USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Perceived wide spread support. It all depends on which side of the mirror you're standing.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Not really. It depends on which lobbying organization is involved. Just because the people support it doesn't mean it'll pass.
Not really. It depends on which lobbying organization is involved. Just because the people support it doesn't mean it'll pass.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
True! See tort reform as a primary example.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
As far as the widespread support for certain stances is concerned, you also must consider the depth of the support. I might say I'm in favor of gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I'll go to the polls to vote that issue. The main motivator of voters in the last cycle (and likely the next one) is the economy. If your agenda isn't doing something to address that concern, you're going to be facing a pretty ugly electoral picture (honestly I don't know how the public is going to handle 2012 - nobody has done a ****ing thing to fix this problem, so things may end up even more divided than they are now).
The Dem's problem is fairly straightforward, actually: its members aren't all liberals. Many of its house members come from fairly conservative districts, and some of its senators come from fairly conservative states. If any of these people vote in support of a hard-left agenda, they will almost certainly lose their re-election bids. Ultra-liberals such as the people on Kos can argue all they want for "better Democrats", but if they do in fact get those Democrats as candidates coming out of the primaries, guess what? The vast majority of them are going to lose, unless they're running in left-leaning states and districts.
As far as the widespread support for certain stances is concerned, you also must consider the depth of the support. I might say I'm in favor of gay marriage, but that doesn't mean I'll go to the polls to vote that issue. The main motivator of voters in the last cycle (and likely the next one) is the economy. If your agenda isn't doing something to address that concern, you're going to be facing a pretty ugly electoral picture (honestly I don't know how the public is going to handle 2012 - nobody has done a ****ing thing to fix this problem, so things may end up even more divided than they are now).
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
This is fine, but the point is it should apply to the GOP and conservatives as well, but there the hard right has been able to call the tune pretty effectively on core issues (tax cuts, deregulation, energy policy, opposition to campaign finance reform). The premise is not that all Dems are liberals, it's that you can more easily "get away with" a hard right position with moderates than you can with a hard left position. Take tax rates as one example: TPaw's suggestion is basically a return to the Gilded Age, and he not only skates on it but is applauded for it. The liberal equivalent would be for a return to the 50's and brackets running all the way to the top. No Democrat would ever suggest that.
There's a big asymmetry in the proposals that are permitted in the public political space, so liberals generally begin any negotiation with a foreshortened amount of territory while conservatives can stretch the field. Liberals thus give up real territory in exchange for conservatives' unserious rhetorical yardage.
This is fine, but the point is it should apply to the GOP and conservatives as well, but there the hard right has been able to call the tune pretty effectively on core issues (tax cuts, deregulation, energy policy, opposition to campaign finance reform). The premise is not that all Dems are liberals, it's that you can more easily "get away with" a hard right position with moderates than you can with a hard left position. Take tax rates as one example: TPaw's suggestion is basically a return to the Gilded Age, and he not only skates on it but is applauded for it. The liberal equivalent would be for a return to the 50's and brackets running all the way to the top. No Democrat would ever suggest that.
There's a big asymmetry in the proposals that are permitted in the public political space, so liberals generally begin any negotiation with a foreshortened amount of territory while conservatives can stretch the field. Liberals thus give up real territory in exchange for conservatives' unserious rhetorical yardage.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
And the hard left is not driving the Dems?? Most (if not all) of the Democratic Congressional leadership is (way) left of center.
If one side of the electorate (we can argue which side jumped first ad infinitum) goes extreme, the other side must move to the other just to counteract, otherwise they will get run over and out. Perhaps right now we are being governed by the outliers (don't ask me, all I know is my state is not in touch with what I believe the role of government should be). But these outliers are in outlier districts who will return them (absent of the biological solution) every 2 or 6 years to office.
Rail all you want, but it is the system that we have allowed to be installed. Getting it back to the poilitics of the 50's may need a miracle.
And the hard left is not driving the Dems?? Most (if not all) of the Democratic Congressional leadership is (way) left of center.
