« long live the king | jason everett miller's Blog | the whole story on whole foods »

grand (dad's) old party


Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was recently confirmed with a vote of 69 to 31. Chief Justice John Roberts was confirmed by a vote of 78 to 22.

Both votes were mostly along party lines, but each featured drastically different rationales for not supporting the nominee despite ideological differences. I cannot find a single democratic senator who voted no because of something Roberts said, either during the hearings or as a matter of public record, though some cited a number of his specific rulings. Not a single one said the fact that he was a white guy was a hindrance to their voting yes. By way of contrast, the republican opposition to Sotomayor, almost to a man, mentioned her "Wise Latina" comments as evidence of her "Judicial Activism" yet not a single one cited her actual rulings. 

I am surprised nine GOP senators voted in favor of her nomination given the GOP's performance so far in the health care and stimulus debates. Even Lindsey Graham was quoted as saying:

[Sotomayor] has not been an activist judge in the sense that would make her disqualified.... I hope her being on the Supreme Court will inspire young women, particularly Latina women, to choose a career in the law.

Seriously.  Lindsey Graham.  I was floored.  Not that he has all of sudden turned reasonable on other important matters, but I think this presents an opening of sorts, however small. 

It also presents a contrast to the 31 republican senators who voted against her confirmation on what appear to be purely racial lines that have very little to do with her actual rulings from the bench.  I am sure this came as little surprise to the democratic faithful.  They are constantly having their worst opinions of the GOP confirmed by the "performance" of those at the highest levels of the party apparatus as well as those screaming from the margins.  The positions they take and the tone they offer to the national discourse gives the impression that most "mainstream" republicans see themselves as being members of the Old White People Party, despite the inclusion of token minorities to give the GOP a patina of diversity and young republicans for energy.

What baffles me, though it probably shouldn't due to America's pathetically low turnout numbers for primary elections, is the total lack of importance racial issues appear to have with moderate conservatives.  As far as I can tell, moderates are quite happy with the idea that barriers to a fair shake should be lowered, even if many have come to the conclusion that such barriers are more classed based than race based these days.  Most moderate republicans I have spoken with are not against health care reform, yet the republican party hasn't offered a single bill that would address their very common sense concerns with the democratic party's current plans.

What saddens me about the current state of affairs in the GOP is the total lack of representation moderate conservatives have in Congress and their seeming inability to vote for someone new.  They accept piss-poor performance in Washington as the price they have to pay in order to fight democratic proposals.  Proposals they don't even understand because most Americans don't have a clue as to what is actually being considered.  Moderates have become comfortable being fed partisan and paranoid explanations for what amounts to common sense changes to the way we do business.  That's if they bother to tune in at all.

Given the history of the GOP, its current state is sadly ironic.  The progressive movement in American that they so rabidly fight against actually grew out of the republican party to begin with.  The republican party used to be the home for minorities when the democratic party was the sole province of white America.  Over the years, the roles of the parties have changed as they always do, but somewhere along the way the republican party lost all connection to its place in American history.

I believe Nixon (and all the subsequent neocons who started under his administration) was the ax that cut the party's mooring lines and set it adrift on ideological seas.  It is long past time the party's moderates took back the bridge and brought the ship back to shore.  We have important work to do that shouldn't be left up to liberals if we want it done right.  They are all vision.  We are all process.  Such a teaming environment can be very successful if everyone can understand their place and act accordingly. 

We need to marry the progressive with the pragmatic in a way that helps transform America into the 21st century country it must become. 

We can no longer aspire to empire by turning the Cold War into the Long War.  We must drastically reduce our military footprint by bringing all our troops back to America.  Fire up the BRAC and open bases in our hardest hit states this time even as we close them overseas.  We need to realign our military to face the real threats and opportunities inherent in today's landscape instead wasting more money than we should focusing on yesterday's fight.  Since a domestically-based military would be drastically cheaper, we can use this as an opportunity to change the way government contracting works and what our spending priorities should be.  That doesn't mean we are killing defense contractors, but it does mean they will be more accountable to We The People for contract performance and will be working on plowshare projects instead of forging swords.

