- Image via Wikipedia
Remember when the Democrats were flailing about, looking for leadership and attacking each other in nasty infighting? Well, it looks like the Republicans are the new Democrats.
While I am often accused of being a Democrat and a liberal, I am actually worried about the Republican party-for the same reasons I was worried about the Democrats when they were adrift and rudderless. The reason is that America has only two viable parties and if one party is in shambles, then the other party is free to do almost as it pleases. Such unchecked power generally leads to serious problems, as we saw during the Bush administration.
Of course, a party can provide its own opposition via internal dissent-we saw this when Carter ran afoul of the Democrats in Congress. However, such dissent is not a substitute for proper opposition.
The odds are that the Republicans will get out of this mess; primarily because the Democrats will slide into the usual swamp of corruption and complacency (just as the Republicans did). Then the country will turn to the Republicans.
However, political parties have died in America and there is always that slim chance that the Republicans will self destruct. Rush Limbaugh seems to be intent to doing this. Some might say that in his selfish desire to keep his ratings high and to puff up his ego, he is damaging the party. Dick Cheney is also contributing to this by his shot at Colin Powell and his other remarks. Some of the more moderate Republicans are trying to save the party and bring in more people; but they must contend against those who wish to purify the party. Perhaps there will be split in the party-the moderates forming their own party and the purists creating a rather small (but pure) party. Actually, it would be nice if that happened. As the old joke said, the difference between the US and the Soviet Union was one political party (that is, the Soviets had one party and we have two). Of course, we’d probably want to avoid splintering too much-the Italian model is not an ideal model. But, more viable options would be an improvement.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i2.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
I disagree that thy are in shambles. Actually, don’t you find it funny that Obama actually has continues many of the same policies that Bush had in place? We’re not going to leave Afghanistan.
Do we need to go ver every Dem scandal in Congress for the last 6 years? There’s a lot. Several people that Obama nominated had to back out. Bill Richardson for example. What a used car salesman that guy is.
As for Colin Powell, I agree with Rush. Powell stood before Congress and briefed them on WMD in Iraq, complete with Power Point slides marking exact locations of the stuff. Then when the heat got turned up, and no brand new shiny Anthrax bombs appeared, he cut and ran. He bailed.
It’s not infighting when your shoing the foxes out of the henhouse. Goodbye Arlen Specter.
The Dems were in shambles in Bush’s first term. They didn’t pull it together enough to oust him for the second term, this despite an all out media bltz to get someone else in there.
If Obama’s economic package fails to make headway, the honeymoon could be very short. We accept sending our troops overseas; we don’t accept not having jobs.
Wow – can you say non sequitar? What do Democratic scandals have to do with ideological differences within the Republican party?
This is why partisanship is ridiculous: a single, inoffensive point is made, and rather than responding to someone’s argumentative claims, one creates an irrelevant strawman to attack. It’s amazing how people on the left and right CONSTANTLY do this (or, for that matter, anyone so invested in a position that they can’t help but respond through the rose-colored lens of that position… EVEN IF IT’S IRRELEVANT!!!).
1) Thank you for being a completely objective ass.
2) So you’re saying that perceived Republican scandal has nothing o do with their popular decline? What planet are you living on? I know: The Planet: Democrat.
3) What did your post add to this conversation?
The Republicans seem to objectively be in trouble: their membership is at an all time low, they took a beating in the elections, and some of their top people seem intent on reducing their numbers even more.
As I recall, Powell was pushed out of office for his lack of willingness to just go along. The Bush Administration was rather intolerant of any disagreement. That tendency seems to live on in Cheney and Rush.
I’m not sure that the Republicans are just kicking out the foxes. Also, that implies that the folks that are getting pushed out are somehow up to no good-not that they merely disagree on some points.
Yes, the Democrats had scandals. So did the Republicans. They are politicians and that seems to be what they often do. Unfortunately. This doesn’t show that the Republicans are not in a mess, though.
Well, it does make sense that the Secretary of State should (and must) stand behind the president’s policies. Powell did not stand up for his actions concerning Iraq, though. And he was never taken to task on it.
