posted
After watching the Republican Convention, I can't help but thing there's a bizarre contradiction within the Republican Party this election. On the one hand, they are extremely unified. Even those who disagree most with Bush came up to support his reelection, and polls suggest Republicans are much less likely to vote for Kerry than Democrats are likely to vote for Bush.
But, at the same time, it seems like there's an ideological battle going on for control of the party. It's Conservatives vs. Neoconservatives. The conservatives want small government, protection of certain individualistic rights, and limited dependence on other nations - the older, traditional Republican platform. The neoconservatives want big government, a focus on security and American values, and an imperialistic strategy overseas. If you listen to politicians on the news or read articles by Republican thinkers, their disagreement is pretty clear. But nevertheless, they all seem to support Bush.
And the thing is, the question of which side will win and dominate the Republican party for the next 10-20 years seems likely to rest on the outcome of this election. The neocons are blamed for and credited with most of the biggest and most contraversal decision the government has made in the past few years. The Party is, in fact, running on the neocon platform. If Bush loses, the blame will fall squarely on their shoulders - Republicans will blame neoconservatism for their defeat. And if Bush wins, the credit will go to neoconservatism - As the most recent Republican to go 8 years, Bush's policies will become to the Republican Party of the next 10 years what Reagan's changes were to the Republican Party in the past 20. A Bush victory makes the Republicans (for the time being) the party of neoconservatism, and a Bush defeat makes them the party of conservatism. At least, that's what seems likely to me.
And yet there is no countermovement with the Party - not visibly at least.
It raises an ironic spectacle: Is it up to the Democrats to "save" the Republican Party from neoconservatism?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Republicans lose this election, I predict that there will be some pretty serious schisming going on. Probably nothing so severe as leading to a splitting of the party (a unifed Democratic party makes that very unlikely) but I think that it's likely that there will be a reorganization of the power positions along more traditional conservative lines.
I think the Kerry campaign's strategy involved trying to pick up disgrunted conservative votes. The main problem they seem to be having with this is that they are running a terrible campaign.
If the alienated traditional conservative vote is going to be a factor in this election, I think it will come about because of lower turnout, not because of them voting for Kerry. I'm reasonably sure that the Bush campaign has already taken this into account and are expecting the Go Jesus! and America Uber Alles (aka the people who believe that a vote for Kerry is a vote for the terrorists) votes to offset the lower turonout from ideological conservative.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott -- states the blame? Well, parts of both parties have in the past, really. For instance, many of the current Republicans in power loved to blame Herbie for losing the 92 election because he actually did stuff he thought was right even knowing it would cost him the election (mainly the tax increase). Or then there's the more liberal wing of the democratic party that has and will again (possibly this year, possibly not) blame the more moderates for losing (as a more moderate one is pretty much always being run for president).
And that's just the blame people are willing to talk about. Huge power structures shift inside each party based on the outcome of every election. For instance, Gingrich republicans gained significant power in the party because they won the elections, but they weren't able to wrest the presidency away, so now that the neocons managed to get a president in place, they're the main power in the party. If Bush is deposed, the gingrich republicans will likely have a resurgence.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the exception of the Lincoln, TheodoreRoosevelt, and Eisenhower years, it's pretty much the Democrats' historical job to save the Republicans' bacon from the fire. WallStreet Republicans are pretty evenly split in their presidential preference. Though their support and campaign contributions are still going strongly to the Republican Party and Republican politicians -- less so to the BushCampaign -- they also slightly lean toward hoping for a Kerry victory cuz "the US is gonna tank between 2005 and 2009. And whichever party holds the power is gonna be trashed in the 2010 and 2012 elections." If the expectable effects of Dubya's policies occur before the autumn of 2006 or the autumn of 2008, the thumping will start in the following election.
"...a unifed Democratic party makes that very unlikely..." But not anywhere near as unlikely as having a unified DemocraticParty.
quote:I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat. -- Will Rogers
The vote crossover by elected Democratics in support of elected Republicans is one of the reasons that the Republicans have historically had veto over the Congressional agenda even when the Democrats were numerically "in control".
If the conservatives and neo"conservative"s split the RepublicanParty, there will be greater splits amongst Democrats. About the only thing that ever held the DemocraticParty together is the "chewing gum and spit" of wanting to have the possibility of providing a meaningful opposition to a united Republican front.