That is only one of a dozen different ways that a more rational and reasonable and common-sense oriented conservatism could help with our national project. 

The republican party MUST regain our sanity and our innovative spirits if we are going to survive as a nation.  I realize the status quo is a natural state for the average republican, but we cannot afford such stasis right now.  It is creating an America that is unstable and unable to face the numerous challenges we are sure to encounter in a more globalized world economy.  This is a pivotal moment in American history and it is incumbent upon all republicans to create a party that Ike or Teddy or Abe might recognize.


57 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

While I do think multiple parties are necessary I see no reason its necessary for the republican party to survive. It has promulgated so much negativity and been so disingenuous that it should be replaced. From its direct appeals to racists and racism, to spreading the lies of the Clinton mafia and murders, to lying us into a disastrous war, to spreading the lies about Obama "missing" birth certificate, death panels etc. The republican party no longer deserves support and it doesn't seem like it can change or grow enough to become deserving.

If the republican party fades away it won't leave a vacuum behind. Another party will take up the slack. Could be the libertarian party, could be something else. Perhaps a right of center party instead of the republican party that now inhabits the extreme fringe right.

Best of all in my mind would be the democratic party occupying the right of center position that its stacked out and the creation a new party to occupy the left of center position. Let the democrats include the moderate republicans, there's not so much difference between them now and make room for the conservative republicans. Let the progressives in the democratic party leave the blue dogs behind and give liberals a home that's more in line with their views. A party of the right and the left instead of a party of the right and the far right.

To move forward we can't keep trying to fix things too broken to move us forward. Better to shake things up and shake things out and off and start fresh with something new.

user-pic

Never going to happen given the historical record, but thanks for stopping by and for the comment.

There is too much ignoble history on both sides of the fence for any one party to stake a claim to some sort of ultimate grace. The most likely outcome is the democratic party becoming less ideological, thus inspiring the moderates to take control of the republican party again.

I don't see any outcome in America as sustainable that doesn't involve a progressive conservative party to off-set the less effective progressive liberals.

user-pic

I agree that my hopes for a left of center political party are unlikely. But I think its as likely as your hopes for a progressive republican party. Especially one that decreases military spending. Not going to happen.

What I most object to and what drove me to respond was your portrayal of this progressive republican party of yours as an off set to liberals. As if the democratic party is liberal. As if the legislation coming out of congress now is liberal. A republican in the mode of Nixon would fit quite well in the current democratic party and he would actually vote with the progressives on some issues. Both parties have moved so far to the right in my lifetime.

user-pic

Agreed. I would see both parties move much further to the left as a way of making the country as a whole more progressive.

user-pic

Never say never. This country has seen the number two party fade from existence before. It happens when a party so marginalizes itself there is nothing left to sustain it. And actually the Republicans grew out of a third party which grew out the remnants of the Whigs starting in 1854 and finally coalescing in 1890.

user-pic

The two current parties have been around for more than 150 years and both have changed their trips dramatically over that time. The longest running party make-up in American history.

user-pic

What's so magic about the number two? (Other than the obvious tango reference...)

Why can't we have three...or four...or eight viable national political parties, like some European countries do? Far left, left, center-left, center, center-right, right and the GOP [mild snark].

Multiple parties would help get us out of our unfortunate political winner-take-all attitude and promote more compromise, coalition building and generally make our Congress play better with others. Y'know, like we used to do in kindergarten...

