24 replies to this topic

[Steel Samurai]

I have odd views when it comes to politics.

Socially I'm completely libertarian. Pro-gay rights, (reservedly) pro-choice, pro-drug legalization.
Economically I'm against any kind of government involvement with industry, including bailouts, most subsidies, etc. Abolishing or drastically reforming the federal reserve would be a very good thing in my opinion. I think a concerted effort should be made to get rid of the national debt.
I think the current military involvement overseas is financially absurd and the US should return to a policy of isolationism.
Fairly standard libertarian.

BUT

Healthcare is a good idea. The current US implementation is stupid, and the plan should be shelved until the country has the economy to finance it.
The current US higher education system needs a radical rethinking and government overhaul. More trade schools, education costs down and more government loans/aid available to students. Australia's system works well.
There should never be a case in a country as wealthy US where a family has to worry about whether they will have a roof over their head or food on their table.

All of these combine to leave me in the curious position of ideally wanting a Libertarian candidate to gain office but, when it comes down to Romney vs. Obama, praying to God that Obama wins.

I'll never subscribe to Republican values. But I can't disagree with a lot of the major standing points of the party. Less government interference in business to boost jobs long term, less taxes, getting rid of debt.


Where did they lose me? Where did they lose everyone? Is it the Christian right? The inextricable ties with a small, extremely wealthy portion of the population? The wars?

The economy is in a shitty place right now, even with the recent uplift, and might crash again at the end of the year. Despite that, we still elected an incumbent committed to increasing government spending and borrowing more money.

Where did the Republicans go wrong? What would it take for you to vote for them?

[Fëanen]

Well...since I'm kinda very liberal (as in "would do well in Norway" liberal) the only reason I'd vote for Republicans at the national level would be if they went to the left of the Democrats, so I can't exactly answer that question.

The wars are iffy, Americans are generally a bit hawkish and even a lot of Democrats voted for Iraq (most have recanted it by now, of course). But religion is a huge factor, especially since the Republicans are now dominant in the South and West. Our Republicans up here are a bit more flexible in general, two of them in Albany even voted for same-sex marriage. But the religious right and their social agenda have done a lot of damage to the libertarian branch of the party, and at this point I'm not sure anything but a clean split between the two branches (probably by a mass movement toward the Libertarian Party) is going to change that.

[Sir Deimos]

The problem is the "Us vs Them" mentality. Instead of demonizing the other side, what we need to do is recognize that they're human. Partisan politics is strangling the country to death. It turned into a Red vs Blue, when it SHOULD be a Red AND Blue for the people.

[Selena]

There are many different reasons why people may not be as passionately conservative as they once we. Both parties have changed over time, but I think the republicans have had the more dramatic shift in values and priorities. They've got a growing identity crisis on their hands. While the liberals are somewhat united into a hugs-and-kisses-and-indecision party, there are multiple Republican camps in partial opposition to one another. It results in mixed messages, like:

- They continually promote small government. Fair enough! Lots of people would agree. But they also favor having a huge military budget, have considered constitutional bans on things like gay marriage, and are okay with federal bans on various other things they don't like. None of that is "small government."

- They promote small businesses and financial freedom. But they're also looking down on higher education and see intellectuals as "elitists." Gutting education and discouraging people from learning won't do American businesses any favors. Advocating trade schools is one thing, and it's sensible, but this wave of anti-intellectualism is dangerous.

- They're the "religious" party, but don't seem very compassionate toward the poor or anyone in crisis. They look down on anyone they perceive as "wanting a handout." Jesus wasn't exactly fond of the pursuit of money. A lot of people really felt the sting of that "47 percent" comment, including traditional conservatives.


I think most conservatives would prefer to vote libertarian, and that's what the Tea Party thing was trending toward before it attracted the nutjobs, but nobody wants to vote for the actual libertarian party. The religious right will always want to have a stranglehold on social laws in the States, but most sensible conservatives don't seem to care much about what people do on their own time, and instead prefer to focus on business.

Obama should have never gotten a second term with the way he ran his first, but the best the Republicans could do was throw up that one guy who lost in the primaries last election. It feels like they're on a downward spiral. Are they the party of Jefferson? All about the working joes and small business? Are they the party of Reagan? Focused on huge military influence and the spread of democracy? The party of Jesus? The party of Ayn Rand?

But anything they do to increase support with one Republican camp will dramatically reduce their support in another camp. If you get all libertarian and are okay with things like gay rights, then you'll loose the church-y votes. If you try to fix the budget by cutting something like military spending, then you'll lose the 'Murica-the-Brave vote. If you go headlong into Jesusville, then you'll lose the more secular business-oriented vote.