“The Bush Administration was rather intolerant of any disagreement. That tendency seems to live on in Cheney and Rush.”
That’s such a bunch of bunk and you know it. What does intolerant mean here? Doing what the Dems tell them to? The Dems had Congress for half of the administration’s time, where is their responsibility? I’m going to wait until the Congressional elections to see how much of a decline the Republicans are in. As for Cheney, what must he say to be “Tolerant.” Oblique ad hominem, that’s all that is. And if you stand by someone, you’re partisan…
“I’m not sure that the Republicans are just kicking out the foxes. Also, that implies that the folks that are getting pushed out are somehow up to no good-not that they merely disagree on some points.”
Ok, they disagree on points, and when you disagree on too many points, you’re not a Republican anymore.
Again, don’t get media presentation confused with public thought on the matter.
Bashing the Democrats does not prove that the Bush administration tolerated dissent.
The Bush Administration’s opposition to dissent is well documented-even conservative commentators have noted this as a problem. Naturally, some folks are making a big deal about how Obama is changing this and trying to recreate Lincoln’s mythical “team of rivals.”
Republicans seem to be hashing out what the critical points are and how many a person has to accept. But, from a practical standpoint, they have to allow a fair amount of diversity. After all, we only have two viable parties in the country and a party needs to appeal to a majority to win. Get too pure and you will be a pure loser.
The Republicans are literally becoming the new Democrats they are sliding so far Left. We all know which direction the Dems are going in.
The left? Well, I suppose that some of them are trying to move away from the stances that helped them lose the election. I think it would be more apt and less contentious to say that they are moving back towards the center. Or, rather, that some are trying to.
America seems to be a mostly center nation, so to win, you have to win that center mass. You don’t do that by heading out to the left or right wings.
Obama is staying fairly central in his actions. Sure, he is bailing out companies-but that is something that Republicans have done. They are against it now-mainly to be against him. I suspect that of he were letting them fail, they would be arguing for bailouts.
Obama is staying central in his actions, but his campaign promises were not at all central.
Mike, do you seriously think they have been losing elections because they are too Conservative? Conservatives are leaving the party in droves. I wonder why? Even George Bush moved way towards the Left with his government spending and the Patriot Act. Yes, it helped protect the country but it gave the government more power over the rights of people and that to me is Left.
The Nation is center-right by the way.
Conservative is not exactly right-wing by the way unless you consider Libertarians right wingers.
To be a bit more sophisticated in my analysis, I would say it was a mix.
Bush went what you would call left-big government and big spending. But, his admin also went what some would call right: starting the Iraq war, limiting civil liberties, endorsing torture, restricting scientific research and so on. In sum, Bush found ways to annoy most of America-liberal and conservative.
Obama is a smart guy-he knew he had to steer left to win and then tack right to govern.
Is that why you supported him Mike? Because you knew he’s “tack right”?
I
“In sum, Bush found ways to annoy most of America-liberal and conservative.”
Is not Obama doing the same thing?
Um, starting a war is now ‘Right’?
Um, limiting Civil Liberties is now ‘Right’? Didn’t Stalin limit Civil Liberties?
Conservatives are for less government. That means more Civil Liberties. you think the Right pulled nanny state crap like seat belt laws or mandatory insurance? That so goes against being Conservative. What have the Left been doing to your morning cereal?
“Obama is a smart guy-he knew he had to steer left to win and then tack right to govern.”
Is that why during the campaign he said he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman? Is that steering left to get elected?
He talked out both sides of his mouth is what he did. He could not stand up and say what he truly believed in to get elected. The ‘center’ would not have given him their votes. He was very deceptive.
While it is reasonable to point out that what Obama is doing goes against some of what he said as a candidate, that hardly seems like a criticism that strikes him especially. Reagan ran on a conservative platform, but vastly increased federal spending and jacked up the deficit. Bush told us to read his lips about no new taxes and so on.
So, Obama said one thing and is doing another. That is wrong. That is also politics. Yes, do condemn them for doing that-but this means I have to condemn them all.
