GOP Becoming The Cartoon Party

[Starglider]

Naturally, of course, none of these assclowns ever read a history of the Gilded Age, which only government interference was able to put a stop to.

Remember that poor people deserve everything they get, as it's their own fault that they're poor. The gilded age was a great time to be rich. The notion that (in the absence of government) everyone has an equal opportunity to become rich through hard work and inventiveness alone is another arbitrary axiom peculiar to American conservatives. This distortion and fetishisation of the 'American Dream' (similar to their treatment of the US constitution) doesn't seem to occur in European conservatives, presumably because we didn't place so much store in the concept to start with.

[Big Orange]

If you look at the lack of social safety nets, public education, public health care, government regulation, minority rights, religious diversity, and taxation in the 18th century, it looks exactly like what they're pushing for. So "conservative" in this sense just means that they've spent too much time wanking to Civil War movies and they want to go back to those halcyon days, before Sherman torched the fuckers.

It is ironic that the early Republicans were the ones who made America into a true superpower by crushing the regressive Confederates and properly establishing the relatively reliable Federal bureaucracy, paving the way for rapid future expansion. If the Confederates then or the modern Republicans now had it all their own way, America would collapse Romanov Dynasty style.

[The Yosemite Bear]

This also reminds me of the 70s communist Berkley Grad, that campaigned for Bush both elections because he wanted the US capitolism to fail.

[Big Orange]

The GOP's deluded and malicious zeal has been its own downfall, much like with failing/defunct corporations such as GM, Sony, Enron, and Circuit City. Being ruthless and incoherent is not a nice mix.

[Crossroads Inc.]

More Visions of a "New Republican Party"
Townhall.com

"Republicans, act more like Democrats!"

Actually, former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it somewhat differently when he offered his prescription to extricate the GOP from its "deep trouble."


Powell insists that Republicans must accept that the country has changed. "Americans do want to pay taxes for services," he said. "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less." In other words, Republicans simply need to surrender to President Obama and the Democrats' outrageous and radical push/pull for more government in, well, everything. Or, as former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean snappily puts it, "I think we've had quite enough capitalism in the last eight years, and I think we need some regulation now."

Many, if not most, Americans do want a welfare state. Certainly, Americans rail against excessive government spending, but try asking, "OK, where would you like to cut?" Health care? Well, no. Education? No, not that. Aid to the poor? No. Social Security? Uh-uh. Disaster relief for those hard hit by floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, broken levees? No, too harsh. Unemployment benefits for those out of work during this severe recession? No, lacks compassion.

The problem is that Republicans have already been acting like Democrats -- and for a long, long time. In 2000, they nominated then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush. He promised to serve as the education president and signed into law No Child Left Behind, which further injected the feds into a state matter. He promised and delivered a prescription bill for seniors, which expanded Medicare by the largest amount since the program's inception. His dad, former President George Herbert Walker Bush, signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act, a hideous intrusion into the private sector rationalized by compassion. On the 10th anniversary of the ADA, George W. praised his dad's program.

Let's go back further. Republicans initially resisted -- and quite fiercely -- the New Deal programs passed during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration. And the Supreme Court, at least initially, declared many of Roosevelt's expansionary programs unconstitutional.

After Roosevelt's first win, in 1932, Republicans failed to recapture the White House until 1952. That year, a major GOP contender for the nomination, the "fiscally conservative" Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, promised to undo parts of the New Deal. But even he accepted Social Security and public housing for the poor. The "moderate" GOP contender and eventual winner, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, not only accepted the New Deal but also used tax dollars -- purportedly for national security -- to construct the interstate highway system.

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie recently said that under the George W. Bush administration, spending got out of control. We hear this refrain constantly: Republicans spent too much; Republicans let spending get out of control; we need to return to fiscal responsibility.

But if, in fact, Bush erred in signing and the Republicans in Congress wrongly voted for the No Child Left Behind Act, shouldn't Republicans condemn it, repent and vote for its repeal?

But if, in fact, Bush erred in signing and the Republicans in Congress wrongly voted for the prescription bill for seniors, shouldn't Republicans condemn it, repent and vote for its repeal?

But if, in fact, Bush erred in signing and the Republicans in Congress wrongly voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, shouldn't Republicans condemn it, repent and vote for its repeal?

Americans like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And President Obama won the election, in part, by calling it a "matter of neighborliness" to tax A for the benefit of B. That this creeping socialism defies the Constitution and weakens economic growth is of little consequence to many Americans.

