Radicalization of the Republican Party & Where Does It Go From Here?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Apr 28, 2015.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,001
    Many

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The idea of many is contextually subjective, and therefore easily manipulated. I happened to recall, the other day, an anthropologists' joke about the wisdom of certain tribal cultures that count one, two, three, many.

    More realistically, what are the raw numbers? Even a handful equaling a few thousands would count as many, but this isn't really what one means when claiming, as our neighbor has, that, "Many people feel that the two political parties have become one party at the level of leadership; ruling elite, due to the impact of big money on the political process."

    We're probably talking numbers in the millions, but it is also a recursive, market-reinforced notion. Functionally, it makes about as much sense as the process whereby a Republican policy screws up society, Republicans complain that government just doesn't work, and voters re-elect them in sympathy with the complaint. And there we go; we're talking about Kansas, or Iowa on a desperate day―if the parties really were one and the same, Iowa voters would have sent the Democrat to the Senate because he, at the very least, is competent. But it's not all the same to them; they sent Joni Ernst, because she put an (R) after her name. In the end, with Kansas re-electing Brownback and Iowa choosing Ernst, the lament that it doesn't make a difference because the two parties are pretty much the same would be a fallback excuse. You know, like maybe they should have elected Davis in Kansas and Braley in Iowa, but, you know, it wouldn't make a difference; they would screw up all the same, because, you know, the two parties are pretty much the same.

    And, you know, Republicans like comparing the government to a business, so let us consider an analogy:

    • You know, maybe I shouldn't have hired the guy who told me during the job intervew that the job could not and should not be done. Maybe I should have hired the guy who looked forward to getting the job done, had a plan for how to do it, and a track record working on these sorts of jobs. Anyway, whatever. It wouldn't have made a difference. They're pretty much the same.​

    Just sayin'.

    It's true that there are a lot of people who say the parties are the same; it is also true many of those claims are based on irrational outlooks. And it's true, I could say the same thing and stand defiantly and insistently out to the left of everything, refusing to take part, and blaming everyone else for not letting me take part, but it really does seem futile.

    I get why some communists hold out; it's an issue of serious contention, with Lenin denouncing Sylvia Pankhurst in a 1920 pamphlet titled, 'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder. Holdouts like Pankhurst have a philosophical and political reason; functionally, the Revolution "must come to them", as such, and the realist knows it probably won't be their own personal self, but a future generation. Societies move leftward, generally, only when they perceive no other options. A proper communist revolution will not be top-down. All of that.

    In the meantime, it's also true that I can observe measurable differences in quality of life according to which of the two parties gets their way. And while it is true that the parties are often subject to the same purse strings and manipulative influences, it is also true that we continue to vote for them. We can lament the appearance of a Prisoner's Dilemma, but we can also look ourselves in the mirror and state with firm confidence that we have our appropriate reasons.

    I'm not getting my Revolution any time soon; indeed, I would be wary of one that comes from my quarter at this point. I can accept this; it therefore seems pointless to hold out. Our oft-ridiculous, moneyed electoral system actually did bring tremendous progress. Consider the anti-gay ballot initiatives that failed in the early nineties, and the hard political push from the right. There is a reason I raise a glass to these bigots; by the time it came to Lawrence v. Texas, pretty much everything had changed, and from there it simply became a constitutional chess match. But the Supreme Court often, in such matters, tries to gauge a sense of the nation, and compared to the days of Bowers v. Hardwick, yes, everything was different. And part of the shift in sentiment came from the homophobic push through the nineties that brought The Gay closer and closer to people as more and more closeteers stepped out in order to make the point of just who their friends and family would be hurting by this vote.

    And talk about a sense of the nation; it wasn't just three liberal states voting for gay marriage, but a middling, midwestern state with a DoMA on the books rejecting an escalation, which in turn set off the downward spiral of homophobic influence resulting in the recognition of same-sex marriage in Minnesota↗. By the time we got to Windsor, it was over.

