More GOP stupidity: a litmus test

[phej]

From NY Times (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the WSJ, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. od=todays_us_opinion) apparently the republican national committee in a meeting in Hawaii (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) are considering that candidates ought to support 8/10 of this list:
We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

I see that they want to take their momentum from winning in Massachusetts and throw some tar on it.

[Shauru]

I'm not really sure how you can find this outrageous or surprising. I mean the Republican party for quite some time has had an amazing ability to stick together on the issues. They practice what they preach as far as "you're with us or you're against us".

Former Gov. Christie Whitman of New Jersey who was Republican wrote a book a few years ago talking about this very issue.

I actually have to say despite hating everything about them, this is one quality the democrats could learn by. Although I think it cheapens democracy in a sense, because they aren't really allowing the voices from within to be heard. They don't like dissent and they crush it. It's sad, but it's effective and it's why they get the victories they do. They stick together.

At any rate, I think these very actions could possibly end up backfiring on them. If you over specialize you breed in weakness. They could end up losing a good number of voters by becoming too opposed to diversity. And a good number of candidates. Who wants to be part of a group in which their voice is not heard and their opinion invalid. Especially holding onto these extremely conservative social policies.

[ArtistTyrant]

other than 6, 8, and 9, there is nothing wrong with that list

[phej]

other than 6, 8, and 9, there is nothing wrong with that list

Your score: 7/10. You don't pass the litmus test.

[zibber]

Wow.

It's like they had a meeting and decided "yes, let's be our own charicatures".

[ArtistTyrant]

Your score: 7/10. You don't pass the litmus test.

i'm above politics so i don't really care :) politics is petty, and democrats and republicans aren't really all that different, so i'm not going to worry about it until i can influence it, politics is just words, the actions are often very different

[phej]

Wow.

It's like they had a meeting and decided "yes, let's be our own charicatures".

Maybe they'll come to their senses and decide that the litmus test isn't a good idea if you want to make the tent bigger.

[Shauru]

i'm above politics so i don't really care :) politics is petty, and democrats and republicans aren't really all that different, so i'm not going to worry about it until i can influence it, politics is just words, the actions are often very different

How so? How are you above politics? They tend to have an indirect(at the very least) influence on your life whether you want to admit it or not.

And you don't care until you can influence them? Isn't it a little naive to assume you'll ever be in that position?

[nocturne]

If the recent behaviour of Republicans is indicative of future acion, then "market-based" actually means "corporatist."

But, in any case, what politicians will "support" changes the moment they gain power. When they are the challengers, politicians will "support" whatever they believe will get them elected, and when they are the incumbants, whatever they believe will get them re-elected. Although there is some overlap, the incentives facing an incumbant are usually significantly different to those facing a challenger, and so politicians rarely satisfy their campaign promises. Those few politicians of principle who do not "support" whatever they believe will get them elected and re-elected, tend not to have a very succesful career in politics.

Number one on the list is a good idea, but considering the Bush administration's enormous contribution to the size of government and national debt, perhaps less sniping at Obama's economic stimulus (however misguided) would be appropriate. Number two should be a good idea, but I don't think Republicans have any intention of following through beyond a handful of token gestures. Opposing Medicare and Medicaid is political suicide, and a politician's career always trumps what few principles he might accidently have caught in life -- the Bush administration significantly increased the scope and size of Medicare for precisely this reason.

[Synchronicity]

Even though I support the Democrats (grudgingly, since I consider myself libertarian), I never really had much of a problem with the GOP until the past few years. Looking back on what the party was like before I was born, they really seemed to represent values that were sensible, even if I did not find them altogether agreeable. The party seems to have really taken a wrong turn somewhere, and sometimes it feels like I'm the only one who notices.

[Pachystima]

Even though I support the Democrats (grudgingly, since I consider myself libertarian), I never really had much of a problem with the GOP until the past few years. Looking back on what the party was like before I was born, they really seemed to represent values that were sensible, even if I did not find them altogether agreeable. The party seems to have really taken a wrong turn somewhere, and sometimes it feels like I'm the only one who notices.

I don't think that you are the only one who notices. I first voted (Republican) in 1960; 21 was the legal voting age in those days. I still recall Eisenhower (a Republican) warning of the dangers of "the military/industrial/political complex" and it's potential ascendancy. In the 50 years since then, I have seen the "complex" get larger and more powerful under both Democrat and Republican administrations. And, in this time, pressing national needs and the nation's middle class have consistently played second fiddle to increasing corporate and military "needs".