Republicans can regain the White House by standing on principles -- and explaining their purpose and utility. The party needs candidates unafraid to convince the American people that the Founding Fathers designed the Constitution as a contract that restricts the federal government to a handful of important services, not least of which is national security. Republicans need to show how Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- to say nothing of the various entitlement programs advocated by the current administration -- will bankrupt the country. Republicans must make the case, however difficult and unpopular, for private savings accounts, a free-market-based approach to health care, and private charity for the needy.

Powell says the country has changed. If so, does that mean Republicans should simply stand by and accept it, offering only minor modifications? Or should Republicans summon the courage to explain how and why this "change" threatens no less than the very existence of the Republic?

Once again we see the same old same old "We are losing for not being Republican ENOUGH" Never a hint of a new message, never a hint that they need new ideas. Over and over again its simply "We need to get our message out Better" All about advertising it seems.
They really have NOTHING to offer America anymore.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And what things are the American Conservatives supposed to actually conserve? I can understand that they want to conserve moronic religious heritage, but on the other hand they've actively destroyed the economy instead of wisely conserving it. What is so objectively conservative about wildly selling off a ton of industrial/service assets for short-term gains, spriling into deep financial debt, dampening economic progress through overweening private ownership, and destroying jobs through self-destructive outsourcing?

They're actually economic ultra-liberals, to use the proper definition of "conservative" and "liberal". But I think their economic policies actually stem from old-fashioned temporal conservatism, ie- they think everything was better in the 18th century, and they want to go back to that time.

If you look at the lack of social safety nets, public education, public health care, government regulation, minority rights, religious diversity, and taxation in the 18th century, it looks exactly like what they're pushing for. So "conservative" in this sense just means that they've spent too much time wanking to Civil War movies and they want to go back to those halcyon days, before Sherman torched the fuckers.

Well, let's remember that the ubiquituous church actually did, really, provide universal social services in the 18th century and earlier, and the government provided grain handouts (especially in France) as well, and other things like that very similar to modern social services. Now the problem comes from the fact that in the 18th century certain numbers of the men of the Enlightenment concluded this just helped maintain a state of superstitious poverty. The King of France was overthrown in part for dismantling that network of social services to make way for a modern capitalist society in France. These radical liberals of the 18th century included the Founding Fathers in America, and are now idealized as conservatives when real conservatives of the time would have defended these social networks as a proper and just continuation of the duties of the state.

Essentially, the medieval, systematic network of free food by the state + medical and work charity by the Church was dismantled to make way for modern capitalism... And nothing replaced it. The period of 1775 - 2009 has been an anomalous one in which social services were not available in many countries for this reason, rather than one in which progress was made toward their being implemented. Had a secular alternative been proposed in the 18th century, nobody would be having this discussion; but the brave new men of the era thought it unnecessary, and so here we are.

[Thanas]

A counterpoint would be the social system of the German Reich adopted by Bismarck. Of course, this was invented due to pressure from the working class (and Bismarck's own christian ethics) who would have voted socialists in instead, but it happened nevertheless.

[Samuel]

Don't forget the political machines in American cities, who provided aid and assistance to individuals in return for votes.

That this creeping socialism defies the Constitution and weakens economic growth is of little consequence to many Americans.

I know, it is like they value stability, their jobs and not dying from lack of medical treatment.

Republicans need to show how Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- to say nothing of the various entitlement programs advocated by the current administration -- will bankrupt the country. Republicans must make the case, however difficult and unpopular, for private savings accounts, a free-market-based approach to health care, and private charity for the needy.

They really do want to return to the 1890s. Wow. They do realize that these programs have not bankrupted a host of other countries on Earth, so unless the US is poorer than Cuba I don't see how that is going to happen.

Powell says the country has changed. If so, does that mean Republicans should simply stand by and accept it, offering only minor modifications? Or should Republicans summon the courage to explain how and why this "change" threatens no less than the very existence of the Republic?

You hear that comrades? What the confederates could not do taxes will! Are they at all bothered by the fact it is impossible to win elections on their platform?

[Thanas]

Don't forget the political machines in American cities, who provided aid and assistance to individuals in return for votes.

Yes, but none of those instituted a nationwide system of universal health services, universal sickness/death/disability/injury benefits and of course, nationwide retirement funds.

[Pablo Sanchez]

They really do want to return to the 1890s. Wow. They do realize that these programs have not bankrupted a host of other countries on Earth, so unless the US is poorer than Cuba I don't see how that is going to happen.

