Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

GOP Rebuilding Strategy if Democrat Wave Occurs

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

That's just the rhetoric of partisan politics. Politicians will opposed something rhetorically while it's a hot issue with undetermined support. Once passed, the GOP or the Dems aren't going to repeal something that has more support than not. They'll repeal it if it ever gets noticeably unpopular. However, even there, the people expect a replacement. Like with Legal Gay Marriage and other progressive victories, it becomes impossible to go back to the past. The history of the US mostly moves left, leaving traditionalists in the wake. McConnell lags behind the push to the future, but he has to make some concessions or he renders the GOP coaltion completely obsolete. If Cruz or Rand Paul became Sen Maj leader, you'd probably be bitterly disappointed to find that they'd learn they'd have to do the same thing--and they'd become McConnells, and if the country moves much more left-ward and that left-ward is popular, then left of McConnell if they want to keep leadership.  

If Cruz somehow became majority leader, then I could see it. His voting tendencies under Trump show that he'll make politically convenient votes. Rand, not so much. Granted, he will never become majority leader because the Republican leadership despises him (mainly because he exposes leadership for their true colors). His record actually proves that he'll make unpopular votes and decisions regardless of the consequences (much like Thomas Massie in the House).

But, McConnell makes concessions because he is actually a big government Republican. He campaigns on conservative issues to get elected and will make conservative votes as eye candy for the voters, but he will use every opportunity behind the scenes to expand the scope of government. His principle is keeping and expanding power, not on holding the line on conservative causes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Libertarianism doesn't have to mean no Federal government. We tried that once under the Articles of Confederation and it was a disaster. I look at it like this: A Federal government is necessary for things that state governments cannot do. The state government is necessary for things that local governments cannot do. Local governments are there for things that individuals cannot do. Everything else should be in private hands. Libertarians tend to agree that less government overall is necessary, but an all-powerful state government and a weak central government like we had before the Constitution would not be preferred by most.

I'm glad you recognize that the Articles of Confederation was a disaster. I can't tell you how many Texas Libertarians (and I'm friends with many of them) advocate the return to the AoC. 

I think one of the biggest disagreement I have with Libertarians are what you say here, "Everything else should be in private hands." I think most things should be in private hands, provided that those private hands or ethical and moral first and efficient and competent 2nd, with the importance of this relying on how needed those services are. However, unlike most progressives, I believe in exception clauses, since all systems have imperfections (such as capitalism, free market, and socialism, and fair market). Governments (local, state, federal) can also have questionable ethical and moral failings. This is why I believe in non-partisan, independent committees that do audits, handle regulations, set standards as a sort of pace car that industries must keep up with (However, I'd allow exceptions for areas where reaching that pace car is reasonably impractical). 

The other major disagreement I have with Libertarianism is the across-the-board attitude that local and state governments are ALWAYS better for the people than the federal government. While this is going to be often true, there are some state governments and local governments that repress some of their citizens, although this is less of a case than previously. We'd probably still have Jim Crow laws in parts of the South if we had a weak central government, for instance. For some people, the federal government saves them from their own neighbors, so to speak. If we had less diversity in this country--in faith, race, background, I could see Libertarianism working betters. Diversity is great, but it also leads to a higher rate of prejudice. 

A lot of my dislike of Libertarians stems from how purist and unreasonable a lot of Texas Libertarians are. I think a lot of them would rather drown in a flood than accept federal intervention to save them, for instance. I equate inflexibility to current events as a type of stupidity. If we have a Green government, I'd say the same of them if they push an ideologue plan when they need to adapt to the case-by-case issue in a way that deviates from their ideal. 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

If Cruz somehow became majority leader, then I could see it. His voting tendencies under Trump show that he'll make politically convenient votes. Rand, not so much. Granted, he will never become majority leader because the Republican leadership despises him (mainly because he exposes leadership for their true colors). His record actually proves that he'll make unpopular votes and decisions regardless of the consequences (much like Thomas Massie in the House).

But, McConnell makes concessions because he is actually a big government Republican. He campaigns on conservative issues to get elected and will make conservative votes as eye candy for the voters, but he will use every opportunity behind the scenes to expand the scope of government. His principle is keeping and expanding power, not on holding the line on conservative causes.

I think Rand Paul has caved a lot more than his father ever would. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think Rand Paul has caved a lot more than his father ever would. 

On the face of things, I would agree with you. He has played more of the political game; however, he has stayed consistent on the key issues despite his play (that's what separates him from Cruz). Ron would certainly not defend Trump as much as Rand; though, Rand has more potential to do more within the system because of his game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2020 at 10:27 AM, vcczar said:

I think one of the biggest disagreement I have with Libertarians are what you say here, "Everything else should be in private hands." I think most things should be in private hands, provided that those private hands or ethical and moral first and efficient and competent 2nd, with the importance of this relying on how needed those services are.