I'm not really sure how to make them better outside of dropping that anti-intellectual sentiment. If any party would benefit from splitting, it'd be this one, but that's not really plausible with how American politics works. The Republicans may just dwindle like the Federalists until a replacement comes along. Assuming they don't get it all together.

[Sir Turtlelot]

Lena pretty much covered the overall issues that I had in mind. As always.



On a more personal level though, I'm in a fairly situation as Feanen, although I tend to prefer moderate politicians, since they are usually better at playing nice and getting along. The GOP as whole really needs to drop the uber conservative nutjobs (aka the Tea Party) and start making their way towards the center. For example, had Senator Lugar not lost to Richard Mourdock in the primaries, I would have voted for him over Joe Donnelly. Mourdock is a nutcase who does not belong in politics, and is someone who I would never vote for.

Also Synile brings up another good point. Both parties really need to stop this unnecessary gridlock they have going on, and start working together for the greater good.

[arunma]

Honestly, I think Republicans lost it with the fundamentalist Christian social agenda. Back when they were moderately pro-life it was a tenable position. But people said some crazy things during the Republican nomination. I believe Rick Santorum at one point said "contraception is not OK." Seriously...contraception? I think Republicans need to make an unequivocal statement in their platform that they aren't trying to stop single women from having premarital sex, because otherwise it stops people who don't live a particular lifestyle from voting for them.

Having said that, let me point out that the Republicans didn't do all that bad. Oh yes, they lost a couple more Senate seats. But they retained control of the House, and they only lost the popular Presidental vote by a very slim margin. So despite all of their legitimate rape talk, they're not completely out of touch with all Americans. What happened here is that the Presidential campaigns operated differently. Obama focused on key swing states, Romney didn't. That's why Obama destroyed the electoral vote, but barely squeaked by with the popular vote. So let's give the Republicans some credit.

[Oberon Storm]

Obama should have never gotten a second term with the way he ran his first, but the best the Republicans could do was throw up that one guy who lost in the primaries last election.

What exactly did he do wrong that should have cost him?

[Selena]

Popular opinion and mood was low/apathetic enough that a strong Republican candidate should have been able to seize the presidency, but Mitt was the sanest challenger they could come up with. The precise reasons for dissatisfaction with Obama would take its own thread. The biggest ones would include his healthcare plan, slower recovery than most would like, things like internet censorship, drone strikes, and the fact that we can now detain Americans without due process. All hot-button issues that irritated one group or another.

[SteveT]

The Republicans need to sit down and evaluate all their stances and how they fit together. They need to be able to clearly articulate why they believe what they do. You see statements like "Obama is trying to punish the successful," or "Welfare programs are immoral," without any justification.

Here's my advice to the Republican party:

1. Stop trying to bring religion into politics. It fires up the base, but doesn't win you any friends outside of people who are already planning to vote for you, and the younger generations are increasingly non-religious. Come up with better reasons for why you oppose abortion, environmental regulations, welfare, etc. If you can't come up with a better reason, stop opposing them. This one largely means that they should be socially liberal, but instead of, e.g. legalizing gay marriage, they should be working to repeal laws that made it illegal in the first place. They should look at social change as a subtractive process in the legislature.

2. Stop being racist.

3. If you want to decrease the scope of government, make that your stated goal and frame measures around it. One of Romney's mistakes when making comments on FEMA, PBS, Obamacare, Education, etc, was framing the arguments as reducing spending. Moreover, he made them out to be wasteful, unnecessary spending. He should have said, "I respect the value of these things, but they are outside the scope of the federal government. If citizens want government to handle them, let it be done at the state or local level, or the private sector." He kind of said that here and there, but I feel like he could have framed it better.

4. Have a consistent, well-defined, well-documented, and transparent vision of what the scope of government is. Democrats generally take the attitude of, "This is a problem. The government has the power to solve this problem, and we think the government can do a better job than the private sector. Therefore, we should ask the government to deal with this problem." Republicans seem less consistent, except when it comes to making things illegal or foreign relations. I really don't have a good feel for the Republican party's vision.

5. Replace ideology-based policies with practical ones.

[Egann]

Let me start by saying this: this election was not a loss for the GOP. A loss for Romney, but the party as a whole? The president did not change. The House is still GOP, the Senate is still Democrat. That's not a loss; that's no change. Considering the advantages incumbents hold, that's no surprise.

As that I'm basically a moderated conservative, let me give you my list of things I would need to see to vote democrat. Loosely in order of priority.

Economic and fiscal policy. The Keynesian economic policies the democrat party typically use are genuinely ruinous. TARP and stimulus funds since 2006 have totalled over 2 trillion dollars, and the 2009 audit of the Federal Reserve revealed that there's also been another 16 TRILLION dollar loan to companies like Citi Bank. Which was not approved by Congress, I might add. That's 18 trillion dollars moved with minimal effect.

