Could the Democrats and Republicans switch sides again?

[Drooling Iguana]

As most of you are probably aware, when the American Republican party was founded in the 19th century it was a left-wing counter to the right-wing Democrats, however in the mid-20th century the two parties flipped, with the Democrats moving to the left and the Republicans moving to the right. I'm wondering if the same thing could happen again now.

The current presidential election is shaping up to be a disaster for the Republicans, and will likely begin to desperately need to re-invent themselves afterwards (although personally I think they're too stubborn and insular to alter their policies significantly after a McCain loss, but another one in 2012 could make them seriously re-think things.) Meanwhile, the Democrats have been shifting steadily to the right ever since Clinton, and while Obama is himself fairly liberal by American standards something as large as a national political party tends to carry a fair bit of inertia.

I'm not suggesting that things are going to switch overnight after the election, but is it possible that within 20 years or so the Republicans might become the liberal choice again?

[RedImperator]

If I had to predict the future of the Republican Party, I'd guess the most likely direction for them is Mike Huckabee populism--socially conservative, economically liberal, anti-immigrant, protectionist, overtly religious. Of course, that would involve the GOP severing its very long relationship with business; the Republicans became a pro-business party within a decade of Lincoln's assassination. However, if they actually did it, the new GOP would probably finally break up the old FDR coalition and leave the Democrats an uncomfortable amalgam of upper-middle class urban liberals and minorities.

[Big Phil]

Yes, it's possible, but then it's also possible that we'll be hit by a meteor tomorrow and civilization will end. Can you present any logical scenario under which the religious right becomes progressive in the next 20 years, and moves to the left of the Democrats?

[Civil War Man]

It would take a lot to cause another ideological swap. Hell, it took a lot to cause the previous swap. The previous swap was caused largely by conservative southern Democrats abandoning the party en masse and joining the Republican, and it took a lot to cause that. It probably started with FDR pushing the New Deal, since prior to that it was more a case of fiscal conservative versus fiscal conservative-er. While the final straw was the bigots jumping ship with Democratic presidents supporting civil rights (especially since one of them was *gasp* Catholic. That used to be a big deal.)

IMHO, an ideological shift would require a resurgence of the Blue Dogs in the Democratic Party (which I consider unlikely since the current ones have a few decades head start in the age factor), along with the Republicans being almost simultaneously havingLincoln Chaffees maneuvered into positions of party power.

[Aeolus]

Yes, it's possible, but then it's also possible that we'll be hit by a meteor tomorrow and civilization will end. Can you present any logical scenario under which the religious right becomes progressive in the next 20 years, and moves to the left of the Democrats?

Wouldn't his Huckabee scenario be basically that? The Republicans becoming populist would break the blue collar labor votes away from the democrats. That would then push big business towards the Democrats. The Democrats would most likely welcome that to try and offset their loss of labor voters. The final tally would be Republicans being liberal on economic issues and conservative on social ones. In other words old school Democrats. While the Democrats become conservative on business and liberal on social issues. in other words old school Republicans. A return to the early 20th century

[Saxtonite]

Can you present any logical scenario under which the religious right becomes progressive in the next 20 years, and moves to the left of the Democrats?

IIRC the younger evangelical Christians are more concerned with the environment. That's all I know of.

[Battlehymn Republic]

"Mike Huckabee and the Coming Republican Realignment"

[Darth Wong]

I'm still not convinced that they're really that much different. Obviously one party leans more to the right than the other one does, but that only means liberals vote for it as the lesser evil: there is no real liberal political party in America. Just two largely conservative parties with slightly different ideas on how to do things, but very different demographic support bases.

[Covenant]

I'm still not convinced that they're really that much different. Obviously one party leans more to the right than the other one does, but that only means liberals vote for it as the lesser evil: there is no real liberal political party in America. Just two largely conservative parties with slightly different ideas on how to do things, but very different demographic support bases.

This is especially true when you look at the places all the money comes from. It's way more like a sports team's demographics than an actual difference in political platform. The way to swap the Right's stance on some these issues is staring us in the face though--the looming economic crisis, and the 700 billion dollar bailout.