I'm saying that that's a horse**** excuse not to think. It's common, though. I know a lot of stoners who say the same thing.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, you're making alot of wrong assumptions, accusations and insults in three very short sentences. You may want to really think next time before you post something...
posted
So Irami, there is always a candidate who you can agree with?
I seriously doubt it. I am fairly well read, up to date, and involved in politics, and there has never been a candidate I completely supported. You are always choosing the one that is most like you, rarely if ever choosing the one that is completely like you.
And in cases where the only two major candidates both disagree with you, which is quite possible in this election since both major candidates are attempting to look centrist and saying many of the same things, the lesser of two evils is a good way of phrasing your choice.
Just because you happen to use a trite saying doesn't mean you are ignorant, lazy, or stupid. Although assuming that you understand the feelings of someone based on one trite saying just might...
yeah, or i could say that your blind support of whichever of the two idiots running for office now is the result of you laziness and lack of mental acuity to effectively question the campain rhetoric that your favorite party is feeding you and that your wholesale support of your candidate is nothing but empty-headed band-wagoning.
but that would be rude, inconsiderate, and ill-informed.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that no matter who is running for president, they are always politicians. Our political system is designed specifically to demand compromise! In order for anybody to actually get power to make decisions based on their platform, they have to make tons of decisions based on strategy; and they will invariably make decisions even THEY don't agree with. Add to that the overwhelming negative focus of campaigns and yes, it will always seem like you are choosing the lesser of two evils.
However, that isn't the case. You should vote for whichever candidate reflects your underlying political philosophy, not the silly things that get trotted out every four years like "He's a flip flopper," single emotional hot button issues, or, for a while, Richard Nixon. Republicans tend to favor property rights and national security issues (which a cynic might say is just another way of favoring property rights, what with the way defense contracts are run) while democrats tend to favor social programs and individual rights. Republicans want to protect the people from the government while democrats want to use the government to help the people. So is the government a force of good or evil? No matter what the "big issues" are in the campaign, the candidates will almost always have a clearly discernible political philosophy that they will attempt to promote, no matter what they promised in the campaign. Vote for the philosophy, not the individual, then there can never be an issue of the "lesser of two evils."
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
unless you don't like the philosophy of either of the two parties. we're used to thinking in terms of opposites: communism or capitalism, big government or personal liberty, pro-choice or pro-life, free market or supporting the worker, etc etc.
who do you vote for when you don't believe that there are only two options? when the philosophy you believe in isn't represented in the political discourse? when the most best scenario you can see in your political system is that it not get screwed up quickly rather than slowly?
you might call me pessimistic, or lazy, or a stoner, but i like to think or myself as independant. anyway, i'm too tired to write a full fledged argument about mechanisms of control in the modern democratic state.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Irami, there is always a candidate who you can agree with?
I seriously doubt it. I am fairly well read, up to date, and involved in politics, and there has never been a candidate I completely supported. You are always choosing the one that is most like you, rarely if ever choosing the one that is completely like you.
I think it's incredible that you are looking for a candidate who is completely like you. That's your entitlement, not a mark on the character of the candidates, and if their differences are sufficient to consider both of them evil, then it's a defect in your standards, not the candidates.
It bespeaks of an egoistic approach to politics without respect for the candidates or the process, and you know what, in a country this large, and as this is not Burger King, you do not always get to have it your way. Neither of the candidates are evil or incompetent, by any reasonable definition, and this is coming from a man who doesn't like Bush for a myriad of reasons, and calling this election the choice of the lesser between two evils insults the insinuator more than it bears a resemblance to the actual state of affairs.
posted
Irami, I think you are smart enough to realize the difference between actually calling someone evil and using the saying "lesser of two evils". Although I was not the one to use it, I honestly believe that it was not meant that they were actually evil in the strict sense of the word, but that they are not the candidates that mr. digger would like to see up there.
Knock it off with your laying the fault on the voter theme. It's not as if the more you think about the candidates the better they become.
Also, I was not saying that I look for a candidate that agrees with me on all issues, I was merely defending digger from your pointless personal attacks.
--ApostleRadio
EDIT: But it was a lovely attempt at turning my words that were meant for you around to make me look like an idiot, I gotta admire you for your honesty in this debate.
posted
Yeah, I gotta second the motion that this ain't exactly the classiest presidential timber we're seeing up there. I'd like to run into a dot of charisma now and again.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a short hop from saying, "Both these guys blow, so I'm going to vote for the one who takes care of my needs." "The lesser of two evils," distances you from the importance of the choice. It gives you an excuse to be selfish or sloppy and then blame it on the candidates. It's a crap reason to delegitimize the process. _________________
posted
Who says the process is legitimate in the first place? What moral difference is there between one person telling me what to do, a few people telling me what to do, or everyone telling me what to do? They all want me to give of myself in return for nothing I desire.
