of governing philosophy to power, one that actually cares about governing. Obama represented the only real alternative to the non-governing, incompetent, trash and rape the place laissse faire philosophy of the GOP. My concern is that there ought to be many competing philosophies of competent, responsible government.
“So my argument still stands. Responsible people will not join the Democrats. There just won’t be that many responsible people, just a lot of parasites and friends of parasites (the Democrat base). And, of course, the neocon core of imperialists in the GOP.”
Responsible people won’t have any choice but to join the Democrats, which will help the Dems become even more responsible. They won’t join Ron Paul, because there’s no “there” there, just some kind of wonkish sense of purity and superiority, but no actual ability to govern in the real world. The GOP may indeed go the way of the Whigs, but that’s too far into the future to accurately predict. The GOP may reform itself into a party of responsible government, but it’s unlikely because the core of it not only doesn’t care about such things, it’s actually hostile to the notion.They only pretend to care to get votes from the middle, but no one seems to believe them anymore. It’s more likely that a split would someday develop within the large Democratic majority which would itself evolve into a two party system, squeezing the GOP even further into the margins.
Barry’s scorpion and frog theory is closer to the truth. The GOP simply can’t change its fundamental nature at this point. It believes it must actively work to destroy the country in order to promote its own political fortunes. Which seems like a strange strategy for the party which is always accusing the Dems of wanting to lose wars to win elections. They want to destroy the country itself in order to win elections, and they say so openly. Who’s going to support this except the hardcore true believers? What drugs are these people on? This is political suicide-by-cop.
I wonder what drugs the Dems are on to think that this is a permanent realignment. I remember 2004 when Dems went absolutely batty with BDS and still managed to get about 49% of the vote with a tired uninspiring man. Parties out of power always tend to go batty and parties in power tend to be “pragmatic”.
There is a huge level of anger among the productive middle class about the multiple bailout, high mortgage and increasing indebtness. Everyone in Washington is going to feel it. This is only going to increase when multiple bailouts, especially of Banks, are going to take place especially if Geithner’s TARP II passes. If the GOP plays its card right, it can tap into the anger. Right now, they are still in the batty mode, but 2010 is a full one year from now.
The Dems are not a better party. They just won in 2008 because they are not the GOP. This is not a permanent realignment but just a vote against the party in power. I assume in 2010 we would see a similar thing happening with the Dems.
Responsible people won’t have any choice but to join the Democrats, which will help the Dems become even more responsible.
“Even more responsible” suggests that the Democrats are responsible, which they are not. Their goal is to take as much from whites and Asians as possible to give to non-Asian minorities, and to normalize as much deviant behavior as possible. People who join the Democrats will not be responsible by definition (except for a small cadre of people who are Democrats in name only, e.g. Bob Conley), because of the irresponsibility of the Democratic Party.
The truly responsible will join Ron Paul, or a third party, or become maverick Republicans (by which I mean Paul or B.J. Lawson, not McCain). If there are not that many people who do this, it just means that very few people are responsible.
I don’t think that the GOP will do quite as poorly as you suggest, because the Democratic Party is likely to self-destruct its own way just as the GOP has in its way. First, the Democratic Party is likely to alienate most non-self-hating whites if it doesn’t curb its affirmative action/open borders agenda; second, if they overreach in social areas (freedom of choice act, bills to provide public funding of abortion), they will lose a large margin of moderates, and thirdly, because the stimulus package is based on a “government will restore the economy” philosophy that failed when Hoover tried it, and is likely to result in this recession/depression lasting for four more years, ending only if the economy hits a bottom from where there is nowhere to go but up.
Now don’t get me wrong about Paul; I am not saying that the Ron Paulites will take over. But I think that their influence will increase a lot more than you think.
Responsible people won’t have any choice but to join the Democrats,
Nom you just said that responsible people will have no choice but to be on the fringe:
Where does this leave limited government conservatives? Well, about where they stand in most European governments – On the fringe. Sorry, guys, that’s how the wind is blowing.
Unless of course, by responsible you mean parasitic.
Anyone who think the notion of a permanent re-alignment is nuts need only look at the demographics of the future. The Dems are winning among the young, who are the future, while the GOP is saddled with the old, who are, well, dying. Add to this the increasing latino population, the diminishing white population, the dominance the Dems have in those 248 electoral vote states, the regionalization of the GOP as a southern and rural party, etc. Add to this the fact that GOP losses in moderate regions now concentrate them in idealistic wingnuttery. I’m not saying anything is foreordained, but this looks like a long-term decline.