Many republicans are forced now to sit between a position of helping Wall Street and giving out taxes or claiming to be the taxpayer's penny-pinchers and telling Wall Street to fuck itself. If their base does continue to cry out as it has been doing recently, you could theoretically engineer some fashion of switch where the moderate-centrist Obama Democrats become the allies of the Business Economy while the Right dumps them because of the bailout packages and plays up their base's fear of socialism. They've always claimed to be a party of the lower class voter, and this could lead them to actually be one. The real result is that their party would implode, so the chance of that actually happening is nil.

Conservatives are always just dragging their feet behind progress anyway. They're for clean coal because dirty coal isn't as popular, but they're still for coal. Once we move to a solar wind and nuclear economy they'll be for solar wind and nuclear free market solutions. And once we move to magical 31st Century Vacuum Power and all fly around in jetboots they'll still be for solar wind and nuclear and whining about how it's only a theory that the sun is getting larger and redder, and that perhaps it's only a natural cycle.

The problem now is that the big social issues facing us now are matters of religion, so into the forseeable future there will be an anti-gay, anti-diversity, anti-choice demographic ready to oppose any shifts. The Evangelicals currently make up about 28 percent of the population, which is no small minority. Until that group changes their position on some of these issues, you'll still be able to motivate more than a quarter of the American population on the God, Gays, and Guns platform, and probably about another quarter on the other side as opposition. There's a sort of manufactured outrage because of this. It's not in anyone's best interest to flop positions, or for a third party to emerge, because it all comes back to money, donors, and the way power and cash circulates even in the most noble and honorable circles. You can be an honest, incorruptable politician and still need to campaign for donations from other honest people. These people though are probably conditioned to be republicans or democrats. Where are you going to make the money to run against a Romney or an Obama if you can't tap either of the two built-in machines? Or the built-in demographics, and all their key issues?

[Count Chocula]

There's a difference between the two now? Hell, who'd notice if they switched? They've both destroyed the dollar, increased the size and intrusiveness of our government, and put our children into debt.

Having different political parties seems more like a way to distract the American electorate from the reality that, no matter who is in office, they're gonna get screwed.

[Darth Wong]

There's a difference between the two now? Hell, who'd notice if they switched? They've both destroyed the dollar, increased the size and intrusiveness of our government, and put our children into debt.

The problem with your government is not its size; the problem with your government is its lack of accountability. Saudi Arabia has a small government, but it's even worse than your government because it has even less accountability to the people.

Most of the problems we're seeing right now are due to government not being intrusive enough; specifically, failing to regulate corporations and completely backing off the idea of wealth redistribution, even though any idiot who has ever played Monopoly knows that rich people and poor people don't really operate on a level playing field, and some kind of wealth redistribution is necessary just to keep poor people in the game at all.

[Count Chocula]

Darth Wong wrote:

the problem with your government is its lack of accountability.

Spot on. Both the Democrats and Republicans act with seeming impunity and disregard to the wishes of voters, and when they encourage stupid behavior (bailout plan anyone?) they turn around and pretend to have a solution to problems they helped create!

The size of our government is still an issue. Any business that hopes to succeed limits its overhead - i.e. hires the minimum employees to do the job, buys buildings to suit needs without being extravagant, and implementing the minimum policies necessary to do a good job without entangling employees in red tape. Despite what the Constitution says about its role, the US government is the largest business entity in the world - and one of the most poorly run. Some government roles, especially defense, are wasteful by civilian standards - until bullets start flying. Then there's never enough soldiers or guns.

Further quoting Mr. Wong:

Most of the problems we're seeing right now are due to government not being intrusive enough; specifically, failing to regulate corporations and completely backing off the idea of wealth redistribution,

I respectfully disagree with you here, partially. The US Government is plenty intrusive! For a random example, see the Politics thread "Torture: OK; Bondage Porn: 3 Years In Prison." Congress has a long and checkered history of sticking its nose into moral and personal issues outside its mandate.

But, they suck donkey dick at oversight functions! They should regulate corporations, and time and again acheive epic fails. I attribute this to 1 part ignorance, 1 part arrogance, 1 part lobbyist bribes, and 3 parts willful ignorance. Hell, look at the bailout again! The trigger for this manufactured crisis was the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - two government agencies! Now we need to bend over and take our medicine? What about Congress?

