US Party Identity

[YDtoad]

Obviously you all associate with the democrats or greens, a few excluded. But what do the US parties mean to you, what is their identity?

As you may know, one of Karl Rove's ideas was to produce a permanent Republican majority. This was done by joining together economic conservatives, social conservatives (evangelicals), and small-government reformists. Now, this formed a very tenuous bond. Candidates had to represent the economic conservatives who funded the campaigns most, while paying lip service to the other two.

What you got, in the end, is what you have now. Candidates who represent each wing of the party without a cohesive whole. The economic conservatives look down upon the social conservatives, who they view as useful idiots, and social conservatives are just waking up to that fact.

Howard Dean, in his fifty state strategy, may end up producing much the same result. Bob Casey in the Senate, and Heath Schuler and others in the House represent a hybrid, more a Christian democrat than a traditional Democrat. They're socially to the right of the party base and liberal elite that rule the party.

In the long run, if these people can sustain their footing (tough for some of them), they could possibly expand their rank. Evangelicals are becoming more Rick Warren and less Pat Robertson. In time, they could listen to the voice of current pro life democrats and cross over to a party that actually listens to them economically and environmentally.

Of course, this produces much the same problem as the Republicans now have. Who controls the party? The ultra socially liberal elites in San Francisco and Massachusetts? Or the blue collar American middle?

If it's the former, then I win, because the Democrat party becomes the Christian Democrat party, and the Republicans become the party of stuffy plutocracy.

PS latinos will help move the Democrat party right on social issues.

PPS if I were Cain, this post would've been twice as long and totally lame.

[Valhall]

I find the whole idea of today's "parties" and how they are run to be complete bullshit, tbh.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

i dont watch american idol because i dont like the genre of music they all sing

[Akira]

Ahh, Karl Rove and his permanent Republican majority. Funny stuff.
The problem with political parties is that, as you sort of say, the people running them often are a minority. Regular Americans, I think, are pretty inherently moderate on a lot of issues, either because without big business or other similar interests they can think sanely, or because they realize some issues just aren't a big deal to them. The party system forces people to polarize themselves, and it is interesting to see how long the current parties will last before having to tone down the extremism.

[-1up!-]

wanting to build a permanent Republican majority shows no respect at all for democracy. Of course in politics everyone wants to win. But to express such a wish is disgusting.

[DBoons Ghost]

wanting to build a permanent Republican majority shows no respect at all for democracy. Of course in politics everyone wants to win. But to express such a wish is disgusting.

America is not a democracy. It's a republic. Mayhaps a representative democracy if you will, but that's still by definition a republic.

Just sayin.

I find it ironic though that a nation whose agenda is the spreading of democracy can't see past their own ambitions as a people.

[guitrguy]

Well its heavily based on parliamentary gov't.

[McP3000]

I find it ironic though that a nation whose agenda is the spreading of democracy can't see past their own ambitions as a people.
It was one person that said he wanted a permanent majority...not the entire country.

[DBoons Ghost]

It was one person that said he wanted a permanent majority...not the entire country.

That's a fair point in regards to this specific discussiion.

[ringworm]

But what do the US parties mean to you, what is their identity?
well, long ago Democratic stood for middle class blue collar working people, Republicans stood for anyone above that social status, which was why, at least in my state, was held by a majority of Democrats, not too long ago, both of those images faded.

Now, I see the South as a huge mess of both parties with people that still beleive the above, or have fallen for rhetoric and switched sides, but many are or have been fooled by both. Most of us just feel completely unrepresented by either side and Dem or Rep means jack squat.

[YDtoad]

It was one person that said he wanted a permanent majority...not the entire country.

You mean they shouldn't be aiming for a permanent majority? I think that's a goal, at least hypothetically, that all party leaders have. Unfortunately, the nature of trying to achieve that is building loose coalitions of varying interests that in time become fragmented and lead to the out party regaining control.

If Obama (or any other Democrat, only saying Obama because I think he's going to be the nominee and victor) wins in 08, the Democrat party will have substantial identity problems within ten years. Even if he'd be as good a president as I think he could be.