In terms of entitlement programs bankrupting the country, AFAIK they're actually telling the truth, it's just that they're only putting down the first half of the sentence. It should read

Republicans need to show how Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- to say nothing of the various entitlement programs advocated by the current administration -- will bankrupt the country, unless the tax system is overhauled to increase revenue.

Opposition to raising taxes is so deeply ingrained in American politics that it literally goes without saying. I saw an article in USA Today (which I read only because it was free ) where an anti-tax lobbyist said "Last time I checked ... 'I need the revenue' was not a tax policy argument." I found this statement astoundingly stupid, because revenue requirements are one of the most important determinants of tax policy, but in the American political consensus saying that makes perfect sense.

Overhaul the income tax to make it more sharply progressive, especially in the upper brackets, spruce up the corporate tax codes as Obama has already proposed, add a VAT, and so on--the revenue systems that every welfare state uses, in other words--and you'll find that the USA can afford a welfare state just as easily as any country. To be sure, we are dragging a defense budget that is pretty big even as a percentage of GDP (4.06% as opposed to 2.6% for France) but America has other advantages--high per capita GDP, very productive workers, and consistent population growth. The money (and then some) to pay for a welfare state is all there, it's just that anti-tax propaganda has been so effective as to internalized by most Americans. A few years ago the GOP managed to stoke populist anger against the estate tax. Try to wrap your head around that one.

"European style welfare-state" is a pejorative in the USA but I think if most people would actually sit down and listen to what that entails they would like the idea. I've mentioned this before because it's my favorite factoid, but Americans aren't even guaranteed paid maternity leave. We have approximately the same maternity leave system as SWAZILAND. No joke.

[Akhlut]

Pablo, I was intrigued by your comment about paid maternity leave and looked on Wikipedia and was shocked that essentially every country on earth aside from the US and Swaziland at least officially has paid maternity leave. Even the Democratic Republic of Congo has paid maternity leave on the books. The fucking worst country on earth at least tries to maintain better appearances than the US for maternity leave.

What the fuck is wrong with my countrymen? This saddens and disgusts me.

[Samuel]

Pablo, I was intrigued by your comment about paid maternity leave and looked on Wikipedia and was shocked that essentially every country on earth aside from the US and Swaziland at least officially has paid maternity leave. Even the Democratic Republic of Congo has paid maternity leave on the books. The fucking worst country on earth at least tries to maintain better appearances than the US for maternity leave.

What the fuck is wrong with my countrymen? This saddens and disgusts me.

You live in an absolute monarchy where the king has decided that the money could be better spent on palaces. Oh, wait you aren't from Swaziland?

In that case the answer is that American's believe in the version of capitalism described by Karl Marx.

[Darth Wong]

Opposition to raising taxes is so deeply ingrained in American politics that it literally goes without saying. I saw an article in USA Today (which I read only because it was free ) where an anti-tax lobbyist said "Last time I checked ... 'I need the revenue' was not a tax policy argument." I found this statement astoundingly stupid, because revenue requirements are one of the most important determinants of tax policy, but in the American political consensus saying that makes perfect sense.

It seems to me that Americans view taxes as some sort of punishment inflicted upon the people by the state, rather than a co-operative venture of society to pay for the tasks that it collectively feels must be performed for the common good.

The equation of taxes to punishment is precisely how their rhetoric is constructed; witness the "don't punish people for being successful" attack against higher taxes on the wealthy. Small wonder they think "balancing the budget" is not adequate reason to raise taxes.

[Qwerty 42]

Opposition to raising taxes is so deeply ingrained in American politics that it literally goes without saying. I saw an article in USA Today (which I read only because it was free ) where an anti-tax lobbyist said "Last time I checked ... 'I need the revenue' was not a tax policy argument." I found this statement astoundingly stupid, because revenue requirements are one of the most important determinants of tax policy, but in the American political consensus saying that makes perfect sense.

It seems to me that Americans view taxes as some sort of punishment inflicted upon the people by the state, rather than a co-operative venture of society to pay for the tasks that it collectively feels must be performed for the common good.

The equation of taxes to punishment is precisely how their rhetoric is constructed; witness the "don't punish people for being successful" attack against higher taxes on the wealthy. Small wonder they think "balancing the budget" is not adequate reason to raise taxes.