And, barring significant campaign finance reform (which I doubt I'll see in my lifetime) it might even help limit the influence of well-funded corporate special interest groups, whose current practice of buying Congresspeople of BOTH partes has helped us get into the political shit-hole we're currently stuck in.

user-pic

Not sure why only two. We seem to care way too much about precedent in this country and a third party has rarely been successful. The republican party is the only one I can think of. I would love to see more than one part or baring that, instant run-off elections.

user-pic

Sorry, that should have read: "...more than one party on each side..."

user-pic

You have stated the reason for 'only two parties'. Corporate interests want only two parties. Nothing magical here, only money.

user-pic

Enjoyed the blog, and agree that it's time for the GOP to return to basics. Would a "cross-posted at redstate.com" tag at the end, if true, further help that come about? Or are they just too far gone to listen over there?

user-pic

I suspect it is too late to change Red State, though I suppose there are always openings to be found.

I would never have guessed TheCleverBulldog and I could have a rational conversation on health care reform yet somehow we did. It was too bad that blog didn't pop up to the top because it could have been a good one.

As to the final question, I think conservatives who are ready to listen are already here or site like this, commenting or lurking. That is why I think tone and civility is so important, even when preaching to the choir.

user-pic

Seriously. Lindsey Graham. I was floored.

Florida Presidential Primary -- not to mention CA, TX, AZ, IL, NJ, CO, NM, etc.?

user-pic

I am not following. Was he bombastic in those places or did he say something sane then as well?

user-pic

Could be a reference to 'pandering to Hispanic primary voters'?

user-pic

I enjoyed the post, Jason. I don't see how anyone could argue that a more progressive Republican party would be better for America. Whether you have 2 or 20 options, if you make one more viable, it is better for those choosing. I think the way for the GOP to get back to being good for America is to start replacing fear mongering with simple truth. The most sickening thing to the American public is watching those in power stir up nonsense just so they have a better shot of taking power. If they make up such ridiculous accusations just to get in power, what will they do to when they actually have it? Oh, right, we just had eight years of that.

user-pic

Great points, Frizzle. I think change will continue to come from the voter this time.

Occasionally an evolutionary leader will come along to shift a party's fortunes, but usually it is a bottom-up affair. Look at the democratic party this past election for an example of what I am talking about. If Obama isn't able to drive a more authentically progressive agenda by the end of his first term, I think he may be surprised by many in his own party who expected better.

What I hope we are seeing, in both parties, is the end of the Age of Incumbents. It hasn't always been this way.

user-pic

Now you have drifted into fantasy land; as long as our elections are based on corporate backing, high incumbency will continue.

user-pic

I disagree completely. As long as the average turnout for primary elections is 16% the Age of Incumbency will continue. The big dollars are spent in the general fighting the other party, so our corporate puppet-masters are relatively absent from the primary elections.

They are almost a throwaway now and is really the only way a progressive insurgency could quickly redirect the policy priorities of both parties by ensuring two progressives are battling it out in the general, neither of them incumbents and both basically clean of corporate money to get to the main event.

Grassroots and shoe leather politics will be what pulls this country back from the brink.

user-pic

Jason, This comment prompted me to try and do a little research about why we vote. My day's crazy today (going on vacation tomorrow), but your "primaries are important" point seemed important.

user-pic

Great blog. Love the ideas for increasing primary turnout.

They really are the Achilles Heel to this whole corrupt system we have allowed to metastasize through a fundamental misunderstanding of how our electoral system works. With such low turnout, we really only need to convince a moderate number of people to pay attention. I hope the 30% primary numbers from this last election increase for the midterms rather than going back to historic lows.

I must admit that I am not all that optimistic, though I will continue to pound on that drum and drag at least one person who never votes in the primary to the polls next year.

user-pic

I'm old enough to hed tave liked Ike, though I'm not old enough to have voted for him. I liked Everett McKinley Dirksen and his perennial campaign to have the Marigold declared the National Flower.

I liked Nelson Rockefeller--though he might have chosen a slightly more dignified way to have his heart attack. I even liked Barry Goldwater as a man of principle, though I thought his principles were off the wall. Didn't vote for him, however.

I liked Mayor John Lindsey, and John Anderson, who lost hope in the Republican Party about the same time I did. I wasn't surprised that Anderson endorsed Obama.