If one side of the electorate (we can argue which side jumped first ad infinitum) goes extreme, the other side must move to the other just to counteract, otherwise they will get run over and out. Perhaps right now we are being governed by the outliers (don't ask me, all I know is my state is not in touch with what I believe the role of government should be). But these outliers are in outlier districts who will return them (absent of the biological solution) every 2 or 6 years to office.
Rail all you want, but it is the system that we have allowed to be installed. Getting it back to the poilitics of the 50's may need a miracle.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Exactly what far left position is getting passed nowadays?
Obamacare is the closest thing you can site and what was passed was a GOP idea. The far left lost that battle as they didn't get anything close to what they wanted. The far left agenda hasn't gotten a single thing they wanted despite the fact the Dems had control of both houses and the Presidency. Yet, the Bush Tax Cuts passed again with the GOP holding only the House of Representatives.
If you're a liberal in the United States you're living in the wrong country cause you have no representation.
Exactly what far left position is getting passed nowadays?
Obamacare is the closest thing you can site and what was passed was a GOP idea. The far left lost that battle as they didn't get anything close to what they wanted. The far left agenda hasn't gotten a single thing they wanted despite the fact the Dems had control of both houses and the Presidency. Yet, the Bush Tax Cuts passed again with the GOP holding only the House of Representatives.
If you're a liberal in the United States you're living in the wrong country cause you have no representation.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
I just disagree, completely. Just as the political spectrum was skewed left in the 70's, it is skewed right today. There is a pendulum swing against the backdrop of long-term historical trends. Conservatives have had very strong leadership from the fringe over the last 30 years. Liberal leadership has come from their most moderate pols. Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum have people actually taking them seriously as national candidates. Try running Bernie Sanders as a national candidate.
You have conservative candidates with a national audience saying deregulate industry, abolish the EPA, and zero out corporate income tax and estate taxes. The equivalent would be a liberal candidate saying formally nationalize the energy sector, raise the minimum wage to the poverty line, raise the estate tax to 100%, and have maximums on income and personal property. That would balance crazy with crazy.
I just disagree, completely. Just as the political spectrum was skewed left in the 70's, it is skewed right today. There is a pendulum swing against the backdrop of long-term historical trends. Conservatives have had very strong leadership from the fringe over the last 30 years. Liberal leadership has come from their most moderate pols. Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum have people actually taking them seriously as national candidates. Try running Bernie Sanders as a national candidate.
You have conservative candidates with a national audience saying deregulate industry, abolish the EPA, and zero out corporate income tax and estate taxes. The equivalent would be a liberal candidate saying formally nationalize the energy sector, raise the minimum wage to the poverty line, raise the estate tax to 100%, and have maximums on income and personal property. That would balance crazy with crazy.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Have to disagree with some of my lefty friends out here. Liberals have gotten quite a bit of what they've wanted. The problem is the Little Ralphie Nader crowd who's never satisfied. They didn't like Clinton (witness those two snivelling weasels Stephanopolous and Reich writing anti-Clinton books) and they don't like Obama. They are the mirror image of hard core libertarians such as the Ron Pauls of the world.
Liberalism's problem is that it doesn't have any great causes left. Civil rights? We now have a black President. Gay Rights? Repeal of DODT. Re-regulation? Dodd-Frank. Health care for all? Medicare/Medicaid and Obamacare. What's left? Why else do people think the right is so angry all the time? Essentually liberalism in the 2010's is an ideology looking for its next great cause.
Conservatism, no offense, revolves a lot around complaining about the dominant liberalism the country has been living in from FDR's time on. Rather than abolish social security, Medicare and the like, there's a movement to keep them in spirit but make them more "conservative". These are generally rejected by the public themselves, hence no action is taken on them even when Republicans are running the government. Abortion is another issue that's bandied about but a vote on a total ban never seems to come up. An early effort by the Reagan admin to roll back civil rights legislation was also abandoned. All of these would not exist in a truly conservative country. This all leaves the right with plenty of targets, but not a ton of actual victories. Seriously, 10 years ago who would have thought gays serving openly in the military would be tolerated, let alone passed with GOP Senate support?
