For people under 30 years old, this election cycle was probably pretty confusing, due to a lot of coded talk and terminology.
kleinbl00 has harped on about the Southern Strategy in many of his political posts here on Hubski, but what is it, exactly? Why should you give a shit about what some crusty old white men did in back rooms in the 1960's? And how could it possibly have anything to do with today?
The long and short of it is at the link... Lee Atwater discussing openly the coded language they coined to disenfranchise the black voters, and give the whites a way to be racist without doing it overtly.
So when you see a Republican talking about "tax cuts", what they actually mean is discontinuing services for the poor, in an effort to morally defeat them, and politically disenfranchise this enormous group of potential Democratic voters.
Dick Cheney - George W. Bush's Vice President - worked on these plans when he was a young man working with Goldwater and Nixon. There is a single line of continuity that carries from Cheney all the way to the day Obama took office.
The second generation of the Southern Strategy Republicans - Paul Ryan, etc - are now in power, and the only historical reference they have is the Republican party created by Cheney and his cronies.
Like the kids of today who can't understand a world without social media or email, Paul Ryan and his gang live within a world where the Republican party is built upon a foundation of racism, disenfranchisement, and coded language.
Understanding the world they live in requires us to go back to this original plan to rebuild the Republican party from the ground up, with a tactical, and numbers-based approach to election gerrymandering.
Being informed about this history is important to writing a better future for everyone.
The white workers they sought to protect from the beginning kept them from falling apart as everyone expected this year, it seems.[The Whigs'] northern supporters are really afraid that the growing number of slave states would have too much political influence, which they feared could really hurt free white workers economically.... The former Whigs in the north form a new party that will fight against letting slavery expand any further. They call it the Republican party.
Certainly a historical understanding unclouds the picture. That Vox video kb posted is excellent. I have several contentions with the modern Republican party as epitomized by Arthur C. Brooks and Ted Cruz, though now that Trump is the ringleader I'm not sure where the ideological center is anymore. It's not just that a large portion of the party is comprised of thinly veiled (and out-in-the-open) racists, or that for the last 6 years they employed the strategy of obstructing government and used the resulting trainwreck as proof-positive that now we need less of it. My primary contention is the inanity of an argument for a limited government. Limited government sounds--on the face of it--awesome, in the Madisonian sense of people pursuing happiness. But the discourse lacks any acknowledgement on the part of the GOP that an uncorrected political economy (the "market") fails. It fails reliably, predictably, without governmental oversight. Not just in natural concentrations of power epitomized by monopolies or oligarchies, or the informational asymmetries that arise between consumer and producer, though these failures can be trouble enough. It's the environmental degradation that the party doesn't even acknowledge the scientific reality of that infuriates me. It's a "limited government" in the hands of people nakedly contemptuous of science and rational inquiry.
At this point, I can't imagine what a real republican party might look like. Isolationist foreign policy and protectionist international trade practices? Trump has promised those things in one way or another. but I don't see the rank and file adopting this any time soon. I know the more reasonable among them have wanted immigration reform for some time now (Bush II's signature issue, until 9/11). But what that plan was has been adopted by modern democrats, and all we hear now is round em up and build a wall. How would a "compassionate" conservative deal with entitlements? Obamacare is the republican compromise for national health insurance, but again, this party has been radicalized to the point where they all want to repeal it. You'd think the so called conservative party would be very very concerned about climate change, and would use national funds and resources to create an infrastructure for the private sector to address energy concerns and modernize industries to be carbon neutral. Conservatives love tax incentives and enterprise. But no. We just get whining. I want a real conservative party to discuss reasonable solutions with. We are left with five year olds instead.