[Det_Nosnip]

PPS if I were Cain, this post would've been twice as long and totally lame.

lol!

Anyways, one group that IMO you overlooked is probably the most influential in the Republican party - Neoconservatives. Their policies have really brought about a paradigm change in the Republican party, shifting it from a small government, hands-off economically conservative party to a big government, New World Order pseudo-facist organization. Democrats could ironically draw in the economic conservatives if they really push for withdrawl from international involvements, as these have wasted far more resources than the democrats' social programs.

Otherwise, A+ analysis. :)

[Iskandar]

The Republican Party is clearly dominated by neoconservatives.

[Smokey D]

wanting to build a permanent Republican majority shows no respect at all for democracy. Of course in politics everyone wants to win. But to express such a wish is disgusting.

It's only saying something everybody knows.

And there'd be nothing wrong with a legitimate permanent majority keeping one party in power, at least not democratically.

[Valhall]

And there'd be nothing wrong with a legitimate permanent majority keeping one party in power, at least not democratically.

Honestly, more would get accomplished this way, instead of one party taking office and starting something, then the next party gaining majority and undoing it.

This is the only reason I support dictatorships....only dictatorships aren't usually created with good intentions for the people in mind...

[guitrguy]

More would get done, but who is there to question the legitimacy?

[Valhall]

More would get done, but who is there to question the legitimacy?

No one. That's the problem. It's a "rock and hard place" scenario, but, tbh, I'd rather not continue to chase my tail, which is what we've done for 25 years.

[Smokey D]

You're hilarious. "Guns for everybody -- why can the government tell me what to do!" and "Yay fascism".

More would get done, but who is there to question the legitimacy?

No no no. If it's a permanent majority (an actual one, not just something dictators made up), it'd have all the democratic legitimacy it needs.

[guitrguy]

Permanent as in long lasting? I mean if there is a paradigm shift gov't should change with it.

[Valhall]

You're hilarious. "Guns for everybody -- why can the government tell me what to do!" and "Yay fascism".


Facism is not bad if the policies enforced are of benevolent intent and do not strip individuals of any personal, longstanding rights.

Which is exactly why Socialist facism fails miserably every time. If a conservative-minded facism was to be implemented, it would be fine.

[Smokey D]

Facism is not bad if the policies enforced are of benevolent intent and do not strip individuals of any personal, longstanding rights.

Fascism by definition totally subordinates the individual to the state such that there are no rights that cannot be abrogated or abridged. So fascism is always bad.


Which is exactly why Socialist facism fails miserably every time. If a conservative-minded facism was to be implemented, it would be fine.

Well, it wouldn't be fascism since fascism is self-consciously modern and very much a non conservative ideology.

[Iskandar]

Which is exactly why Socialist facism fails miserably every time. Fascism isn't socialist. It's a very anti-socialist ideology, because it champions inequality and the existence of classes and hierarchy as desirable.

[Hababi]

Fascism isn't socialist.

Fascism has a longer, stronger bond with so called progressives. Check out Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism.

[gregulus]

Fascism has a longer, stronger bond with so called progressives. Check out Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism.

oof.

[Hababi]

oof.

Goldberg's not bad. There are a few talentless hacks on the national review, and some very talented writers and analysts. Ramesh Ponnuru is one of the best political writers in America.

[Iskandar]

Wait a minute, the guy from National Review?

I'm not reading it.

[Smokey D]

Fascism has a longer, stronger bond with so called progressives. Check out Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism.

Fascism can only be linked to progressives because it champions radical change. It doesn't champion change in the way the left wing would want though, and it's a stupid Godwin argument to say it does.

[Iskandar]

It's completely opposed to left-wing ideals like equality and tolerance.

[Hababi]

Fascism can only be linked to progressives because it champions radical change. It doesn't champion change in the way the left wing would want though, and it's a stupid Godwin argument to say it does.

It champions the role of the state, and that bonds it moreso with progressives. Woodrow Wilson, a progressive in his era, had strongly fascist leanings. Some so-called progressives were early hacks for Hitler. Planned parenthood was started by an open proponent of eugenics who hoped to get the 'inferior' people to stop breeding. The list goes on, too.