Ah there's the rub. When I say everything else, I'm talking about things that people and private enterprise CAN accomplish without government. Of course those hands should be ethical and moral and efficient and competent, and it's possible to have all of those. The way I see it, private control means competition. If you're treated horribly at the DMV, well what are you going to do, go that alternate DMV down the street? Here in Washington the motor vehicle services are run by a public/private partnership and there is a vast improvement from what I experienced in New Jersey. But if a system is run poorly, then people have choices which provides incentives for people running that service to do so well. The VA is a counter-example, where veterans have no choice if they get lousy service because if it's government run and by some chance the people running it are incompetent, there's not much the public can do about it.

On 7/6/2020 at 10:27 AM, vcczar said:

The other major disagreement I have with Libertarianism is the across-the-board attitude that local and state governments are ALWAYS better for the people than the federal government. While this is going to be often true, there are some state governments and local governments that repress some of their citizens, although this is less of a case than previously.

I don't know of many who say "always." I think it's true as a general rule. The military can't be run by individuals or even states. Other than the anarcho-capitalist wing of the libertarians, most recognize that there is a role for Federal government. Even Ayn Rand recognized this. I don't agree that there's still widespread repression of citizens, I'd need to see some examples. But if that does become the case, the beauty of Federalism is that people can vote with their feet. If the Federal government becomes too powerful and then represses citizens on a nationwide basis, there's nowhere to turn. I would think that people who are, rightly or wrongly, afraid of President Trump becoming autocratic and "taking away people's rights" should be more in favor of local and state control. Personally I think the Office of the Presidency has become way too powerful, and this has been happening for over 100 years going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, and arguably decades more than that.

On an unrelated note, I think that the primary reason for the current political divisiveness is something that we don't even see discussed by anyone - government has become so powerful and so ubiquitous in our lives, that it's hardly possible to bring up any topic without it becoming political. Even the topic of sports has become politicized. I think most people who object to the kneeling thing in the NFL, myself included, are not even so much upset by the kneeling itself but by the fact that we're bringing politics into sports at all. Before the Progressive Era, people (in most cases) did not have widespread demonstrations and protests over who was elected President or who was put on the Supreme Court, because it generally had little or no effect on people's everyday lives. The President really did little more than enforce laws, oversee the military and foreign policy. If we returned to that attitude I think everyone could be happier. The red states could have all the guns they want and the blue states can have all the universal basic healthcare they want, and we'll see who's the most successful. Each could live as they please. The long term fate of our nation should not come down to a single election every four years. That doesn't mean we have no federal government, no income tax, no federal agencies. There's a certain place for the Postal Service, the Dept. of Labor, the CDC, if for nothing else than coordinating state efforts and avoid duplication of research by having it all centralized. They've just gotten too powerful in terms of rulemaking and agencies like the EPA have made themselves judge, jury, and executioner, with policies made by officials who are not answerable to the voters. I say take some of the power and prestige away from the Presidency and redistribute it where it belongs, in governors, mayors, and the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2020 at 10:28 AM, vcczar said:

But, McConnell makes concessions because he is actually a big government Republican. He campaigns on conservative issues to get elected and will make conservative votes as eye candy for the voters, but he will use every opportunity behind the scenes to expand the scope of government.

Exactly right. People like him are the reason that the GOP lost the house (even though he himself is in the Senate). The GOP has, I believe, better principles in theory, but they don't act on them, they cave in way too often, and do a HORRIBLE job in communicating those principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Exactly right. People like him are the reason that the GOP lost the house (even though he himself is in the Senate). The GOP has, I believe, better principles in theory, but they don't act on them, they cave in way too often, and do a HORRIBLE job in communicating those principles.

Arguably those "better principals" might not be big tent, just how progressives "better principals" might not be big tent. You have to build a coalition to gain the house, which means compromises and some caving. However, the double edged sword is the the Speaker and Sen Maj leader will always be unpopular, no matter who it is, because of this necessity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Before the Progressive Era, people (in most cases) did not have widespread demonstrations and protests over who was elected President or who was put on the Supreme Court, because it generally had little or no effect on people's everyday lives.

Much of this has to do with the industrial age and Gilded Age, which sparked a labor movement. Income-gap inequality, overcrowding, mass production, lack of safety standards---the corporations were doing little, the local and state governments weren't doing enough, so the workers went directly to the office that had come to represent the "voice of the people": the president. It's accelerated from there. Big business self-interests in an industrializing world created a level of powerlessness for the people. These businesses in the Gilded Age ruled the local and state governments for the most part and had huge influence in the Federal Government. This is an issue with unrestrained capitalism. While, Socialism also has some major weaknesses, there's a reason why Capitalism and Socialism are actually mutually beneficial for each other. They can balance out the weakness of the other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...