Printable View
Yes. I think that's true. Whenever someone asks me to describe the Democrats and Republicans in terms of British polictics I always say that the Democrats are the equivalent to the Conservatives in the UK and the Republicans don't have a UK equivalent.
The Labour Party would seem positively communist to many in America.
PS Today marks the day when we are exactly half way through the current governments term in office.
Do folk feel that the electoral college system is democratic. There are many states that have voted consistently Republican or Democrat for decades. If you lived in one of them and supported the other party, do you feel your vote counts for anything? Wouldn't a straightforward 'one man, one vote' system voting directly for the candidate give the country the president it wants.
It's not entirely dissimilar to the way we elect MPs.
An interesting variation would be proportional representation. Where you don't a proportion for each candidate according to what proportion of the vote they got.
As Meat Loaf sang, "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad," with Joe Walsh and Allen West both being defeated and Michelle Bachmann barely surviving -- even in a district designed to quarantine her. The entertainment value of the House GOP certainly takes a hit, but it will be interesting to see if Bachmann survives the 2014 election given that is now very apprent that she is vulnerable.
That West is now whining about the result is scarcely a surprise. How he managed to avoid being court-martialed and tossed out of the Army is beyond me, but typical of the two-tiered justice system in the Army: one for the officers and one the enlisted. Had West been an E-5 (SGT), little doubt as to the outcome, but as an O-5 (LTC), he skated and was alllowd to retire rather than being discharged under other than honorable conditions.
As for the GOP doing some actual soul-searching and begin moving towards once again being a "big tent" party, one would think that such a thing might make sense. However, this is the modern GOP and the most likely reaction will be to find someone in 2016 who is close to a white, reactionary, right-wing, ultra-flamethrower as possible: a "true conservative." This is sad, given that the GOP really once was a Grand Old Party, once filled with reasonable, thoughtful leaders whose thoughts were focused how to best govern for the common good. The loss of the moderate Republicans through both election results and those either bolting or no longer supporting the party does not bode well. That there are still many good, reasonable people sticking it in the GOP does give one hope for the future, but it will not be any easy task.
As much as some may not realize it, the Democratic party is very much a party of the moderate Center these days. It is "liberal" only by comparison with the current GOP which has veered sharply to the right. We have more years of political gridlock and mayhem ahead of us before something approaching rationality returns to the US political scene. That the current Democratic coalition contains many who should rightfully be in a moderate, slightly right of center political party (as the GOP once was) shows just how badly the leadership of the GOP -- especially at the national and, in many cases, the state level -- has dropped the ball.
You might wish to direct that question to Al Gore....Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
Republicans are passing over the hump begun in 1968 by Richard Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' of appealing to southern white voters alienated by civil rights (which until then most Republicans also supported which allowed Democrats to push it through in the first place). Nixon's cynical maneuvering to add bodies to the party worked well for a number of years as the religious social conservatives moved from overt racism to a more religious based conservatism that didn't conflict with the more moderate parts of the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Capps
Through the 80s and into the 90s this conservative sect became stronger and resulted in a more negative, angry style of politics that started to permeate the whole party. The 1992 election saw the first real personally hostile behavior, reinforced by election gains in 1994 and only mildly blunted by losses in 1996, blame for the government shutdown, and impeachment of President Clinton. Republican candidates - most obviously Dole in 1996 - had to alter their long-standing image as moderates and accept more extreme vice presidential candidates to appeal to an increasingly bellicose party to get the nomination. The latter isn't so uncommon as Eisenhower was forced to accept Richard Nixon in 1952 for the same reason. But at that time Eisenhower didn't himself need to realign himself with the Party's conservative wing as later candidates did.
The 2000 election of President Bush resulted in a complete power grab by conservative elements, the pushing out of any older moderate Republicans - the Republican in Name Only moniker - or forcing them to change their views to appear presentable to what was becoming the Republican 'base.' John McCain's 2008 run, along with Romney this year, followed the path of failure blazed by Bob Dole in 1996 where a moderate candidate had to appeal to the conservative wing but tainted themselves so badly doing they appeared to be dishonest with their former selves and too conservative for the general election.
How will Republicans handle this loss? I've already mentioned the challenges they face, and as of today it doesn't look like they plan to do anything but triple down on a strategy that's already proven to be a loser two times over. And it's bad for the country as it prevents any real alternative to the Democratic party, stymies the political process overall and will seriously harm the current economic recovery. And there's every chance they will be blamed for the result, which will hurt them much more than the government shutdown of 1995 in the eyes of all but their most fervent supporters. The same people Nixon wanted to use for votes have ended up destroying his party. A fitting bit of karma for appealing to that element in the first place.
I agree with much of what you said. I would also add that the Republicans insisting on religious dogma (right to life) as part of their political platform has alienated many, especially women, who might otherwise have been more sympathetic to their economic arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
Republican values are not necessarily religious, (ignoring Papal and local differences among US Catholics) as much as a particular religion, primarily Southern Baptist and various offshoots from it or in its vein along with a hard line position from Rome that most non-appointed clergy ignore. Most moderates, such as the first George Bush, are from much more moderate churches. Which also probably hurt Romney since many of the hard-line faiths and trends are antagonistic toward Catholics, let alone Mormons. The differences among Catholics alone is pretty interesting and working at a Catholic (specifically Vincentian) school can lead to all sorts of fun lunch discussions when some of the priests join us.
Evangelicals aren't bad per se. It depends on what they're evangelizing.
I find it somewhat difficult to fathom Romney's religion had any significant impact amongst the religious right. He won the primaries, and considering the publicised opinions of many religious fanatics about Obama, I just don't believe they would have voted against Romney on a religious basis in the Presidential Election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregor-y
I wonder who is going to be Hillary Clinton's replacement . . . . .
could it be Powell?