Preach it, brother!! A real conservative party would base their decisions in science and reason. A real conservative party wouldn't give a shit about your religion or sexual orientation. A real conservative party would want to reduce government programs that did not produce the results they promised. A real conservative party would avoid committing military force to foreign engagements. A real conservative party would see the waste of money it is to incarcerate drug addicts, and adopt effective (and fiscally responsible) drug programs like Amsterdam and Portugal. A real conservative would understand that every new law or regulation creates multiple unintended loopholes, and would avoid creating new legislation until it was actually warranted by data. Wouldn't it be nice to have actual conservatives supporting actually conservative principles? Having debates about methodologies and numbers, rather than whether the 10 Commandments should be on City Hall? I keep thinking there is room for a party that takes centrist liberal positions and centrist conservative positions, and leaves the Republican and Democratic parties to deal with their lunatic fringes.
As a religious conservative.... I couldn't agree more. I am so tired of the conflation of politics and religion. It is SO ridiculous. Despite being a Christian, I am so tired of people calling the USA a "Christian Nation". blergh. Separation for a reason people... I got boo'd out of the republican caucus in 2008 for suggesting we should discuss fiscal responsibility and foreign policy and drop the ridiculous conversation around gay marriage and abortion. My comment "Let's stay out of each others' wombs and bedrooms" was the last straw for a lady in the back... who felt the need to Boo me... in a tiny elementary school classroom... with maybe 40 people in attendance. I quit the party that week. When I realized that the people around me cared more about that crap, and less about actually governing, I knew it was time to go.Wouldn't it be nice to have actual conservatives supporting actually conservative principles? Having debates about methodologies and numbers, rather than whether the 10 Commandments should be on City Hall?
Thanks for commenting. It is nice to hear a Christian actually support genuine conservativism, rather than what the bible-thumping Christian-right has redefined as "conservative". Do Christian understand the irony of calling themselves "conservative", and then legislating what people can do in the bedroom? Creating more laws, legislating behavior, that are practically unenforceable, is pretty much the polar opposite of the original meaning of "conservative", as one who chooses inaction until action is warranted.
even worse.... do they realize that Jesus (allegedly) spent his life giving to the poor, sick, and needy? Do they understand that being rich and prideful is the opposite of the purpose of a "christian" life? Do they understand that Jesus hung out with "sinners" like adulterers? Nope... and I could get all judge on people who get it wrong... but then I'd fall into the same self-righteous trap that they do. The reality is.... religion shouldn't be in government or politics... period. My beliefs help shape who I am... but that's true of every person regardless of their faith, or lack thereof. The ten commandments aren't a terrible set of rules to govern one's self by.... but they shouldn't be the basis for a modern government. You know... 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s Those are pretty solid rules that could apply to self and society, you know? like - it's just not cool for me to murder anyone. And I don't want people stealing my crap... so go ahead and figure out a way to work those into your rules/laws...but: 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. These all require some kind of believe in god... which, in a country with "freedom of religion", should not be forced on anyone. And as such... shouldn't be on city hall walls, or schools, etc. just my $0.0212 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
There needs to be some kind of vast interfaith effort to brand anyone who does something shitty in the name of god as a heretic, not a 'true' believer, what have you. Something like the C.S. Lewis idea that all good acts, even done in the name of the devil, bring glory to God, and all evil acts, even done in the name of God, bring glory to the devil. I don't think it will happen though. The book says to stone gay people to death, but you go to jail for doing that so we'll decide to not bake cakes for them.
Sure. And many other programs, too. Hell, it's been proven time and time again that a UBI is superior to welfare in almost every way. What other viable solutions are there to the problems that welfare tries to solve? What has worked elsewhere? Why? Is it replicable? Etc... My hope is that a truly conservative platform would look at the core problem they were trying to solve (rather than just lump a bunch of different problems under the one solution titled "welfare") and then use evidence-based analysis to determine the most effective plan to solve the problem.