Back to the point, I don't really see a difference between the two parties. They can swap ideologies or wives and it won't make much difference to the American populace. Furthermore, without the influence peddling on both sides of the aisle that allows large corporations, banks, law associations, farmers, etc. to make deals in their favor, I think there'd be a lot less need for redistribution of wealth. It seems to be needed now because the Dems and Repubs have made deals to tip the playing table in favor of wealthy groups and screw the middle class.

[Darth Wong]

Spot on. Both the Democrats and Republicans act with seeming impunity and disregard to the wishes of voters, and when they encourage stupid behavior (bailout plan anyone?) they turn around and pretend to have a solution to problems they helped create!

The size of our government is still an issue. Any business that hopes to succeed limits its overhead - i.e. hires the minimum employees to do the job, buys buildings to suit needs without being extravagant, and implementing the minimum policies necessary to do a good job without entangling employees in red tape. Despite what the Constitution says about its role, the US government is the largest business entity in the world - and one of the most poorly run. Some government roles, especially defense, are wasteful by civilian standards - until bullets start flying. Then there's never enough soldiers or guns.

Your analogy sounds good until one realizes that it contains a built-in assumption: that the entire government is analogous to business overhead, which in turn presumes that 100% of government activity is waste. This requires the premise that government doesn't actually do anything useful at all, since the only way to achieve 100% waste is to have zero useful output.

The government is not like the overhead of a corporation; it is more like the entire corporation; it takes in revenue and it provides services, with the key distinction that it should do so regardless of the user's ability to pay for those services, unlike a for-profit corporation. Nobody would ever say that a corporation or even a non-profit organization should always be small; they might say that its overhead should be small, but not the entire corporation.

Most of the problems we're seeing right now are due to government not being intrusive enough; specifically, failing to regulate corporations and completely backing off the idea of wealth redistribution,

I respectfully disagree with you here, partially. The US Government is plenty intrusive! For a random example, see the Politics thread "Torture: OK; Bondage Porn: 3 Years In Prison." Congress has a long and checkered history of sticking its nose into moral and personal issues outside its mandate.

I was speaking more in the context of economic activity. I agree that in the social sphere, they are far too intrusive.

But, they suck donkey dick at oversight functions! They should regulate corporations, and time and again acheive epic fails. I attribute this to 1 part ignorance, 1 part arrogance, 1 part lobbyist bribes, and 3 parts willful ignorance. Hell, look at the bailout again! The trigger for this manufactured crisis was the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - two government agencies! Now we need to bend over and take our medicine? What about Congress?

It's interesting how libertarian types are more comfortable with government regulation when they call it "oversight"; can't bring yourself to use that "R" word, eh?

In any case, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not government agencies. The government backs them up, but they are privately owned and operated corporations. If you have to pin the blame for this crisis on anyone, you have to blame the entire right-wing ideology of shrinking government and neutering regulations so that "the government gets out of the way of private industry", as Sarah Palin kept idiotically repeating during her shameful debate performance last week. Those policies were only a reflection of the public attitude, after all. Individual accountability may be very limited, but collective party accountability is still enough to keep government from deviating too far from what the public finds acceptable. The problem has been that the public completely bought into Reaganomics, thus allowing or pressuring government to adopt it.

Back to the point, I don't really see a difference between the two parties. They can swap ideologies or wives and it won't make much difference to the American populace. Furthermore, without the influence peddling on both sides of the aisle that allows large corporations, banks, law associations, farmers, etc. to make deals in their favor, I think there'd be a lot less need for redistribution of wealth. It seems to be needed now because the Dems and Repubs have made deals to tip the playing table in favor of wealthy groups and screw the middle class.

Well, I wouldn't say there's no difference at all; just that the difference is much smaller than is typically portrayed in the media. Democratic policies would benefit the middle class far more than Republican policies would at this point, even though they have their own special interests that they would be paying off.

As for tilting the playing field, the playing field is naturally tilted in favour of the wealthy, and it has been for all of human history, on every continent and in every society. In order to correct this, the government must actively tilt the playing field the other way, not just stop tilting it in favour of the wealthy.

[Count Chocula]

Darth Wong wrote:

Your analogy sounds good until one realizes that it contains a built-in assumption: that the entire government is analogous to business overhead, which in turn presumes that 100% of government activity is waste. This requires the premise that government doesn't actually do anything useful at all, since the only way to achieve 100% waste is to have zero useful output.