Moving beyond that, foreign policy is a wash now that both nation building and pre-emptive war are on the outs. While there's a ton of rhetoric, I wouldn't expect an actual Republican President (as opposed to a candidate) to do much differently than Obama in terms of Libya, START treaty, Bin Laden, Afghanistan, etc. The Right has triumphed on gun rights clearly, and taxes so far, but at the expense of deficit control. I'll be curious to see who ends up victorious in that battle.
So to sum up I value what's actually put into law over what people propose. Paul Ryan may be a hero for his ideology trying to turn Medicare into a block grant. He may even be re-elected in his district because of it. However, it has as much chance of getting passed as privatizing social security does. With that fact in mind, ask yourself, is the existing law (Medicare) a liberal one of a conservative one? That answer's pretty easy.
Have to disagree with some of my lefty friends out here. Liberals have gotten quite a bit of what they've wanted. The problem is the Little Ralphie Nader crowd who's never satisfied. They didn't like Clinton (witness those two snivelling weasels Stephanopolous and Reich writing anti-Clinton books) and they don't like Obama. They are the mirror image of hard core libertarians such as the Ron Pauls of the world.
Liberalism's problem is that it doesn't have any great causes left. Civil rights? We now have a black President. Gay Rights? Repeal of DODT. Re-regulation? Dodd-Frank. Health care for all? Medicare/Medicaid and Obamacare. What's left? Why else do people think the right is so angry all the time? Essentually liberalism in the 2010's is an ideology looking for its next great cause.
Conservatism, no offense, revolves a lot around complaining about the dominant liberalism the country has been living in from FDR's time on. Rather than abolish social security, Medicare and the like, there's a movement to keep them in spirit but make them more "conservative". These are generally rejected by the public themselves, hence no action is taken on them even when Republicans are running the government. Abortion is another issue that's bandied about but a vote on a total ban never seems to come up. An early effort by the Reagan admin to roll back civil rights legislation was also abandoned. All of these would not exist in a truly conservative country. This all leaves the right with plenty of targets, but not a ton of actual victories. Seriously, 10 years ago who would have thought gays serving openly in the military would be tolerated, let alone passed with GOP Senate support?
Moving beyond that, foreign policy is a wash now that both nation building and pre-emptive war are on the outs. While there's a ton of rhetoric, I wouldn't expect an actual Republican President (as opposed to a candidate) to do much differently than Obama in terms of Libya, START treaty, Bin Laden, Afghanistan, etc. The Right has triumphed on gun rights clearly, and taxes so far, but at the expense of deficit control. I'll be curious to see who ends up victorious in that battle.
So to sum up I value what's actually put into law over what people propose. Paul Ryan may be a hero for his ideology trying to turn Medicare into a block grant. He may even be re-elected in his district because of it. However, it has as much chance of getting passed as privatizing social security does. With that fact in mind, ask yourself, is the existing law (Medicare) a liberal one of a conservative one? That answer's pretty easy.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
This is almost completely false. First of all, opposing the Naderites (socially laissez faire, fiscally statist) to the Libertarians (socially laissez faire, fiscally laissez faire) is wrong. The logical converse of the Naderites is some sort of nightmare Palinite theo-populist. There's maybe 5% of the former and 15% of the latter, but neither is making any headway.
Secondly, equating viewing Obama as a centrist and being a "never satisfied" liberal makes no sense. The ability to discern what's going on is a separate issue from how you evaluate it. On economic issues I was happy with Clinton and with Obama. But that doesn't mean they were necessarily "liberal" (and on economic policy they were/are dead center).