Kinda sorta. He did some clever shit by grabbing a couple of good Republican programs, slapping a new name on them, and then claiming them as his own. And they worked! But Bill Clinton still had that essential Democrat belief that government can solve problems. It can't, really. It can incentivize the private sector to focus on a set of problems, but government involvement in a problem rarely helps the situation. And, it leads to more government. If Bill Clinton could have shaken off that central tenet of the Democratic platform, then he would have been even more effective.
I'm curious, can you mention any programs that lead to "more government" or that didn't involve financial incentives that haven't worked? I can't think of any.
It depends on how you define "programs". But, generally speaking, the Republicans try to legislate behaviour: Sex toys are illegal, anal sex is illegal, gay marriage is illegal, etc, etc, etc. One of the oodles of problems with legislating behaviour is that these laws are generally unenforceable, and require MORE government to monitor people's activities to see if they are behaving properly. Maybe it's a single form that you need to have notarized that attests that you are your partner are of different genders, and have been since birth. A form that needs to be designed, printed, notarized, stored, and referenced by everyone else down the line as you move towards your wedding. Or maybe it is a security camera monitoring a public space, which produces 24 hours of video every day that needs to be monitored/reviewed by a "technician", who needs to be paid, have benefits, and leave, and shifts, and managers to schedule the shifts of the different techs, and then they need backups and off-site storage for a period of X years, and.... The thing that everyone needs to understand from all walks of political life, is that every new piece of legislation has innumerable unintended consequences and introduces new loopholes. Case in point: Reckless driving laws have been on the books since that first accident in NYC in 1909. And yet, at some point, some moron decided that "drunk driving" was different than "reckless driving" and therefore we needed a new law. So now we have a drunk driving law. But we don't have a heroin driving law. Or a marijuana driving law. Or a Xanax driving law. Or a Monster driving law. So now we have literally THOUSANDS of loopholes in the driving code, and every single one needs new legislation to close them. Which then introduces new uncertainties... and on and on and on.
I think the real republican party doesn't exist. There is the "trump" (racist and listening to lies) party and the "religious" (ignorant and traditional) party and the "libertarian" party (I'm biased to them, but a good majority are trump-types or anarchists in a disguise). The republican party is a war of the worst of all these ideals, with no real direction or cohesion to pick where each is good and bad and apply their theories in the proper areas. A good republican party would be religious at the individual level, libertarian/religious on the economic level, and trump-like (at least in the no nonsense way) on the representing the people way. Economy should be more (what I consider) libertarian with a strong focus on markets, but without that same focus on small government. Instead we have a party that is small government/no regulation in places where it hurts the people. Pro religion where it hurts the people and takes our freedoms, and trump-like where it hurts the people by making the US look like a bunch of uninformed idiots.
My hypothesis is that they "choose" the most hurtful arenas because they actually hate other people- they get some sort of satisfaction knowing they are getting something other people aren't or are "sticking it" to certain sectors of society. It sounds ridiculous but I'm starting to believe it more and more every day.
The only thing you are all missing, including the ever intelligent kleinbl00, is that your claims are falling on dead ears, out of the divisive arguments you have all made. Legitimate claims, backed by history, they are.... but Divisive, they remain. A free market does work in an unlimited economy. Mankind does not have that "luxury" anymore. With that said, we are doomed to fail as a species. Unless we develop as a species beyond the means of the Earth. I dream of a future where persons can live by their own set of laws - in peace and acceptance of each other- even if they are ideologically opposed to one another. The "limitless" scale of the cosmos is REAL. The habitability of space is REAL. Our position to do so as a species is the hurdle. the political elite has clearly lost this election. Age-old positions and political jockey-ing are not owned by one entity, you divisive hypocrite. No one likes attacking the "indefensible." But, it seems that you have brought this upon yourself. Now I'll give an imaginary high-five to whoever can craft the best reply demeaning my position. I'll give bonus points if you can make me feel like an idiot, too. Do I even need to quote John Adams with his political position anymore?