If you view the US economy as a business, then the US government is indeed 100% overhead. On a personal level, when I pay taxes out of my check to the IRS, it sure feels like an overhead expense. I'm not saying that much of it is not necessary or useful, but it comes right off my bottom line.

It's interesting how libertarian types are more comfortable with government regulation when they call it "oversight"; can't bring yourself to use that "R" word, eh?

I'm a libertarian type (registered Lib as a youngling, now NPA), and I'll say the word: REGULATE! REGULATE! REGULATE! There, I feel much better.

Since the US Government (as do the states) has the ability to define companies as legal entities, their legal status (as subject to regulation) comes from that definition. I used "oversight" because Congressional committes typically don't get into the regulatin' side of things. Committees usually do fact finding and then designate other parties (i.e. FDIC, IRS, SEC, etc.) to go do the regulating.

[Simplicius]

If you view the US economy as a business, then the US government is indeed 100% overhead. On a personal level, when I pay taxes out of my check to the IRS, it sure feels like an overhead expense. I'm not saying that much of it is not necessary or useful, but it comes right off my bottom line.

That is, if anything, a flawed analogy. Businesses and governments both are coherent bodies with some defined purpose which directs their respective actions, while a national economy is not a coherent body, but the sum of the economic activity within a particular country. Economies are social side effects.

I'm a libertarian type (registered Lib as a youngling, now NPA), and I'll say the word: REGULATE! REGULATE! REGULATE! There, I feel much better.

Since the US Government (as do the states) has the ability to define companies as legal entities, their legal status (as subject to regulation) comes from that definition. I used "oversight" because Congressional committes typically don't get into the regulatin' side of things. Committees usually do fact finding and then designate other parties (i.e. FDIC, IRS, SEC, etc.) to go do the regulating.

You have yet to address the fact that Fannie and Freddie are not public bodies. This 'manufactured' crisis has in fact been caused by private financial entities doing as they pleased in the absence of government regulation. That is more salient than the difference between oversight and regulation.

[Darth Wong]

If you view the US economy as a business, then the US government is indeed 100% overhead.

For the second time, that's wrong. I already explained in my previous post why that's wrong, and you didn't address it except to simply repeat your assertion.

On a personal level, when I pay taxes out of my check to the IRS, it sure feels like an overhead expense.

Subjective impressions are not valid arguments.

I'm not saying that much of it is not necessary or useful, but it comes right off my bottom line.

If much of it is necessary or useful, then it is not overhead. The government takes money and provides services. Unless those services are zero, how can it be 100% overhead?

I'm a libertarian type (registered Lib as a youngling, now NPA), and I'll say the word: REGULATE! REGULATE! REGULATE! There, I feel much better.

Since the US Government (as do the states) has the ability to define companies as legal entities, their legal status (as subject to regulation) comes from that definition. I used "oversight" because Congressional committes typically don't get into the regulatin' side of things. Committees usually do fact finding and then designate other parties (i.e. FDIC, IRS, SEC, etc.) to go do the regulating.

Those agencies are also part of the government, so I don't see the point of this hair-splitting. At the end of the day, this was not a "manufactured crisis" so much as an inevitable consequence of the free market.

The free market is a mythology, and a highly toxic one. Free markets don't work; fair markets do.

[Big Phil]

The free market is a mythology, and a highly toxic one. Free markets don't work; fair markets do.

Slightly off topic, but what exactly do you mean by "free markets don't work?" How are you measuring this?

[Illuminatus Primus]

The free market is a mythology, and a highly toxic one. Free markets don't work; fair markets do.

Slightly off topic, but what exactly do you mean by "free markets don't work?" How are you measuring this?

I'm not Mike, but a combination of the fact that "free" markets have never existed and are an ideologue's abstraction, and the fact that free market economics is an idealized pseudoscience that does not generate the best outcome for all participants.

[Illuminatus Primus]

There's a difference between the two now? Hell, who'd notice if they switched? They've both destroyed the dollar, increased the size and intrusiveness of our government, and put our children into debt.

Having different political parties seems more like a way to distract the American electorate from the reality that, no matter who is in office, they're gonna get screwed.