[Iskandar]

It champions the role of the state, and that bonds it moreso with progressives. Woodrow Wilson, a progressive in his era, had strongly fascist leanings. Some so-called progressives were early hacks for Hitler. Planned parenthood was started by an open proponent of eugenics who hoped to get the 'inferior' people to stop breeding. The list goes on, too.A cabal of powerful business leaders who were sympathetic to Hitler attempted to lead a coup against the US government during WWII. What's your point? Lots of people supported fascist leaders back then.

[Smokey D]

Wilson was also keen on the Klan, so he doesn't really fit with the whole 'equality and tolerance' thing of modern liberalism. Early 20th century progressives were a weird bunch anyway. They weren't really left-wing at all. They were just opposed to preserving the old order for the sake of the old order.

[Hababi]

Wilson was also keen on the Klan, so he doesn't really fit with the whole 'equality and tolerance' thing of modern liberalism. Early 20th century progressives were a weird bunch anyway. They weren't really left-wing at all. They were just opposed to preserving the old order for the sake of the old order.

Well talking about modern day liberals is different than progressives of different eras, but my point was that those who called themselves liberals or progressives (including HG Wells) had a much greater relationship with fascism than conservatives.

The Democrat party, however, continues to foster a strong relationship with planned parenthood, a group whose foundation was based on eugenics and extreme social darwinism.

[Iskandar]

The Democrat party, however, continues to foster a strong relationship with planned parenthood, a group whose foundation was based on eugenics and extreme social darwinism.If they aren't like that today, there's no problem.

[gregulus]

The Democrat party, however, continues to foster a strong relationship with planned parenthood, a group whose foundation was based on eugenics and extreme social darwinism.

And who harbors none of those beliefs today.

[Smokey D]

Well talking about modern day liberals is different than progressives of different eras, but my point was that those who called themselves liberals or progressives (including HG Wells) had a much greater relationship with fascism than conservatives.

Historically. But the most considerable support for neo-Nazidom, fascism etc now comes from the right.

The Democrat party, however, continues to foster a strong relationship with planned parenthood, a group whose foundation was based on eugenics and extreme social darwinism.

And the Democrats originated as a pro-slavery group. It only matters what they're doing today.

[Hababi]

And who harbors none of those beliefs today.

It's just not expressed. The foundation of the belief and movement is still the same. Abortion is advocated most by rich white elites, aimed at curbing the ranks of the underclass, particularly minorities.

[Hababi]

Historically. But the most considerable support for neo-Nazidom, fascism etc now comes from the right.

You have prominent left wing voices coddling Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and other strongmen. You don't really find an equivalent on the right. Yes, George Bush has fostered stronger ties to autocrats like the leader of Uzbekistan, but you don't hear him out there praising the guy.



And the Democrats originated as a pro-slavery group. It only matters what they're doing today.

The democrats changed their ideology. Planned Parenthood really never has.

[Valhall]

Abortion is advocated most by rich white elites, aimed at curbing the ranks of the underclass, particularly minorities.


Haha, not exactly. Anybody I've known who supports abortion, including myself, is underclass.

[Hababi]

Haha, not exactly. Anybody I've known who supports abortion, including myself, is underclass.

I'm not saying that there aren't underclass people who support abortion. But the folks who drive that policy are the upper crust. Nancy Pelosi is avowedly pro abortion and comes from the richest group of white liberal elitists in the nation. Look at where the pro lifers come from, particularly in the Democrat ranks--blue collar sections.

[Smokey D]

The democrats changed their ideology. Planned Parenthood really never has.

There's a pretty big gap between actual eugenics and handing out condoms and ****.

You have prominent left wing voices coddling Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and other strongmen.

Yeah, but smart people ignore them.

[Det_Nosnip]

Facism is not bad if the policies enforced are of benevolent intent and do not strip individuals of any personal, longstanding rights.

Which is exactly why Socialist facism fails miserably every time. If a conservative-minded facism was to be implemented, it would be fine.

lol. You really don't know what Fascism is, do you?