Granted, the big culprits there are Bush and Bernanke, so it's not like this is specifically party based, but the few people with good fiscal sense tend to be GOP. Chris Christie is the classic example; he only barely qualifies socially and politically as a moderate republican, but because of his fiscal policies the democrat party won't touch him.

Foreign policy. Develop and license SDI to foreign countries. Just because America developed the shield doesn't mean we can't give it away. Just make every country which wants a shield promise to shoot down any nukes it sees, regardless of the target. Don't hamstring America waiting for Russia and China to catch up; there's no reason to not share defensive weapons.

Energy Policy. Undo America's nonproliferation treaty and RECYCLE OUR NUCLEAR WASTE ALREADY. I mean geez. And this global warming stuff? Update your sciences; the Carbon Dioxide greenhouse frequencies are already saturated, and were some decades ago.

Social policy.
Abortion: No change. I actually fault republicans for advocating a standard they usually don't help others hold to.
Gay rights: I'm for gay rights, but loosely against gay marriage. States right at best.
Guns: Leave guns alone, for crying out loud. Yes, I know that statistics say that having a gun actively increases the likelyhood of being in a lethal gunfight, but the Fast and Furious demonstrates you really have no clue what you're doing. The NRA is America's biggest special interest group; they handle gun education, they handle criminal prevention. Trust them to know what they're doing.

And now the "big" one. Healthcare.

I would actually support a state-sized single payer system...provided it allowed state-to-state policy trades and opt-outs for states which passed a majority referendum. This healthcare bill? Obama said nobody would see their healthcare prices increase. My family's rate went from $250 a month to $300 since it was passed (248 to 298, if you must be exact). My mother's heart attack, rare disease diagnosis, and "trip to Oregon for pituitary surgery from an expert" back in 2005-6 didn't do anything.

And my family is on fixed income just a few notches North of the poverty line. Unacceptable doesn't even begin to describe it.


Ammendment: I like fact check. You like fact check. Here's a reasonably "unbiased" report of Obama's job for four years.

Edited by Egann, 07 November 2012 - 10:58 PM.

[SteveT]

Cherry picking data. Here's one I find interesting, and it's a great example of how easy it is to spin statistics.

"Food Stamp Recipients +46%"

Is it bad because more people need foodstamps, or is it good because food stamps are more available to people who need them? The info-graphic will never tell...

(Not trying to pick a fight about the value of food stamps or dispute facts here: just making a point about spin, the value of context, and the dangers of over-simplifying data.)

[Egann]

Not like I want to defend the graphic too hard, but I took it from FactCheck, who are usually pretty good at slapping both sides back in line. But yes, cherrypicking and spin is what most "facts" are these days. The ones which catch my eye are the manufacturing index, which is way up, and the OMG 90% GAS PRICE INCREASE.

Edited by Egann, 07 November 2012 - 11:09 PM.

[SteveT]

Yup. Some figures are good for winning arguments. Others are good at starting dialogue.

If the number of disadvantaged orphans roaming the streets of Chicago are down %30, I want to know where they went.
If the number of jobs is up, I'm probably just going to accept it and high-five the cat or something.

[Kisseena]

For me, they need to stop being sexist and racist. It's the 21st century, they need to get over it.

They also need to treat everyone equally. Rich or poor, gay or straight, man or woman, it doesn't matter. Maybe when they start doing that, I'd respect them a little more. They need to stop being so close minded.

[J-Roc]

Oh man that infographic reeks like someone's fucking agenda.

Pee-yew.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

The BBC recently was covered in articles about what the GOP had to do to survive.

But what about this article?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-20257611

[Egann]

An article which immediately quotes Limbaugh? Just today on the radio he said that Obama was making Hillary resign so that he could give the Secretary of State job to Romney. Fascinating opinion, but not because it's accurate.


This election rather clearly demonstrates something: if they get their voters to vote, the Democrat party is genuinely larger than the Republican party. Democrats have a hammer-grip on minority votes, but usually have problems getting them to vote at all. Obama got the Black community to stand up and vote, and chances are they will continue to vote in presidential elections.

Unfortunately, that doesn't cover mid-terms. Republicans will probably gain seats in the legislature in the 2014 mid-term because, even if they've got a smaller base, most of their voters vote in every election. Come 2016 (unless Obama's second term is much better than his first) the Democrats will have huge disaffected voter problems the same way the GOP did after Bush.


One more thing. The Tea Party is mentioned several times on this thread as a sort of Conservative-Christian boogeyman. I have no idea where any of you are getting these ideas. True, their constituents tend to be conservative evangelicals, but if you actually read their official platform, there isn't a single reference to typical evangelical hot-buttons like abortion or gay marriage. It's basically Libertarianism that's been white-washed so that evangelical Republicans will support it. I fail to understand how people can root for the Republican party to go to the center and not recognize it when its happening. Or how they could not chastise the Occupy movement for trying to go off the left-wing deep end (which is why it never really went anywhere and is slowly petering out).