Personally, I would applaud if another Teddy (Trust-buster) Roosevelt were to come along and bring the nations corporate structure and military to heel: impossible dream of course. I do not believe that either corporations or the military presently act in the best interests of the average American. And, if they seek the taxpayer's support (eg. bailouts etc.), they should.

[Undead Bonzi]

From NY Times (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the WSJ, (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. od=todays_us_opinion) apparently the republican national committee in a meeting in Hawaii (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) are considering that candidates ought to support 8/10 of this list:
We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

I see that they want to take their momentum from winning in Massachusetts and throw some tar on it.

I don't really have a problem that they wish to bulletpoint the key issues of their platform. Keeping everyone on the same page and facing the same direction is just good political sense. I do take issue that a number of their key issues is not what they hope their party will achieve but rather what it opposes. Opposing Obama's 'insert whatever issue' is not a long term party goal or strategy, it is an immediate issue and lasts only until Obama is out of office. After that what do they do when half of their 'key points' vanish? Standard short term political thinking at its finest.

In short: Many of these points seem to indicate a plan of inaction rather than action. I'm more interested in what a party 'will do' than what they 'wont do' and these key points don't impress me.

[zibber]

i'm above politics so i don't really care :) politics is petty, and democrats and republicans aren't really all that different, so i'm not going to worry about it until i can influence it, politics is just words, the actions are often very different

Nobody is above politics..

Maybe they'll come to their senses and decide that the litmus test isn't a good idea if you want to make the tent bigger.

I was talking about the actual points, though :)

[SShack]

I think this list came out back in September or so -- it looks familiar.

Political parties have platforms. Typically there are several dumb-ass planks. This is why I'm not a member of any political party.

In fact, I don't have a lot of respect for those who join a party who have disagreements with the party's identity and "hope to change it from within." That's like trying to negotiate the terms for buying a house after signing all the papers. They only want you for your vote, not your opinion. Make them fight for you. I may support conservative economic concepts over liberal ones but until they can get over their stupid moral posturing the GOP can go pound sand.

[larkin]

Even though I support the Democrats (grudgingly, since I consider myself libertarian), I never really had much of a problem with the GOP until the past few years. Looking back on what the party was like before I was born, they really seemed to represent values that were sensible, even if I did not find them altogether agreeable. The party seems to have really taken a wrong turn somewhere, and sometimes it feels like I'm the only one who notices.

Absolutely. What was considered moderate when I was growing up in the days of Reagan is taken by some to mean you're basically a communist now. If they don't accuse of being so outright. I would have voted for HW if I had been old enough. But any of the candidates they have now? Forget it. They can't even say they think the earth is more than 4,000 years old.

I would hope everyone has noticed that, and if they haven't, it's because the idea of both parties becoming equally polarized is a comforting false equivalency (sure to be revived in following posts shortly.)

But it's not just social conservatives (although their example is the more egregious) - as some conservatives become more hysterical, and less sensible, in their small government mantra, they become less plausible as actual leaders of government. Yes, smaller government and efficiency (not necessarily the same thing) are good values, but they're not the only values, and maximizing it at the expense of other values is often plainly destructive. And that destruction is the whole point; most conservatives don't even bother to make a secret out of this. They want to make the government small enough to, in the words of Grover Norquist, "drown it in a bathtub."

Is it any surprise that the people who don't even believe in governance govern terribly?

Maybe they'll come to their senses and decide that the litmus test isn't a good idea if you want to make the tent bigger.

I agree completely, but good luck waiting for that. Maybe if we give it another twenty years?

[Valiyn]

I actually read a number of contradictions in the list.

They want the government to be small, but 1)powerful enough to tell you who you can and cannot marry, and dissolve marriages they don't see as 'true' marriages. 2) powerful enough to bully other nuclear power nations for "national defense", and 3) fight multiple guerrilla wars in the war on terrorism (Iraq and Afghan being only the most known and famous). COIN operations don't work with weak central governments because of the attrition rates. And issue of marriage denial to homosexuals and androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) members the right to marry who they want is utterly forcing their religion on someone else. I don't see it as they want small government, they want less power to people who believe differently (the democrats) and more power to their supporters. Like all politics.