    And all of this starts with what I considered at the time gross abuse of the democratic initiative system. In the end, homophobes tried as many of the levers of democratic influence as they could in our society, and in failing helped bring about gay marriage faster than we might otherwise have expected. Using the tools of democracy, they fulfilled their own doomsaying prophecy.

    It's hardly ideal, but it's also observable that I do, in fact, get much from the current democratic system; to that end, holding out makes no sense, and the differences between the parties are sufficient that I don't lose any sleep for backing Democrats.

    In the end, most people seem practical this way even if they don't enumerate the outline. I think the one-party lament, while it does have certain applicable merit in terms of orienting general policy discussion, echoes out of proportion with its real numbers, and out of harmony with its real intentions; for the most part, it is merely an excuse. And those who gnash and wail need to believe they have more company than they do.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Lenin, Vladimir I. 'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder. 1920. Marxists.org. 16 August 2015. http://bit.ly/1IUfkUW
     
    joepistole likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    The last major-party candidate I voted for was LBJ in 1964--the first election in which I was old enough to vote. Despite being a Southerner, he was on the right side (left side?) of the civil rights struggle, and in fact had predicted (correctly) that after he left the White House, the South would never again vote for a Democrat.

    I was taken in by his civil rights agenda and wasn't paying enough attention to his military agenda--the other important issue that was of burning interest to us hippies. By the end of his first full term, the Vietnam war had become such a mess that he couldn't find a way out. He had lost both the Southerners and the Flower Children, so he realized there was no point in running for reelection.

    I was completely disgusted with the major parties, so I voted Peace & Freedom until that party collapsed. Then I joined the Libertarians--if only for their drug policy. I'd probably still be a voting member of that party, but now that they're treating the anti-vaccination wackos as responsible citizens, it's time to bury that party.

    So the Greens get my vote next year. At least they understand what humanity's most pressing problems are. And it will be great to have a Jewish mother in the White House, kicking ass right and left.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Is this the quote you mean?
    “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” - LBJ​
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well here is the thing, while that attribution is popular in right wing conspiracy circles, it has no credible factual basis.

    Let's just note that at time and place the word nigger was commonplace in white circles. And LBJ was known to use the word. Remember, this was before the civil rights era. Black folks were actively discriminated against. Thanks to LBJ, Martin Luther King and many others, that changed.
     
  8. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    So...you're disputing the provenance of that quote while also claiming it was commonplace? Make up your mind.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL...are you seriously just that dumb? But hey, at least you are consistent.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2016
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It's only source is a journalist/historian - Robert Kessler - who, when he gets things wrong, gets them wrong in the one direction. This guy is throwback conservative ("moderate" Republican), and like a lot of conservatives he tends to rate politicians by how well they get along with his idea of regular folks, and trust them accordingly. So he liked W, and Laura Bush, and he likes and trusts Trump: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-kessler-donald-trump-s-no-1-cheerleader.html
    and he trusts his sources in the Secret Service - their impressions, as well as their facts.

    So he ends up writing a book that attempts to show the W administration wasn't so bad. 'Cause he liked W.

    Meanwhile, most informed people seem to think that quote sounds like something LBJ would say - but what he would mean by it is another story. After all, the niggers were already voting Dem, if they were allowed to vote at all, and LBJ knew very well what the effect on the white (controlling) Solid (Dem) South would be. So the best guess seems to be that he was talking to some southern Dem Congressmen whose careers he had just ruined, and stroking them.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2088gl
     
  11. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    When Martin Luther King was alive and preaching, many people from all walks of life, had a lot of compassion for the plight of the blacks. The reason was the blacks of that time were cooperative with the law, peaceful, they had a strong family ethic, they worshipped together, they sought education, and they were hard working based on the limited opportunities available.