Thirdly, talking about civil rights and gay rights as "liberal" issues is falling for the very rhetoric that the right uses to appeal to Neanderthals. Would you say the end of slavery and religious discrimination are "liberal" victories? Only insofar as walking upright is "progressive." The same is true for desegregation, women's equality, gay rights -- they are "political" victories in the moment, and we shouldn't forget when listening to conservatives wring their hands about the fraying of the family that they have generally used that rhetoric to support truly heinous causes -- but no sane conservative today wants to put women and blacks and Jews and Catholics back into second class citizenship (Muslims and Mexicans, now, you've got an argument), and no sane conservative in 25 years will dignify homophobia with a political fig leaf. The right doesn't want to take us back to the social stone age -- part of their peculiar blindness lies precisely in not seeing that today's civil rights struggles, which they are forever terrified of as calling down the wrath of the Thunder God, is exactly the same as yesteryear's, which they now accept as simply normal and just.
Fourth, former aides and lackeys writing attack books to cash in on the prior administration has nothing to do with anything.
On the other hand, your spelling's good, so you have that going for your argument.
This is almost completely false. First of all, opposing the Naderites (socially laissez faire, fiscally statist) to the Libertarians (socially laissez faire, fiscally laissez faire) is wrong. The logical converse of the Naderites is some sort of nightmare Palinite theo-populist. There's maybe 5% of the former and 15% of the latter, but neither is making any headway.
Secondly, equating viewing Obama as a centrist and being a "never satisfied" liberal makes no sense. The ability to discern what's going on is a separate issue from how you evaluate it. On economic issues I was happy with Clinton and with Obama. But that doesn't mean they were necessarily "liberal" (and on economic policy they were/are dead center).
Thirdly, talking about civil rights and gay rights as "liberal" issues is falling for the very rhetoric that the right uses to appeal to Neanderthals. Would you say the end of slavery and religious discrimination are "liberal" victories? Only insofar as walking upright is "progressive." The same is true for desegregation, women's equality, gay rights -- they are "political" victories in the moment, and we shouldn't forget when listening to conservatives wring their hands about the fraying of the family that they have generally used that rhetoric to support truly heinous causes -- but no sane conservative today wants to put women and blacks and Jews and Catholics back into second class citizenship (Muslims and Mexicans, now, you've got an argument), and no sane conservative in 25 years will dignify homophobia with a political fig leaf. The right doesn't want to take us back to the social stone age -- part of their peculiar blindness lies precisely in not seeing that today's civil rights struggles, which they are forever terrified of as calling down the wrath of the Thunder God, is exactly the same as yesteryear's, which they now accept as simply normal and just.
Fourth, former aides and lackeys writing attack books to cash in on the prior administration has nothing to do with anything.
On the other hand, your spelling's good, so you have that going for your argument.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Nothing because the GOP controls the House.
No, no, no. If it was a GOP idea, NOTHING would have passed. The GOP didn't want healthcare reform. What ultimately passed was a watered down version of what the far left wanted because the Democratic leadership had to appease the moderate wing of their party - which again speaks to what I pointed out regarding right-leaning states and districts.
Parts of California and New England are pretty solidly liberal. Nationally, you just need to recognize the fact that this is a center-right country. That is ultimately why a conservative agenda has a better chance of passing than a liberal one.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Kep, again no offense as I tend to enjoy your writings, but all of this is whiny victimhood that has no basis in reality. Sadly you do sound like Little Ralphie Nader.
A stimulus package is a liberal concept. Defending US industry with govt help is a liberal concept. Just because a so called conservative President did that doesn't suddenly make it not so. I really wonder where you've been the last two years.
Next, your take on the leftward progression of social issues borders on the absurd. Yes, liberalism of the 60's triumphed in the area of civil rights. The fact that even self described conservatives have long since abandoned the fight on this issue is proof of that, not proof that "it was meant to be". It took 100 years after the end of the Civil War for blacks to be guaranteed their voting rights. It look only another 40 for the country to elect a black President. I think you need to lighten up considerably and revel in the progress society has made. You're starting to sound like the crabby old uncle who ruins every family get together.