[ATCGs]

My biggest problem with the list is that 7/10 of the positions have the word "oppose" in them. If republicans actually had plans that were supported by experts in whatever applicable field, I would listen. Instead we get a platform filled with blatantly obstructionist positions and 'purity tests'.

[ArtistTyrant]

i'm Eurocentric...that's all i really need to say =)

[Aronnax]

Even though I support the Democrats (grudgingly, since I consider myself libertarian), I never really had much of a problem with the GOP until the past few years. Looking back on what the party was like before I was born, they really seemed to represent values that were sensible, even if I did not find them altogether agreeable. The party seems to have really taken a wrong turn somewhere, and sometimes it feels like I'm the only one who notices.

You're not the only one who noticed; there was a point in time when I considered myself a conservative. It seems like the Republican party quit pushing for reasonable reductions in the size and scope of government long ago. They still talk about reducing the size of government but like their rallying against the "liberal elites" it doesn't seem to be anything more than populist pandering.

Based on their actions the Republican party wants to make it more difficult for the weak to take legal action against the strong and hobble government's ability to interact with the public, even when government is working effectively. Free speech is critical for billion dollar semi-entities but if actual citizens peacefully protesting get gassed and beaten they had it coming. Restricting the purchase of automatic weapons is unacceptable but no knock warrants, "reasonable suspicion" searches and warrantless wiretaps eroding the bill of rights are acceptable.

A president cheating on his wife with an intern is an unforgivable transgression but torturing prisoners or using the proceeds from black market weapon sales to sponsor Central American revolutionaries can be rationalized. Republicans talk a good game about Chicago and Austrian economics for common citizens and public infrastructure but don't hesitate to endorse Keynesian policies when it's time to deal with military contractors and banks.

I'd appreciate a Republican party who advocated sensible cuts to government, defended the bill of rights in its entirety, treated poor citizens with the same respect they give to wealthy ones and encouraged transparency in government. I'd join a political party like that but I haven't ever seen the Republican party behave that way.

[Angel1]

I have decided that I need to establish 10 directions that the Republican Party should pursue to keep me happy.



1. We support limited government (exempting National Defense to a reasonable extent), decreasing the national debt, and simplifying the tax code;

2. We support real health care reform that reduces processing costs, litigation costs, and drug costs by removing the reasons for all of the preceding;

3. We support market-creating cap and trade legislation that goes into effect slowly (taking into account current economic conditions) and enables companies to make changes without significant damage to themselves;

4. We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

5. We support legal immigration to the United States by establishing a guest worker program, increasing border security, and (after the previous two are completed) altering illegal immigration punishments so that illegals (already here) can become legal but must pay penalties, back taxes, and accept an additional five year penalization to becoming a naturalized citizen (their time starting only upon becoming legal). All of the efforts mentioned previously must be done in a comprehensive bill (to make sure that all of them actually are done);

6. We support military action in Iraq and Afghanistan until such time as our presence is not longer needed to prevent militant forces from gaining power, so we do not have to retake and resecure Iraq and Afghanistan after leaving;

7. We support containment of Iran and North Korea by increasing diplomatic pressure on both countries and ensuring that military forces are appropriately positioned just in case either country attacks our interests or allies anywhere;

8. We support the right to life and promise to do all things in our power to this end;

9. We support the right of private companies and their employees to mutually determine appropriate pay agreements and oppose any government restrictions on the compensation agreements between private companies and their employees;

10. We support the right to bear arms by opposing unreasonable government restrictions and supporting a standardized national list of those individuals whom have forfeited their right to own and/or posses guns (organized by respective type). States should rework their restrictions so as to utilize the categories established for/by the federal list;



There you go, my 10 points that candidates should more or less support.

[Warrior]

I don't think there is anything wrong with a group listing out the things they beleive in and letting people know that this is there stance. Whether you agree or not is up to you. I'm also not to terribly upset that a lot of them have "oppose" in them. I think that should be the default position on any new government program/tax/whatever until the details are spelled out.

"Making the tent bigger" is usually just code for "don't believe in anything". I'm not worried about the size of the tent. I'm more concerned that the people under the tent are all on the same page and have the correct position on issues.