[Hababi]

There's a pretty big gap between actual eugenics and handing out condoms and ****.


What's that quote about fascism coming with a smile? ;)


Yeah, but smart people ignore them.

Yeah but the problem isn't the smart people, it's the dumb ones.

[Smokey D]

What's that quote about fascism coming with a smile?

Jesus Steve, just when I thought you were getting normal you start comparing pro-choice to Nazis again.


Yeah but the problem isn't the smart people, it's the dumb ones.

Ignore them too.

[Hababi]

Jesus Steve, just when I thought you were getting normal you start comparing pro-choice to Nazis again.


Haha I'm not being fully serious here. Of course pro-choice people aren't Nazis. They just support a terrible thing.

[gregulus]

Haha I'm not being fully serious here. Of course pro-choice people aren't Nazis. They just support a terrible thing.
Nope.

[McP3000]

Haha I'm not being fully serious here. Of course pro-choice people aren't Nazis. They just support a terrible thing.
The 1st amendment?

[Hababi]

The 1st amendment?

abortion isn't a first amendment right.

[DBoons Ghost]

abortion isn't a first amendment right.

It's an extension of language to prevent nuts like you to use religion as grounds to make laws, like making abortion illegal on religious grounds.

So in a way if abortion was called murder it would be one thing, but to argue from a religious perspective is what prevents wacko christians from making laws based on religion.

This is in no way an arguement for or against abortion in any way shape or form, nor is it an attack on religion. However, you understand the fact of the matter in this case.

[Hababi]

It's an extension of language to prevent nuts like you to use religion as grounds to make laws, like making abortion illegal on religious grounds.

My arguments against abortion are based on science. The opposing side bases theirs on semantics.

[Knifeboy]

My arguments against abortion are based on science.

Saying "life starts at conception" is not science

[ringworm]

saying abortion isnt killing a living thing isnt very intelligent either

[Knifeboy]

Depends on how far along it is
Saying it's a living thing the day after conception is as unintelligent as it gets

[ringworm]

well, abortions dont usually happen the day after conception

[gregulus]

My arguments against abortion are based on science. The opposing side bases theirs on semantics.

What would this "science" be. Is it from the Discovery Institute?

[guitrguy]

saying abortion isnt killing a living thing isnt very intelligent either

But charing it like that, is like getting my panties in bunch every time I get cut. We should make any sort of cell destruction illegal then.

well, abortions dont usually happen the day after conception
They happen for awareness and full conscientiousness is developed.

[ringworm]

But charing it like that, is like getting my panties in bunch every time I get cut. We should make any sort of cell destruction illegal then.
i am not advocating one way or another
i have no right to do so, i am just saying how i feel
i hope i never have to face this situation
having a kid makes how easily people accept what is being done in these clinics even more disturbing, but ultimately, they do as they please, just dont ask for me to help fund it :)

[DBoons Ghost]

You will be banned from beating off because with every sperm cell shot to the sink, you're murdering potential future leaders as your jizz leaks into the drain pipes. With every drip lost, it's "crap there could have been the next Gandhi" and the next drip "dang there goes JFK".. the residue left which refuses to go down the drain might be the next Hitler.

[ringworm]

lol :) ^

[gregulus]

You will be banned from beating off because with every sperm cell shot to the sink, you're murdering potential future leaders as your jizz leaks into the drain pipes. With every drip lost, it's "crap there could have been the next Gandhi" and the next drip "dang there goes JFK".. the residue left which refuses to go down the drain might be the next Hitler.

Who the **** jerks off into the sink?

[McP3000]

Who the **** jerks off into the sink?
Tall people

[italic zero]

My arguments against abortion are based on science. The opposing side bases theirs on semantics.
If by this you mean that each argument is based on a competing philosophy then I agree. Science makes no argument either way, and the semantic issues are just a dust cloud debaters kick up to obscure the issue.

[Knifeboy]

well, abortions dont usually happen the day after conception

Never heard of the morning after pill?

[Akira]

It's just not expressed. The foundation of the belief and movement is still the same. Abortion is advocated most by rich white elites, aimed at curbing the ranks of the underclass, particularly minorities.