It’s certainly true that the Dems could self-destruct, and this seems to be the only strategy the GOP has. They are betting the farm on the Dems self-destructing over the next four years, leaving the GOP the field regardless of their previous incompetence. They are actively hoping, praying, and trying as hard as they can to obstruct the new Dem admin and congress, and ensure its failure. This is what seems crazy to me. The Dems certainly benefited from the GOP disintegration, but it wasn’t their strategy, whereas for the GOP its all they have. As if no one is noticing that they are putting their own political hopes above the welfare of the country as a whole.
As for Glaivester1, I can only say that your convictions about the Democrats is simply not shared by most of the country, and is a symptom of the decline of the right rather than its future triumph. The idea that the only “responsible” people in the country are in the Ron Paul wing of the GOP is just laughable, and part of the marginalization of that wing. Plus, the racial paranoia fits in well with a group that has no prayer whatsoever of gaining mainstream acceptance. But, please, keep it up, and see how far that takes you.
I second that, and just ask Glaivester1 to lead with comments like that (‘…Their goal is to take as much from whites and Asians as possible to give to non-Asian minorities, and to normalize as much deviant behavior as possible.’) so that we don’t waste time seriously considering his ideas.
Perhaps I was a bit premature in stating that the Democrats are not a permanent majority but Rasmussen polling confirms the Democratic Congressional identification hits its lowest point (41%) this week and is now equivalent to Republican Congressional identification (40%). Rasmussen might be fudging and this effect might be temporary but I don’t believe I am completely out of the ball park here.
Long-term, if we don’t get immigration under control, yes, there will likely be a permanent anti-GOP alignment.
But in the short-term, the current realignment will likely pass. The Democrats are, ultimately, just as irresponsible in their own way as the GOP is in theirs.
The GOP is likely to survive reasonably well through at least 2020 because the Democrats, when they are in power, will start to overreach and alienate responsible voters just as the GOP did.
Firstly, there are racial issues which will keep the GOP getting a significant portion of the white vote. Democratic pandering to the illegal immigrants and their lobbies will alienate white voters. There also is a tendency to try to coddle anti-white, anti-American ideologues like Rev. Lowery, who spoke at the inauguration. Once whites understand that the Democratic Party more or less wants them to loathe themselves as oppressors, a lot of the non-self-loathing ones are going to leave the party.
Secondly, the Democratic Party is generally hostile to any form of Christianity that preaches anything deeper than generic do-gooding. People who have strong moral beliefs about, e.g., sexual matters or who do not agree with ecumenical, all religions are paths to God pablum, will increasingly be turned off as soon as the Democrats become comfortable enough to start unleashing their complete agenda.
Thirdly the general “moral tolerance” of the Democratic Party, which derides traditional family structures as one of many options, no better than any other, will eventually begin to alienate a lot of people.
conradg’s predictions are based on the idea that the Democratic Party is naturally more responsible than the GOP and that it will therefore attract the “responsible people” who will have more influence there than if they try to influence the GOP to become more moderate or to create a “moderate wing” of the GOP that will try to replace the current “immoderate” wing.
The fact of the matter is that once the Democrats are in power they will be shown to be as irresponsible as the GOP. Moreover, the “progressive wing” will gain as much control of the party as the “wingnut” wing has on the GOP, and attempts to reform the Democratic Party will likely be no more successful than attempts to join the GOP.
I think that “respnosible people” will likely have a third choice other than joining either of the major two parties and trying to make them more responsible. I think that a lot of them will beceme “centrist independents” and vote for whichever candidates seem the least extreme in any particular election, (or if they don’t bother to check individual candidates, whichever party is less extreme that year).
(Earlier predictions that were more – extreme – were based on my being tired and my acceptance of the (mis)interpretation of conradg’s position as being that the GOP would disappear entirely, at least as we know it today).
As for Glaivester1, I can only say that your convictions about the Democrats is simply not shared by most of the country,
That’s because the Democrats have not been in total control since 1994. Just you wait.
I second that, and just ask Glaivester1 to lead with comments like that… so that we don’t waste time seriously considering his ideas.
Absolutely. The idea that the government has been actively subsidizing the destruction of the black family structure since the Great Society has been so disproven by the facts. The idea that liberal welfare policie helped to create a generation of dole dependent, resentful people in broken families is such a strange position that no one sensible could actuallly hold it, considering how low the black illegitimacy rate is.
And the idea that the Democratic Party is trying as hard as possible to dilute white voting power by trying as hard as possible to prevent immigration laws from being enforced (because such laws are racist!) cannot possibly be supported by actual Democratic Party policies.
Add to this the increasing latino population, the diminishing white population
Considering that the Dems are working hard to bring this result about, one can hardly say that “racial paranoia” by whites against the Dems is unjustified.