[phej]

I don't think there is anything wrong with a group listing out the things they believe in and letting people know that this is there stance. Whether you agree or not is up to you. I'm also not to terribly upset that a lot of them have "oppose" in them. I think that should be the default position on any new government program/tax/whatever until the details are spelled out.

Why would you let your party platform be defined by what the other party is doing? To me, that signals defeat. You can oppose this and that by saying that it doesn't match your goals, but the goals themselves should be primary.

"Making the tent bigger" is usually just code for "don't believe in anything". I'm not worried about the size of the tent. I'm more concerned that the people under the tent are all on the same page and have the correct position on issues.

Both parties have historically have had multiple factions in each party. There is no "correct position." It's all about tradeoffs. Most ideologues are blind to the weaknesses of their ideologies.

[Warrior]

Why would you let your party platform be defined by what the other party is doing? To me, that signals defeat. You can oppose this and that by saying that it doesn't match your goals, but the goals themselves should be primary.

I don't think that is the intent. Republicans have had similar goals to many of the things mentioned here for a long time (granted the implementation has been very bad). Stating how you are working those goals at this particular time is fine, especially since the only thing republicans can do right now is oppose things. They have no power to put forward their own agenda.


Both parties have historically have had multiple factions in each party. There is no "correct position." It's all about tradeoffs. Most ideologues are blind to the weaknesses of their ideologies.

Yes, I understand there have always been factions. I was responding to the comments before about making the tent bigger as though the goal is somehow to pick a position simply to gain more votes, not because it has any merit in and of itself. I don't think that is a valid way to establish a platform. If you think your position has merit, propose it for that reason. Don't change to another position that you think doesn't have merit just because it might attract more voters.

[Ray9]

I can't find anything in those 10 points I disagree with. I've voted Republican since 1980. The Last Democrat I can remember who made any sense at all was JFK:

Ask not what your country can do for you. ask what you can do for your country.

This current administration has become laughable in spite of the damage they are doing. This economy won't even begin to turn around until 2012 and by then the personal suffering will usher in a mass exodus from the left to the right. The absolute clinical indifference of Obama and his advisors regarding the state of mind of the populaton is breathtaking. These leftists actually believe the average citizen would choose a benefit over a job like Europeans. They have been implementing ideas that undermine the economy and destroy jobs and then tout the fact that they are creating jobs. Take a long look at those ten points and pick out what you like because your next president will be a Republican. He or she may not be a great leader but in all likelihood will be an improvement over a cardboard cut-out who can't speak without a telepromter.

[larkin]

I don't think that is the intent. Republicans have had similar goals to many of the things mentioned here for a long time (granted the implementation has been very bad). Stating how you are working those goals at this particular time is fine, especially since the only thing republicans can do right now is oppose things. They have no power to put forward their own agenda.

No, Republicans don't have the power to forward an agenda, but they certainly have the power to suggest that they have one. One other than being, y'know, anti-gay socialists.

Yes, I understand there have always been factions. I was responding to the comments before about making the tent bigger as though the goal is somehow to pick a position simply to gain more votes, not because it has any merit in and of itself. I don't think that is a valid way to establish a platform. If you think your position has merit, propose it for that reason. Don't change to another position that you think doesn't have merit just because it might attract more voters.

Just because the party accepts the idea of people with differing positions doesn't mean they're changing their position. The party is free to say exactly what their platform/agenda is without making it a litmus test. But if as I said upthread, they drank their own kool aid about Bush not being a "true conservative," well, then, by all means, continue with the litmus tests. Hell, have conservatives report on each other for their ideological purity. Just expect to watch the party grow smaller, to lose more races like NY23. (By the way, Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown would have failed this test. So I'm sure somewhere they are grooming his Club for Growth primary opponent already.)

[Blse]

Well, this isn't that new. The GOP has been more or less weeding out moderates in favor of more ideological candidates for a while. Good news for the Democrats. That being said, the list if awfully vague. If you were to give me that as quiz, I'd have to raise my hand and ask what exactly the point in question means. For instance, I too prefer market-based reforms over heavy-handed government intervention. So in theory, I'd say sure let's have smaller government and market-based health care reform, but now tell me step by step how that's gonna work. Once you do that with convincing reason and evidence I'd say yes to those points.

[Nightsun]

other than 6, 8, and 9, there is nothing wrong with that list

I don't see a right item on that list.