The people who want others to vote are just trying to get buy-in, to make the rest of the population feel like their opinion mattered. "If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain." Bullshit; I pay taxes, which gives me as much right as anyone else.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who says the process is legitimate in the first place?
Now that's something different. And just because somebody says so, doesn't make it so. That voting and democracy as opposed to divine fiat are the way we do things in the civilized world is something that people are just going to have to think about for a while.
But I think these thoughts should have been thought before we decided that we are now making other countries adhere to a process that we legitimized.
posted
Irami, that assumes that we have a democracy, which we don't. Nor do we have a true republic.
Nor do we have a democratic republic anymore, as the voter pool at large does not have a say in whom they are voting upon.
Does the voter base have a choice on who wins a primary? No, only those who are registered with that party. Taking back even another step, those who are annointed as the candidates in primaries are those who have spent years gaining the support (both politically and financially) of their own party.
So, we are voting for the candidates the two obsolte parties have selected as having the best chance at election.
Does this mean we get viable candidates? No. It means we have candidates which will hew to the party line and support the financial backers of the party.
The vast middle ground of the country does not have a worthwhile candidate, through no fault of their own. A truly bipartisan candidate that appeals to both sides of the aisle will not be elected, because that candidate would never escape a primary that has *no* chance at counting extraparty voters.
Don't blame the voters for finally realizing the system is flawed and truly obsolete.
The parties don't want anyone who might challenge the control the two major parties have on our government. A truly bipartisan candidate is a threat. Third parties are labeled a "waste" and worse.
Parties were created so voters without access to the candidates could vote for a unified platform. In an age of nigh instant communication, via television, internet and newspaper, such platforms are outdated (and seldom adhered to by the candidates themselves).
Now parties have become fundraising machines to support candidates who will continue the support of fundraisers, and subsequently the flow of money into party coffers. They do nothing to aid the political process.
We may not have the lesser of two "evils" but we certainly have two least common denominators. Neither candidate deserves my vote, and neither has made any positive effort to win it. As such, I must decide which of these candidates will be *less* of a detriment to the country over the next four years--and further, which will be a worse choice in setting up the 2008 election.
It's a hard choice. Not because the candidates are so similar, but because the country is being forced to choose between liver and tripe, when they so obviously want filet mignon.
Too bad the liver and tripe peddlers have a stranglehold on our governmental process.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if the system is flawed or if we put too much emphasis on the President. If the people held congress more accountable, I think we could balance the position of the president out more.
That said, I don't know if majority rule is a good way to do much. It tempts the voters to think about what is best for themselves as opposed to the republic, under the assumption that if everyone thinks what is best for themselves, then it will balance out, when that's just not true. It's like having a family of seven overrule their parents on decisions. Majority-rule, as we conceive it, I think, turns too many people inward. There is a sense in which it works, considering we are talking about human relations and not anything qualitifiable, as if Congress tried to repeal the Ideal gas Law.
With this new democracy building US foreign policy, and but maybe it's because I'm part of a systemic minority, I just don't understand how you are going to sell democracy to a Shia minority in Iraq, especially in places where it's interwoven. Being a systemic minority in a majority rule democracy is tough business. Well, it worked for the Jews in Europe, until it didn't work, and when it didn't work, it really didn't work.
quote:We may not have the lesser of two "evils" but we certainly have two least common denominators.
Least common denominators aren't bad, if you are dealing with a decent public.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
It's either the public who needs to be decent and in control, or it's a parent who needs to keep the family of seven in line. As it is, we are functioning in the latter, with bad parenting.
Right now, mommy and daddy are going through a messy divorce, and we as a nation have to pick which parent we want to have custody. Both are abusive, but in different ways.
Any thought to choose someone *other* than mommy or daddy is stifled by the way the system is set up.
And this is in all elections, not just the presidential one. Senators and Representatives, and governors and mayors too, are selected and backed by their parties. The mommy party and the daddy party, and we kids are left in the middle, suffering from neglect and abuse.
Maybe one day the aunt party or the uncle party will come and take us away from all this misery. I'm tired of living in the cupboard under the stairs.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