    The KKK and others, who treated then like second class citizens, appeared like bullies. The blacks of the 1950-60's reminded me of many of the black immigrants that come from African countries today that have settled in my home town, These immigrants have old fashion family values, stress education, religion and have a strong work ethic. These attributes are all connected to character. Martin Luther King saw a future where character, would be how the blacks would be judged; judged by their positive action. They showed they could be good citizens of character and only needed an opportunity to contribute. I believe the Democrats of the 1960's saw this and helped the cause.

    The spoiler for the blacks was connected to the liberal wing of the Democratic party. This wing, driven by feminism, broke up the family unit and made many blacks believe that they didn't need character. That was old fashion and relative. Rather the blacks of today were owed something by the country, for the past, based on the color of their skin. The democratic party, created a different social path that contradicted the wise teachings of King. King saw black character as deciding their fate, not the color of their skin. He knew skin color first would never work.

    The quota system meant no character was needed for preferential treatment. Therefore a white person of character could be supersede based on the color of his skin. The die was cast and the blacks lost their sense of direction. The dream of King was not realized, because they had been detoured by the Democrats, who where seeking votes through dependence. Character builds self reliance which is not how the democrats strategy of giving freebies works.

    I would get rid of the quota system, because I work under the assumption blacks and white are equal. Nobody needs a handicap if there are all equal. If men and women are equal, nobody needs a handicap. You then need to address the inner city and the breakup of the family unit and then try to restore it. Now the path is clear to be free. The democrats will not like this since, they buy votes by making promises of freebies; free healthcare, free education, etc. Freedom at last means freedom of the soul, not free things. That was a scam by the party of slavery.
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    "During [LBJ's] first 20 years in Congress," Obama said, "he opposed every civil rights bill that came up for a vote, once calling the push for federal legislation a farce and a shame."
    - http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...-johnson-opposed-every-civil-rights-proposal/

    By all accounts, LBJ was more motivated by political ambition than civil rights. Unless Fraggle wants to share the source of his "the South would never again vote for a Democrat" attributed to LBJ, the quote I posted was the closest I could find.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LBJ was a Southern Democrat brought onto the ticket to garner Southern support for the ticket. Does it matter? His running mate, JFK, was a Northern Democrat.

    And the fact remains, a Democratic congress and POTUS passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 which forbade racial discrimination for the first time in the nation's history.

    Republicans on the other hand have been actively disenfranchising blacks and other minorities.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2016
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    How?
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    LBJ's quote about the effect of his Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the most easily found LBJ quotes on the internet:
    "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come", he said ~
    {Bill Moyers, on page 167 of his book "Moyers on America" . Bill Moyers was a reporter who had good access to LBJ, was White House Press Secretary '65 - 67}

    In some versions, "a generation" replaces "a long time to come".

    In the Florida election of 2000, mentioned above, the entire voting infrastructure - the various recording machines's design, manufacture, software, maintenance, and distribution, the ballot design and printing and distribution, the procedures and scheduling and handling of absentee ballots and so forth, were all in Republican Party hands. Florida was known in advance to be a critical State. So:
    1) touch screen voting machines in minority neighborhoods behaved strangely with respect to the exit polls, always favoring W
    2) A list of felons forbidden to vote that had many (thousands) errors was drawn up and passed out to poll supervisors, almost all the errors were false positives that excluded black people from voting
    3) In a couple of heavily Democratic minority areas where there were no touch screen machines, misprinted ballots were provided that encouraged errors damaging to Gore. These ballots were also of a design that led easily to mechanical failure to record votes accurately, and the machines reading them were old and indifferently maintained. This was not true of heavily Republican areas.

    The official explanation for all of these circumstances is chance.

    So that's one example. There are many others, such as voter ID requirements black people are more likely to find difficult, gerrymandering, by rumor and statistical indication screwing around with the voting machines in black neighborhoods (too few or suddenly broken creating long lines, vote totals manipulated via software in the machine, etc), absentee ballot oddities, canceling or otherwise discouraging advance voting, etc.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2016
  16. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    So just as hearsay as the quote I posted.

    Where are all the lawsuits or criminal charges?