Finally, Obama is a liberal, as was Clinton. Obama is in fact openly liberal, and his probable re-election next year (which would make it 4 out of 6 for the Dems) destroys your argument of unstoppable conservatism. What I speculate you may suffer from, which is what liberalism suffers from in general, is no new cause to take up. Maybe climate change but that won't happen until the economy improves. Right now however, we operate in a country governed by strongly liberal concepts. This allows the right to make more noise, while the left plays defense to keep what its already achieved. Again, in a truly conservative country, Soc Security, Medicare, welfare, unemployment aid, unions, abortion rights, gay marriage, etc etc would not only cease to exist, they would never even be seriously under consideration.
Kep, again no offense as I tend to enjoy your writings, but all of this is whiny victimhood that has no basis in reality. Sadly you do sound like Little Ralphie Nader.
A stimulus package is a liberal concept. Defending US industry with govt help is a liberal concept. Just because a so called conservative President did that doesn't suddenly make it not so. I really wonder where you've been the last two years.
Next, your take on the leftward progression of social issues borders on the absurd. Yes, liberalism of the 60's triumphed in the area of civil rights. The fact that even self described conservatives have long since abandoned the fight on this issue is proof of that, not proof that "it was meant to be". It took 100 years after the end of the Civil War for blacks to be guaranteed their voting rights. It look only another 40 for the country to elect a black President. I think you need to lighten up considerably and revel in the progress society has made. You're starting to sound like the crabby old uncle who ruins every family get together.
Finally, Obama is a liberal, as was Clinton. Obama is in fact openly liberal, and his probable re-election next year (which would make it 4 out of 6 for the Dems) destroys your argument of unstoppable conservatism. What I speculate you may suffer from, which is what liberalism suffers from in general, is no new cause to take up. Maybe climate change but that won't happen until the economy improves. Right now however, we operate in a country governed by strongly liberal concepts. This allows the right to make more noise, while the left plays defense to keep what its already achieved. Again, in a truly conservative country, Soc Security, Medicare, welfare, unemployment aid, unions, abortion rights, gay marriage, etc etc would not only cease to exist, they would never even be seriously under consideration.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
We'll agree to disagree; I see your remarks as evidence of the asymmetry in the public discourse. Whichever of us is right, I suspect we'll wind up voting for the same people, or at any rate against the same people.
We'll agree to disagree; I see your remarks as evidence of the asymmetry in the public discourse. Whichever of us is right, I suspect we'll wind up voting for the same people, or at any rate against the same people.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
It was a GOP idea in what they passed is pretty similar to what the Republicans offered in opposition to Clinton before they realized they could kill it outright.
Nothing because the GOP controls the House.
No, no, no. If it was a GOP idea, NOTHING would have passed. The GOP didn't want healthcare reform. What ultimately passed was a watered down version of what the far left wanted because the Democratic leadership had to appease the moderate wing of their party - which again speaks to what I pointed out regarding right-leaning states and districts.
Parts of California and New England are pretty solidly liberal. Nationally, you just need to recognize the fact that this is a center-right country. That is ultimately why a conservative agenda has a better chance of passing than a liberal one.
It was a GOP idea in what they passed is pretty similar to what the Republicans offered in opposition to Clinton before they realized they could kill it outright.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Good heavens you are over the top sometimes.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
They definitely flip flopped on the individual mandate. That would be fine if they came up with a different way to address the health care issue beyond the Ryan Plan, who's remedy is worse than the problem its trying to solve.
They definitely flip flopped on the individual mandate. That would be fine if they came up with a different way to address the health care issue beyond the Ryan Plan, who's remedy is worse than the problem its trying to solve.
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
You and Kepler have been attending the same "How to be a paranoid liberal" classes I see.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2012 Elections Part I: All Politics is Yokel
Future President Michele Bachmann is on a roll this week.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/124288073.html?uccb=1308676587249&cr=1#commentHere
http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/6049198-417/anti-gay-pol-uses-tolerance-tune-firework.html
Future President Michele Bachmann is on a roll this week.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/124288073.html?uccb=1308676587249&cr=1#commentHere
http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/6049198-417/anti-gay-pol-uses-tolerance-tune-firework.html
- Status