From what I understand, for many of us in the United States, it's a far-reaching and deep-seated cultural affair. Part of the appeal of venturing to the Wild West (and if we really want to reach, crossing from Europe) was evading debt and no doubt taxes. There was great appeal, to many people, in being totally self-sufficient, not taking in any services and not giving any out, either. Now that we're out of places for people to go, those who perceive a production-neutral lifestyle as ideal probably view taxation as a form of shackling.

[Darth Wong]

That's pure mythology. Early American colonists were forced to spontaneously form collectives wherever they settled, to share labour and tools and community defense. The glorious "rugged individualist" of the past is a Hollywood invention. Anybody who bravely said "I don't need no help from nobody" probably would have found himself six feet under.

[Starglider]

That's pure mythology. Early American colonists were forced to spontaneously form collectives wherever they settled, to share labour and tools and community defense.

That's ok. The natural, idealised Republican social grouping is the small-town church congregation, or possibly lynch mob. Of course the practical, real-world Republican social groupings are the NASCAR tailgate party, megachurch and shady far-right think tank.

Frankly if the Republicans sorted themselves out and dumped the religious wing and the hypernationalism, I would be inclined to take them seriously and have a proper debate about appropriate levels of government services and global interventionism. Given some moderation and considering the ongoing problems with the Democrats I might even vote for them, were I an American. However as long as the frothing fundies are calling the shots I will continue to treat them as a joke.

[Samuel]

That's pure mythology. Early American colonists were forced to spontaneously form collectives wherever they settled, to share labour and tools and community defense.

That's ok. The natural, idealised Republican social grouping is the small-town church congregation, or possibly lynch mob. Of course the practical, real-world Republican social groupings are the NASCAR tailgate party, megachurch and shady far-right think tank.

Frankly if the Republicans sorted themselves out and dumped the religious wing and the hypernationalism, I would be inclined to take them seriously and have a proper debate about appropriate levels of government services and global interventionism. Given some moderation and considering the ongoing problems with the Democrats I might even vote for them, were I an American. However as long as the frothing fundies are calling the shots I will continue to treat them as a joke.

Er, they still have the problem of opposition to things like universal health care and other basics. Now, if they were simply Shep/Kast style I think we would be better off. They really need to dump their social policies because they are in utter contradiction with reality.

[Patrick Degan]

Frankly if the Republicans sorted themselves out and dumped the religious wing and the hypernationalism, I would be inclined to take them seriously and have a proper debate about appropriate levels of government services and global interventionism. Given some moderation and considering the ongoing problems with the Democrats I might even vote for them, were I an American. However as long as the frothing fundies are calling the shots I will continue to treat them as a joke.

The Republicans also need to drop their tax cut religion in order to be taken seriously again. It has for them literally become a matter of viewing tax cuts as ends in and of themselves, regardless of whether there is an actual need for them or not, regardless of whether any real net positive return will result or not, regardless of whether it makes a lick sense or not:

Economy going well? Tax cuts. Economy doing poorly? Tax cuts. Recession starting? Tax cuts. Recovery starting? Tax cuts. Inflation? Tax cuts. Deflation? Tax cuts. Budget surplus? Tax cuts. National debt just tripled? Tax cuts. All tax rates now at zero? Tax cuts. The mega-rich now hold 99.996% of wealth? Tax cuts. Country's just gone completely broke? Tax cuts. Nuclear war? Tax cuts. Black plague? Tax cuts. The Yosemite caldera just exploded? Tax cuts. Ten-mile wide asteroid just impacted with the Earth, resulting in an extinction-level-event for 95% of all life on this planet? Tax cuts.

[Starglider]

Er, they still have the problem of opposition to things like universal health care and other basics.

The Conservative party in the UK was originally opposed to the NHS (in 1946). They support it now. If the US switched to universal health care, the Republicans would find it very difficult to dismantle it - although it's true they probably wouldn't be as rational as European conservatives and fully accept it. Normally I would prefer to alternate political parties in power at something like a 3:2 or 2:1 ratio favoring the less extreme side, as that is really needed to curb the abuses that staying in power indefinitely brings, but right now the Republicans are so broken that I'd be hard pressed to justify ever letting them get a majority or president again (of course I'm sure they will in reality).

They really need to dump their social policies because they are in utter contradiction with reality.

Yes, it's really quite sad that the Libertarians splintered off into assorted small and ineffective parties, instead of the fundies. The Libertarians do have some good ideas (e.g. soft drug legalisation) and can in theory be reasoned with. The religious right bring absolutely nothing positive to the table.

[Darth Wong]

That's pure mythology. Early American colonists were forced to spontaneously form collectives wherever they settled, to share labour and tools and community defense.