I've noticed this gobbledygook a lot from conservatives who won't to make this country even more of Ronald Reagan/Sarah Palin/Ron Paul small-government promises magic free market, you get a lot of religious intervention, America continues to become a plutocracy place. So what's your solution, just give up and stick with the Republicans, which is what all of them seem to be getting at.

[Count Chocula]

Illuminatus asked:

So what's your solution, just give up and stick with the Republicans, which is what all of them seem to be getting at.

Nope. I'm voting against all incumbents on my ballot this November (including Rep. Bilirakis if he's up for the vote, despite his no vote on the bailout) as step 1. I may just do what I did when GWB won the election - not cast a vote for President. I very reluctantly voted for G.H.W. Bush, but just couldn't vote again for the lesser of two evils. Plan B is to write in Chuck Norris - the Libertarian and Green candidates just don't do anything for me.

[Surlethe]

The free market is a mythology, and a highly toxic one. Free markets don't work; fair markets do.

Slightly off topic, but what exactly do you mean by "free markets don't work?" How are you measuring this?

I'm not Mike, but a combination of the fact that "free" markets have never existed and are an ideologue's abstraction, and the fact that free market economics is an idealized pseudoscience that does not generate the best outcome for all participants.

I wouldn't call free market economics a pseudoscience; it plays the same role in economics as simple kinematics does in ballistics, which is to say, an idealized conceptual model. The problems occur when people (read: economists and libertarian idealogues) make policy recommendations based on the free market model. Just as you wouldn't want to engineer an ICBM assuming no air resistance, a submarine assuming no viscosity in water, or a furnace assuming perfectly efficient energy transfer, you wouldn't want to engineer a society assuming free markets and no externalities. That doesn't mean the free market model is false or not useful; it lends itself to simple qualitative predictions -- e.g., that a rise in minimum wage leads to some unemployment. But it fails when it's called upon to model extremely complex phenomena, like an honest-to-God real economy.

[Dark Hellion]

Seriously Count, how old are you? You're voting habits and political views come off like a 19 year old poli-sci major. Are you really so insulated from the real world? Because you seem to spew a lot of crap that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and you do it with that invincible self-assuredness that you usually grow out of around 21-22 when you get a degree and get into real life.

[Count Chocula]

Dark Hellion wrote:

Seriously Count, how old are you? You're(sic) voting habits and political views come off like a 19 year old poli-sci major. Are you really so insulated from the real world?

Jesus DH, didn't you do enough of this in this thread? Now you're gonna ask me how old I am?
You're gonna jump on the thread just to insult me? I fart in your general direction!

And I still don't see much difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

[Darth Wong]

The free market is a mythology, and a highly toxic one. Free markets don't work; fair markets do.

Slightly off topic, but what exactly do you mean by "free markets don't work?" How are you measuring this?

The free market model is a misnomer: it is not actually supposed to be free. In fact, it requires heavy regulation in order to work. Think about this: the free market model is based upon fair competition, but how does one ensure fair competition? Only a regulating force can ensure such a thing; otherwise, you get the business practices of Colombian drug lords. Why compete fairly when you can assassinate your competition, or on a lesser scale, employ all manner of other unreasonable or unfair practices in order to ensure an advantage and lock in customers?

And I still don't see much difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

They differ most sharply on health-care. Where they fail to differ is in their promotion of the same right-wing cultural memes, like "heartland America" being superior, people with educations being the problem rather than the solution to our problems, or overt religiosity being a worthwhile (nay, mandatory) trait in a political leader.

But of course, you seem to be a fan of psychopathic theocrat nutjob Chuck Norris, so perhaps you don't see a problem with that particular aspect of their sameness.

[Dark Hellion]

I am curious, because you spout libertarian nonsense, federal reserve conspiracy theory bullshit, don't seem to understand the concept of the social contract and generally say a lot of things I see in freshmen and sophomore Poli-sci majors, yet you imply in your posts that you are at least 32 years old. And don't pull thin skinned bullshit, you start these messes by saying stupid shit like planning to write in Chuck Norris (what kind of 30 year old man does that shit).

This is why I would like to know. So are you going to answer or weasel around til the next time you post something about politics and show how much of an under-informed bozo you are.