There are two compelling traits of Barack Obama's that have led me to make my first presidential primary endorsement since I became a political independent. One: He is a reformer who understands the imperative of opening up our democracy and fixing our broken electoral process. Two: He appeals to independents who believe in progressive principles over party allegiance. In 1980, I ran under the banner of the National Unity Party, believing that a new political force was needed. In Obama's candidacy, even though it is conducted within the two-party system, I sense a larger purpose than partisan victory. He tells the truth, confesses his mistakes, and appeals to our higher civic impulses

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74d89579-de0d-4cf1-b2cb-e9a1aca5f84e

The last Republican I voted for in a national election was Lincoln Chaffee--not his last election, I voted for Whitehouse because I wanted to boost the Democrats into the majority--but the time before that I voted for him.

I still cross party lines in local elections: to be a Republican in Rhode Island is to be more liberal than a significant number of Democrats elsewhere.

But it takes a sea change to bring a party back to being a truly national party after becoming a regional party. I don't know whether that will happen to the Republicans in my lifetime--it won't unless they abandon the appeal to an ever narrower base.

user-pic

Great comments, Mike. I always learn a lot when you turn up.

I guess I see them behaving as a regional party while still having national prominence. The republican party isn't going to go anywhere anytime soon. I think a sea change will only come when moderate independents go back to voting republican.

This is all just mental masturbation, though, with a 16% average turnout for primaries. Hell, this was the most important election of our lifetime and we only saw 30% turnout. Would it have been a Ron Paul versus Dennis Kucinich match-up if we had 70% turnout? Probably not, but would a more moderate John McCain have shown up to the election?

When Americans as a whole start voting in primary elections we will start to get representation that is more reflective of the majority. As it is, only the fringes vote in primaries and we are left with the lesser of two evils in the "real" election come November.

I still maintain that this has got to be one of the dumbest countries on Earth. All that power and can't even bother to vote.

user-pic

Thanks for the kind words, Jason. I like it when I get them from smart guys. I always show up for the primaries, even though in most cases there's only one candidate to vote for.

I had an old professor once upon a time who said that people vote their discontents and not their satisfactions, ergo, a low turnout meant that people were satisfied. Maybe when he spoke that might have had a degree of truth to it. I'm not so sure now.

On the other hand, if the political structure really wanted to boost turnout why not either
A. Declare Election Day a National Holiday (several European countries do that)
OR
B. Move elections to the weekend? I'm not sure I like another proposed alternative--voting by computer from one's own home. Some civic duties need to require a person to rub shoulders with other citizens, MHO. (not very H, actually)

user-pic

I don't think that solves the primary problem since they are state level standards that vary widely from state to state. We almost need a Voting Rights Amendment that standardizes the entire thing in a way that everyone can accept and the states can ratify.

I would love to see a national primary on a single weekend that follows the Texas model. A basic ballot vote for an "open" primary where any party can vote for any candidate and a follow-on party caucus for the more engaged citizens to vote for their party representatives only. The winner from each party goes on to a General Election that is conducted over the first weekend in November.

Something along those lines might get more people engaged as they see how important it is to the functioning of the Republic. When was the last time we had an amendment to the Constitution? I could go look it up, but I know there hasn't been one in my lifetime and that is telling.

user-pic

Rec'd, Jason...you are fighting a good fight and I commend you.

The problem I'm wrestling with now is that they are ALL politicians in the worst sense of the word...REPUBLICRATS. Without the D or the R next to their names, you can barely tell them apart.

I want them ALL to start paying attention to what we want, and stop feathering their own nests at our expense.

user-pic

The answer is some form of major campaign finance reform.

user-pic

Yesss!

user-pic

Cannot really argue with that sentiment Stilli.

There are good people carrying on the good fight in my opinion and 98% of them are Democrats.

Again, that is my opinion. No room here for much more discussion. But there are pay offs being made in both parties and if I deny that, I am simply turning my head to the wall of ignorance.

user-pic

Great point which is what finally made up my mind to join the losing party when I stopped being an independent.