    How is obtaining an ID any harder for blacks than anyone else? Do you know that welfare and public housing require an ID? Are you saying welfare and public housing disenfranchise blacks? Wow, now that's news! Shouldn't MSNBC be running with that? Where's Rachel Maddow?

    And again, where are the lawsuits or criminal charges?
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Except from a more reliable and better investigated source, not inexplicably missing claimed eyewitnesses, and not taken out of context so as to cast doubt on its meaning.

    But it hardly matters - neither quote proved either mythical or real (and they both sound plausible to me, given realistic context) changes any argument in this thread.
    Excellent question. Well worth your time researching. Note that in the somewhat similarly odd Ohio vote of 2004, there were eventually a couple of jail terms handed out to lower level State officials. But by that election the principle that exit polls were misinformation had been established by years of Republican media efforts, and the voting machines set up to avoid direct comparisons as in Florida, so a couple of the worst symptoms of the Florida case were not measured or recorded. Also in Ohio the criminal justice system was under scrutiny from the Florida experience, so no such padded list of "felons" was available, while at the same time the minorities involved were almost entirely poor and black and geographically concentrated, so much of the effect of the tactics/coincidences in Florida was available simply by manipulations/coincidences of the number of working voting machines.
    Because of the long history of racial bigotry in provision of government services and racial oppression in the access to economic advance.
    If all that was required by the Republican sponsored voter ID laws was residency in public housing at some time or receipt of welfare at some time, there would be much less of a problem.
    Another excellent research topic for you.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2016
  18. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    That's because the problem is fabricated. The same poor who need IDs for welfare and public housing are the same ones you're claiming are disenfranchised for lack of IDs. You can't have it both ways, genius.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, it isn't. What is fabricated is the need for such ID in combatting voter fraud - leaving few options for motive that reflect well on the Republican efforts. Hence the "radicalization" description - a large number of Republican Party loyalists have bought into that and similar urban legend substitutes for analysis and history, and now form a political Party dominated by fantasy and paranoid delusions.
    Yes, that's part of my claim (there remains the large number of black people who lack the required IDs and who also live without receiving welfare or public housing). How is that "both ways"? Are you unaware of the nature of the usual Republican ID requirements for voting? To my knowledge none of them accept demonstrated residency in public housing or receipt of welfare as satisfying them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2016
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    We are witnessing an interesting split in the Republican Party. In recent days, a rift has formed. Limbaugh has been for several days now attacking Trump in favor of Canadian Ted. Limbaugh has and continues to attack Trump as not being a real "conservative" and railed about Trump's ability to make deals. Limbaugh doesn't want a deal maker. He wants a Republican (i.e. "conservative") dictatorship. It's an interesting time. It's a scary time. I don't think Canadian Ted has a chance in hell of ever becoming POTUS. God help us if he does become POTUS.

    Canadian Ted is the man who thinks it's a good idea to threaten the health and well-being of every American and threaten the full faith and credit of the United States in order to advance his political agenda. He has already unsuccessfully attempted to do so several times now. Canadian Ted is a true existential threat to The United States of America, a threat far greater than any terrorist could ever hope to achieve. That's why several Republican leaders have begun ringing alarm bells.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Until now Trump has enjoyed the support of fellow Republican entertainers like Limbaugh. But now things are a changing. Republican entertainers like Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity are now attacking Trump by claiming he is not a "true Republican", that he isn't ideologically pure enough. If Republican entertainers continue to dominate the Republican nomination process as they have in the past, that's bad news for Trump.

    It's odd, because as Republican entertainers are backing away from Trump in favor of Canadian Ted, Repbublican leaders like Falwell, Palin, and Arpaio, have and continue to endorse Trump in ever increasing numbers.

    Just when you think Republicans can't get any weirder, they surprise you.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2016
  21. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Can you support that claim?

    And does this population also refrain from buying alcohol or tobacco?
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Yes. No.
     
  23. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    So your claim is bogus. If they buy alcohol or tobacco, they require ID.
     

Share This Page