That's ok. The natural, idealised Republican social grouping is the small-town church congregation, or possibly lynch mob. Of course the practical, real-world Republican social groupings are the NASCAR tailgate party, megachurch and shady far-right think tank.

And the national military, which they worship as if it's made of Jesus' balls, even though it costs some ridiculous amount, like $700 billion a year. They're quite capable of wholeheartedly supporting a nationwide collective. It just has to be an army.

That's Republicanism for you: just enough collectivism to show that they don't believe in their own stated principles, but not enough to actually help others.

[Qwerty 42]

That's pure mythology. Early American colonists were forced to spontaneously form collectives wherever they settled, to share labour and tools and community defense. The glorious "rugged individualist" of the past is a Hollywood invention. Anybody who bravely said "I don't need no help from nobody" probably would have found himself six feet under.

This is true. Let me rephrase: the motivation to head west certainly had something to do with setting up communities away from the government's reach: this was the reason that Mormons headed west, so that they could practice freely. That's not to support or condemn Mormonism, but that is why they went. Draft dodgers would often head west, and while that isn't taxation, it is another power that the state can exercise. And, if we want to reach even further back, avoiding taxation was a big reason in the westward migration. Georgia was even founded as a debtor's colony.

American history is rife with this sort of thing: taxation was the reason given, however justified or unjustified, for the American Revolution. Southerners balked in the years prior to the Civil War at the high tariffs designed to protect Northern industry. And, even if they weren't going out for the purpose of living alone, you can't help but think that the settler in Wyoming was paying far less in taxes than the apartment tenant in New York. Of course, the settler was much, much more screwed if a robber came knocking than the apartment tenant. But those who oppose taxes think of them as money that gets jettisoned into space, not as the middle step to things like police departments.

The anti-tax culture in the United States is there because the United States, for a very, very long time, was one of the premier places to go if you disliked the existing government's oversight, whether you were a Puritan, a Huguenot, a Mormon, or what have you: We had an outlandishly weak government until 1861, and even when the government was strong, the territory was simply too big to effectively oversee. And taxes are, to the layman, seemingly the most profound way the state affects his everyday life. So they automatically become the enemy.

[Samuel]

This is true. Let me rephrase: the motivation to head west certainly had something to do with setting up communities away from the government's reach: this was the reason that Mormons headed west, so that they could practice freely.

No, it was because people kept on trying to kill them. The government was erratic in attacking them or just letting them be attacked.

And, if we want to reach even further back, avoiding taxation was a big reason in the westward migration.

No, land was the reason for migrating.

And, even if they weren't going out for the purpose of living alone, you can't help but think that the settler in Wyoming was paying far less in taxes than the apartment tenant in New York.

Until the arrivial of the income tax or sales tax, no. The Government made its income mostly from excise and tarrifs.

In 1921, West Virginia became the first US state to enact a sales tax .

The anti-tax culture in the United States is there because the United States, for a very, very long time, was one of the premier places to go if you disliked the existing government's oversight,

Not really. That was the Northern Colonies which proceded to make one of the worlds more insane theocracies. The more populous Southern colonies were colonized by people looking for a shit load of money and finding it in tobbaco

We had an outlandishly weak government until 1861,

The government wouldn't be considered strong until at least 1917, possibly later.

[ray245]

I think one reason why so many Americans don't wish to copy what other nation has done is due to their ego. They cannot accept the fact that they are lagging behind Europe, after years after years of calling themselves the leader of the free world, democracies and champions of capitalism.

They cannot accept that others have better ideas, and they have to learn from others, as a leader.

[Starglider]

I think one reason why so many Americans don't wish to copy what other nation has done is due to their ego. They cannot accept the fact that they are lagging behind Europe, after years after years of calling themselves the leader of the free world, democracies and champions of capitalism.

'Europe is a dying hellhole' is a (US) Libertarian axiom, immune to any kind of evidence like the rest of their claims. I just wasted 30 minutes trying to debate with a Libertarian over IM, and every time I referenced some useful statistics, he just quoted more 'Atlas Shrugged' at me, as if that was a magic ward against reality. Ultimately he started saying '(zero taxation) is unquestionably the ethical ideal and you can't prove that it won't work' - yep, same mentality as religious fundamentalists as usual.

[Big Orange]

That's Republicanism for you: just enough collectivism to show that they don't believe in their own stated principles, but not enough to actually help others.

The latter day Republicans supposedly donate more to charities than liberals and of course brag about it.