The only way the claims can be divisive is if the "accused" (Republicans) contest the assertion, and the historical facts. Otherwise it is a simple statement of fact. No, the people who understand how government works, have lost the election. You now have the equivalent of fry cooks running the nuclear power plant. And that's gonna work out just swell. You also rambled off on some tangent about the free market, which didn't make a lot of sense, so I will respond with this: Government and business are completely intertwined. Businesspeople get paid for meeting goals. Those goals require margins to be as tight as possible, and profits to be as high as possible. Government adjustments to trade deals, interest rates, tax laws, etc, cause uncertainty, and make businesspeople scramble to make their margins to meet their goals, so they can get paid. Trump understands none of this complexity, or the intertwined nature of government and finance, and so he is already a bull in a china shop. Here's the deal: He wants to levy a 45% import duty on all Chinese imports. That will reduce American exports around the world (in part, because, in a retaliatory measure, China will lower their prices in other markets to make American imports prohibitively expensive), which will produce a 1.5% decrease in the US GDP in the first year, and then double every year until the crashing US economy forces Trump to renegotiate our foreign trade deals. But instead of renegotiating from a position of strength, it will be from a position of weakness, and will ensure we get WORSE trade deals than we started with. In addition, the Mexican peso collapses, which then causes more illegal immigration into America, which American businesses welcome, because now their products can't compete on the international markets, so they have to cut costs, and American workers won't work for $5/hr, but an illegal immigrant will. And all this info is basically cribbed from one Forbes article, and two articles in the Economist. Not exactly bastions of left-wing liberal thought. Offense is taken, not given. So if you are offended by me directly quoting your god, Lee Atwater, it's not me being offensive, it is you being in denial about your true origins. Legitimate claims, backed by history, they are.... but Divisive, they remain.
the political elite has clearly lost this election.
ok then, the facts are divisive by nature. Mankind has never gotten along, and as long as 7 billion are living on this planet, they never will. The old-argument that liberal agendas are often narrow and divisive by their nature is proving to be just as true today. I am looking at the fact that the politically divided reality of modern history is reaching a fever pitch. The modern liberal movement is equally guilty of mishandling their agenda as the racist republican party. The political party system is destroying the United States of America as the founding fathers envisioned. Their unifying principles are gone in todays politicking. aka the political elite. Our government does not function anymore. The election proved this - I believe we're arguing the same end-game through a different lense. The Dollar is not backed on the economic health of our neighbors. It isn't technically backed by anything. Bretton Woods sought to establish a world reserve currency - well, technology has disrupted this position. Technology has a way of doing that. Look, I'm holding a position that isn't represented anywhere on this site, and it is seen as conspiracy theory bullshit by all who are reading from the "reputable" sources. There was so much more BS behind this campaign than was ever covered - considering the majority of the entire election was a controlled attack on the candidates themselves. History is repeating itself - and whether you like it or not, technology has under-cutted many of the basic public services originally implemented by a central governing body. I have personally worked with racists, mysoganists, and murderers. Have you? Guess what, things can get so bad - that no one cares about what you think anymore - they just want to get through the shit so they can go home to their families. I didn't agree with them in any fucking way, and I didn't chose to work with them. They happened to be there, and dealing with them was necessary in order to get my paycheck. Forbes and the Economist are bastions of popular opinion. They have never called anything, they appeal to a user-base while sprinkling their bias here and there. They aren't CNN, but they are definitely not within the realm of thought the real movers in this world are in. They're (for the most part) commenting on popular topics of an economic engine. Bubbles. How many more bubbles you want to watch burst before there is a reset? The bubbles are propagated by mis-lead principles of value, and those seeking to capitalize on the movements. The jury is still out on trump, at least for those who aren't "too big to fail."the people who understand how government works, have lost the election
for the record: I am easily compromised by my emotions. I gotta work on that part. I am definitely attacking the entire system of value and the role of government in society, to be completely clear. I hold this position based on what I have learned, and who I have spoken with in person. It is not popular. Especially online.