Edited by Egann, 09 November 2012 - 03:52 PM.

[Selena]

One more thing. The Tea Party is mentioned several times on this thread as a sort of Conservative-Christian boogeyman. I have no idea where any of you are getting these ideas.

Because, as demonstrated by the two leading political parties, the people who make up the party have infinitely more sway than the philosophies the party was founded on. The Tea Party started as an arguably sensible libertarian movement, and then the nutjobs moved in to undermine whatever decent goals it started out with.


On the overarching subject, maybe it just seems like the GOP is doing poorly because of the last couple years. The Democrats obviously weren't doing much better when Kerry was the only thing they had to throw up against Bush. He probably wouldn't have gotten a second term either, if not for lack of better options.

Big thing that would help the GOP, though? Stop hating Mexicans. They're going to move here. Your choices are to either tighten the borders, which results in greater illegal immigration, or reform immigration to ensure that only the bad people don't get across rather than simply making it difficult for everyone. My schoolmate got married to a Mexican man and, even with the marriage license and an incoming baby, he had a hell of a time getting up here. It shouldn't be that hard.

They always try to say it's about security, but most of the GOP's objections to immigration just come across as "We don't like Mexicans and don't want them here." Which is obviously irritating the Latinos who are already here. And since they tend to be pretty religious and socially conservative, they could arguably be supporters of the Republican party, but they aren't going to with that immigration policy. Lost votes.

[SOAP]

I could say everything but that wouldn't be very constructive.

Like Kissy said, they could really ditch all the hate. Stop stepping all over women, gays, latinos, the poor, and anyone else that's not a rich, white, male.

Also they could and should get rid of this Dominionist attitude that's completely saturated their whole party. This concept that since God gave us the earth we can do whatever the fuck we want with it, even if it means endangering the enviroment including other people. It's a gross misinterpretation of religion and completely at odds with what Christainity teaches about loving thy neighbor.

In general I really hate this Republican idea of "If it doesn't concern my immediate family or my wallet, I couldn't give two shits." There's no sense of community beyond those that are the same. No room for differences of opinions in values. No compromise. No getting out of one's comfort zone. Just this "Us vs. Them" that I feel is harmful to this country. Everyone who doesn't share the same values or lifestyle or is different in any other way is not considered a true American and is some sort of enemy. It's really sickening and I will never vote for a Republican ever until all traces of this unreasonable hatred ceases to exist.

[Elvenlord]

The opposite of whatever Ted Nugent or Drumpf says.

[SOAP]

Also, they can stop with all the Reagan worship. Honestly, he wasn't even our best president. Not even our best Republican president.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

One more thing. The Tea Party is mentioned several times on this thread as a sort of Conservative-Christian boogeyman. I have no idea where any of you are getting these ideas.

Because, as demonstrated by the two leading political parties, the people who make up the party have infinitely more sway than the philosophies the party was founded on. The Tea Party started as an arguably sensible libertarian movement, and then the nutjobs moved in to undermine whatever decent goals it started out with.

I think this is what happened to the Republican Party in the first place. They used to be pretty progressive. Weren't they the party that championed abolition? Then the Democrats alienated all the racist nutjobs and they moved over to the Republican Party... or so I think. I'm not that hot on American political history.

[arunma]

The opposite of whatever Ted Nugent or Drumpf says.

Well they could start with repudiating Donald Drumpf. Repudiating Rush Limbaugh might be more effective, but let's be realistic here. Donald Drumpf's birtherism is a very obvious lie. "Lie" is the proper term for the claim that Obama wasn't born in America, because phrases like "distortion of truth" don't quite cut it here. Aside from being offensive, Republican tolerance for Donald Drumpf takes away from their intellectual credibility. I think it would probably gain the Republicans some votes if the RNC releases some official statement excommunicating Donald Drumpf. Having clowns in your party doesn't do much in the way of getting others to take you seriously.

[MikePetersSucks]

That's really the core of the problem for the Republican party. They're no longer capable of appealing to anyone who isn't already part of their base. It's like the original comic book fandom that totally strangled out the ability of young readers to get into the hobby until the whole damn industry crashed.

[Doctor Pogo]

This.

From this white, Mayflower-descended strategic analyst, allow me to offer you the three strategic options you have before you:
1. You drastically moderate your platform to harmonize with the policy positions I present above
2. You disband the party and reorganize it to reflect current realities
3. You kick and scream and stamp your feet and call me and my friends names – and submit to several decades of one party rule