Steve, I've heard some pretty ridiculous things from you, but this? I would almost be shocked if I heard that from Bill O'Reilly, I thought you had more sense.

[ringworm]

Never heard of the morning after pill?
yes? i dont see how that pertains to abortion

[Iskandar]

yes? i dont see how that pertains to abortionIt's a form of abortion, strictly speaking.

[Knifeboy]

yes? i dont see how that pertains to abortion

It's the form of abortion that true religious life begins at conception people have a problem with

[ringworm]

which has nothing to do with what i said

i thought we were discussing abortions

[Smokey D]

The morning after pill aborts the day old foetus.

[McP3000]

If your pregnant

otherwise its a waste of money

[Knifeboy]

which has nothing to do with what i said

i thought we were discussing abortions

You made it out to be a very black and white issue, which it isn't

at all

[Iskandar]

If your pregnant

otherwise its a waste of moneyYou get the peace of mind knowing you're not pregnant.

[J Rad]

I'm a democrat.

/has no idea where the thread is at

[Iskandar]

As usual, the thread got derailed.

[Knifeboy]

I'm a democrat.

/has no idea where the thread is at

chinatown!

[J Rad]

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=119569710398210900

[McP3000]

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=119569710398210900
Who cares.
That Chavez isn't getting any streets...and no one cares

[ringworm]

The morning after pill aborts the day old foetus.

You made it out to be a very black and white issue, which it isn't

at all
well, aborting cells a day or two old is very different than what I am getting at, but i dont need to say much more on abortion that I did on post 56, its not like I want Roe vs Wade overturned or something, abortion is ugly and disgusting, but everyones right to do so

[Knifeboy]

I agree with that 100%

but you also said

saying abortion isnt killing a living thing isnt very intelligent either

And that was what I was arguing against, because it isn't always true

[ringworm]

gotcha :thumb:

[McP3000]

Well everyone agrees that no one should get an abortion. Its just whether the government has the right to tell you if you can or cannot.

Hint: They don't

[DBoons Ghost]

Well everyone agrees that no one should get an abortion. Its just whether the government has the right to tell you if you can or cannot.

Hint: They don't

I disagree. Abortion is awesome. It's a better alternative to infanticide, or killing a child. Everyday we can find a handful of stories from around the country about this one throwing his children into a river, or some irresponsible idiot shaking his kid to death or beating it to death..

Lesser of two evils is kill it before it can feel a thing rather then let some monster raise it only to kill it, abuse it, neglect it.. which is what happens once a kid hits the system of adoption agencies and foster care.

Why is it so non-christian to abort a child when hypocrit christians can have a hundred one night stands a year? Why suddenly find God then? Where were your christian beliefs when you let that guy you just met bang you silly in the bathroom of whatever bar?

[guitrguy]

I think people should get as many abortions as possible.

[Valhall]

I have little respect for anti-abortion arguements structured in religious reasoning. What is one's religion may not be another's, thereby rendering the reasoning defunct. It's a horrible confusion of church and State.

However, I would listen to the arguements of those few who argue against it on non-religious grounds, though I still support abortion to the fullest extent. I'm just sick of people argung the matter on religious grounds; it seems to be everywhere and it's ridiculous.

[guitrguy]

Religious grounds are really the only way a skewed concept of life can be supported

[italic zero]

what that's not true at all

[Valhall]

Religious grounds are really the only way a skewed concept of life can be supported

I think it's a faulty way of making laws though, because even two people of the same religion may have a different take on an issue.

[Against Miik!]

Religion is a poor way to dictate law because it requires no support. When asked why you support a certain position, you can always cop out and just say its because you are a Christian, or whatever you are. Laws need to be justified, and I don't think the whole "Its Gods word" thing is a good justification, because that is and always will be debated. Some laws correspond with "Gods word", but thats only because they are common sense.

[Valhall]

Some laws correspond with "Gods word", but thats only because they are common sense.

I completely agree with your entire statement, but definitely this in particular.