For one, liberal democrats drive me crazy. The only who one doesn't is my wife and she is mostly moderate which probably explains why. Secondly, I was an independent for a reason. The democratic party always talked a great game but hadn't really delivered anything substantial (except for Barack Obama) for more than 40 years.

So far, I feel like I made the right choice as a more pragmatic and conservative mindset is a necessity to delivering on the Blue Sky progress envisioned on the left. I think were we went wrong as a country was making you pick a party in order to be perceived as supporting the national agenda. Shouldn't there be a national agenda first and then you pick the party that best articulates your preferred methodology to getting there?

What I would love to see is a mass Exodus of moderate democrats moving back to the republican party to support progressive conservatives in their primary elections. We could turn Reagan Red to Roosevelt Red and never even need the party to change identity. Just go back to an earlier time for our inspiration and make sure our elected officials reflect that, which they clearly don't in either party.

In a perfect world, Barack Obama would be the republican president, having beat Sanders-Kucinich ticket in the general with Hillary as his VP.

user-pic

It's to soon to judge President Obama's position on the spectrum, his Presidency was born into a quagmire. As far as the Clinton's go, it seems much easier to me; Hillary is just left of Bill and he is the 4th most conservative President we've seen since Hoover. Only the Bushes and RR were more conservative than WJC.

user-pic

I actually think Ronnie and the Bushes were neoconservative, thus worthy of derision and contempt from real republicans with an understanding of the party's history.

That's why I say in a perfect world it would have been an Obama-Hillary ticket that provide a more authentically conservative progressivism contrasted against a more authentically progressivism under the leadership of people like Kucinich and Sanders and Franken. Somehow Americans forgot that the two national parties are every bit the orphaned children of FDR and Teddy as they are the abused stepchildren of WJC and GWB.

I hope what is different now is our ability to reconnect with our more authentic selves independent of our political affiliation.

user-pic

Dead on!

user-pic

"We need to marry the progressive with the pragmatic in a way that helps transform America into the 21st century country it must become."

Jason, that was the most sensible statement I've read in weeks. Empathy plus common sense... or not so common sense... I like it. Progressive conservative, eh? Now there's a brain teaser. Again, what's not to like?

user-pic

P.S. Jason Everett Miller for Congress! (Grin) Are there more Republicans like you out there?

user-pic

Thanks for the kind remarks. I think it helps to reframe the discussion. It isn't about a left-right dichotomy, it is a Center Right versus Far Right problem. There was a progressive conservative running for city council here in DC. It was my first republican vote.

user-pic

Hi, Jason. Interesting point about Nixon, very.

Cheney's from the Nixon W.H., so that's mighty consistent.

Bush pursued Long War against Russia even though we won the Cold War; he, Dick, and their pals obviously missed the intrigue. Pretty bleeding stupid.

Now we've got Long War in Afghanistan. That should have been robust interdiction and not more. I just cringe.

Thanks for your intelligent and thoughtful post!

user-pic

Thanks, OT! The defense spending thing is a huge pet peeve of mine, as a veteran.

I just don't see how it should cost more than the rest of the world combined to "defend" ourselves. It's all those far-flung bases pumping money in their local economies instead of our own.

Clinton really fucked up with the original BRAC process. It should have been rehabilitating stateside bases and closing them overseas. Drawing down the empire instead of spinning it off in new directions or just ignoring shit altogether like Rwanda and East Timor.

user-pic

You should point out that the Democrats politicized SC nominations long ago, starting with Bork and then Thomas. While Republicans went on to confirm Ginsburg 97 - 3 in a Senate they controlled (and could have easily rejected her). Meanwhile, dems voted against Roberts and Alito en masse (including our President). At some point the field must be leveled, why should Republicans continue to play nice when dems won't?

user-pic

Bork and Thomas were both terrible nominations. They were politicised inasmuch as Bork's opinions and Thomas' alleged behavior were far outside the mainstream. Bork's open embrace of strict construction without mystifying language was an unveiled threat. Was Bork attacked for his race or upbringing? No.