“Um, limiting Civil Liberties is now ‘Right’? Didn’t Stalin limit Civil Liberties?”
Yes he did. But the perception is that is a right wing thing to do. Also, a case can be made that although Stalin talked Marxism and socialism, he was essentially a fascist.
In any case, the left-right distinction blurs at the outer limits. One of my poli-sci professors said that the political line was more of a circle-head far enough in either direction and they meet.
Well, I supported Obama because I thought he would do a better job than McCain. I had and still have a lot of respect for McCain. Obama certainly seems to be doing a good job overall. He has made mistakes and will make mistakes, but that is true of everyone.
Obama is clearly smart, rational, calm, and seems to want to do right by the country. Time will tell, but I think he will be one of our better Presidents.
I think McCain also would have done his best for the country if he had been elected.
“Obama is a smart guy-he knew he had to steer left to win and then tack right to govern.
He just had to be of the opposite party and evoke the name of Bush and McCain in the same sentence. Brilliant.
I think there is a realignment going on, but it’s more three dimensional than two. The context is changing, and when that happens, things rarely go back to the way they were. That being said, I’m sure Republicans will adapt – it just needs to distinguish itself from the Libertarian party, which may compromise too much of the conservative ideology for Republicans to still be Republicans.
This is the likely future: http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/23/00013/
The longer I’m on this planet and study the effects of culture, the more I realize that culture doesn’t change much. America is not that much different than when we elected George Bush, or when we as a nation supported the invasion of Iraq (over 75% popular support).
Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only countries that have culture. So does America. And the only major changes came through intensely bloody conflicts (Civil War) or incredibly stressful domestic upheaval (The 60s).
America is in fact less prone to change then almost any other country in the world. We are geographically separated from our enemies and protected by two oceans. And our system works. We have so much. We won’t change very much because our needs are satisfied and we’re the most resourceful, hardworking people on earth.
Our economy has suffered. Everyone else’s did worse.
We fought two wars with a tiny amy, with almost no help from our NATO allies, whose total troop count amounts to millions.
We elected the first black national leader in the history of Western Civilization.
We are not different. Saying that the Republicans are doomed is merely an attempt by some to make it so with words alone. Give it time, not just 6 months. Who ever questioned, really for the last year that Obama would win?
Right now, the Democrat Congress has a 30% approval rating. They have a slight lead in virtual voting models, something like 36% to 34%.
Obama was elected primarily not because he was a Democrat, but because he said the right things in the right way. No one could argue they voted for him based on his experience.
He was anti-Iraq war–the most polarizing event of our time. That got him tons of votes.
I’m not be critical of him so much as his supporters. They don’t really now why they voted for him, other than he is charismatic. I mean to say that he is a great candidate because of his proposed policies and then to say he is great when he’s in office and his anti-terror policy is essentially the exact same thing as Bush’s; those policies sent moonbats into a frenzy when the white, rich, former oil man Bush backed them. I usually don’t fear leaders–most of the time they’re smart. I fear the followers. I knew I’d never vote for Ron Paul when I kept seeing people who murmured to themselves in coffee shops wearing his pins…
The republicans are not done. They have to do better, but they’re far from dead.
And you’re doing exactly what you were critical of me for doing:Bashing what Reagan did (He was still an awesome president. Like one Democrat said: I don’t agree with him on a lot of things, but I know a leader when I see one) in order to prove a point about Obama.
I’m not bashing Reagan. I just used him as an example that politicians say one thing as candidates and do another when elected. Naturally Obama is annoying some folks in the left. He seems to be a centrist fellow with some left leaning positions. Folks who think they are pure left would be opposed to centrist policies-and would often not quite get political realities (like the need to compromise).
No, the Republicans are not dead. They have plenty of money and still have about 20% of the voting population. But, it cannot be assumed that they won’t die off as a viable party. It has happened before. Actually, it would be good if the Democrats and Republicans had some splits-a third or even a fourth viable party would probably help the country.
I’m not sure he knows what his beliefs are just yet. He’s figuring things out as he goes along.