[J Rad]

Who cares.
That Chavez isn't getting any streets...and no one cares

There was a mention of Chinatown and that story came to mind. It was a pretty big deal before it got shot down. There were Mexicans flooding the mayor's office in tears because the Chinatown community didn't want the renaming. Silly Mexicans.

[YDtoad]

Religious grounds are really the only way a skewed concept of life can be supported

communism is the only way progressive taxation can be supported.

[guitrguy]

communism is the only way progressive taxation can be supported.

thats cool

I think it's a faulty way of making laws though, because even two people of the same religion may have a different take on an issue.

Thanks jeebus we have the 1st amendment.

[Valhall]

Thanks jeebus we have the 1st amendment.

Until liberals decide we don't need that either....

Just wait, when they are out of other amendments to alter/take away, they'll target that one too....I give it 100 years max.

[J Rad]

Liberals don't take away amendments/rights/etc, that's the job of the Republican party.

[ringworm]

Liberals don't take away amendments/rights/etc, that's the job of the Republican party.
eh, i think, besides Bush's crazy antics, thats a false statement

[J Rad]

eh, i think, besides Bush's crazy antics, thats a false statement

I'd be inclined to agree if Republican presidents and political scandals weren't synonymous and the GOP didn't have a history of restricting civil liberties for the sake of increasing national security.

[guitrguy]

eh, i think, besides Bush's crazy antics, thats a false statement

Being the Republican party has morphed into a neo-con majority, its pretty true.

[Iskandar]

Neo-conservatism is the dominant ideology of the Republican Party now, and I don't think that's going to change.

[Smokey D]

It won't die, but the next Republican we get probably isn't going to be a neo-con in the mold of this Administration. It'll die down, and then come back more virulent and powerful than before. Like cancer.

[Iskandar]

I'd say a neocon, but not as radical as the Bush camp.

I find it funny when people lambast neo-cons for apparently betraying traditional conservative values, but then praise Reagan and Thatcher in the same breath, who were practically neo-cons themselves.

[Mr. Ron]

Ewwwww Reagan.

[guitrguy]

It won't die, but the next Republican we get probably isn't going to be a neo-con in the mold of this Administration. It'll die down, and then come back more virulent and powerful than before. Like cancer.

I thought you lived in the UK.

[Smokey D]

I'm from New Zealand.


I find it funny when people lambast neo-cons for apparently betraying traditional conservative values, but then praise Reagan and Thatcher in the same breath, who were practically neo-cons themselves.

Not really Thatcher. She stripped the government down to its skeleton; she didn't expand it even for the sake of security like neocons do.

[Iskandar]

Thatcher had an aggressive foreign policy, though Cf. the Falklands.

[Smokey D]

Not really, since they were... invaded. Aside from that, she didn't institute any aggressive foreign policy initiatives

[Iskandar]

Not really, since they were... invaded. Aside from that, she didn't institute any aggressive foreign policy initiativesShe was one of the driving forces behind the Gulf War, I believe. She pushed strongly for it before leaving office.


She also used police tactics to deal with strikes.

[Smokey D]

She was one of the driving forces behind the Gulf War, I believe. She pushed strongly for it before leaving office.

Probably, but that wasn't really neo-con.



She also used police tactics to deal with strikes.

And nor is that.

[Iskandar]

Probably, but that wasn't really neo-con.



And nor is that.It's authoritarian, which puts her closer to neo-con territory than traditional small-government conservatism.

Reagan and Thatcher et. al. weren't neoconservatives, exactly, but they were the forerunners of the movement.

[Smokey D]

It's authoritarian, which puts her closer to neo-con territory than traditional small-government conservatism.


It moves her closer to paleoconservativsm rather than libertarianism, you mean.


Reagan and Thatcher et. al. weren't neoconservatives, exactly, but they were the forerunners of the movement.

Reagan was a lot closer than Thatcher, I reckon.

[Iskandar]

It moves her closer to paleoconservativsm rather than libertarianism, you mean.I thought paleoconservatism was a nutty ideology that only like people in the Deep South subscribed to.
Reagan was a lot closer than Thatcher, I reckon.I agree. But ideologically they had a lot in common. That's why they got along so well politically and personally.