Thomas' hearing allowed for sexual harrassment and EO laws to come into effect and improve the lives of women across the nation. Thomas' alleged words and deeds regarding Anita Hill were deeply important for America to discuss and debate.

Besides, I resent your words and argument at face value. Politicisation is a dirty word that those on the right use on the left that does not mean much of anything. It is an insinuation-- the idea that liberals exploit sitiuations for a purely tactical advantage in order to further an esoteric unAmerican agenda. It has no meaning beyond its sinister enthymeme.

The larger votes against against Roberts and Alito were due to Bush's low approval ratings. His shadow was large enough that opposition was expected and required in swing states. As you can tell, the smart money was against Bush, but he had achieved a level of unitary power unheard of since post-secession Lincoln. The real question for historians and journalists is how Bush achieved and maintained this level of power. But I digress.

There was nothing to Sotomayor's opposition outside of racial and class animosities. If you can point me to a single substantive criticism, please enlighten me. All I read and saw were buzzwords and talk radio jargon.

user-pic

Bork was a highly respected constitutional law professor at Harvard. The fact that he thinks the constitution means what it says is hardly a radical idea, it is the basis for our governmental system. Liberals prefer that it mean whatever they want it to mean, so that there is no restraint on their actions. This is a complete subversion of the democratic process and is nothing other than judicial tyranny, which they support because they can not get their radical ideas supported by the voters.

As far as a reason to reject Sotomayor, she is a left leaning justice (stop pretending she is a 'moderate', she would not have such overwhelming support from the left if that were true), period. Reason enough, given that you accept the precedent that right leaning justices should be barred. It's called payback, if it's ok for your side it's ok for our side.

user-pic

An eye for an eye simply ensures we all end up blind.

user-pic

Well, I think that if unacceptable behavior is not challenged, it will continue. Democrats now believe that conservatives are not qualified for the court and they vote against them as a block. Unless Republicans force the issue by rejecting liberal candidates,
nothing will change their behavior.

user-pic

Again, some moderate democrats voted for conservative judges and some moderate republicans voted against. That is why Alito was confirmed and Bork wasn't. Nothing in politics is this black and white, though I agree that no one should be immune to constructive criticism.

I don't believe that "democrats" think conservatives are are unworthy of being on the bench and the performance of all the conservative justices on the current court hasn't really raised much criticism from the left except on the fringes of the party.

Things change by having our prejudices blown out of the water by actual facts.

user-pic

Dude:

Do you remember the Saturday Night Massacre?

That is all.

user-pic

Hey, TCB, thanks for stopping by.

I am not trying to resolve the partisan nature of the confirmation process. Those people are being appointed for life. They should have to answer some tough questions from their ideological opposites. I applaud the republicans of that Congress for their mature approach to allowing a more liberal choice than would be their preference to ascend to the court.

Alito was confirmed despite the democratic vote against him and has since proved the them wrong. He (or Roberts or Thomas and I suspect Bork as well had he been confirmed) has not been anymore of a conservative ideologue than any other republican appointed judge on the history of the court.

This blog really wasn't about the confirmation process, though, as much as it was about why they voted no. It had nothing to do with how she ruled on the bench. Many actually allowed that she was a moderate, center-left jurist. They objected to some remark she made years ago that is barely offensive when taken out of context and totally innocuous when taken as part of the entire speech.

That implies a lack of willingness to give the moderate conservative majority what they want in representation which is smart and reasoned discourse. I think just about every republican in Congress needs to take a serious round-turn on their performance or we need to get rid of them in the next primary election. I have met and talked with many conservatives who I would consider progressive in the extreme yet more process oriented in terms of execution. They don't automatically go for the huge government program to get it done. They are more strategic than that.

There are too many important things this country has to do and the democrats, God love them, are fairly inept at actually getting things done. I love their ideas, but since LBJ they have been unable to deliver. That leaves an opening for a truly progressive conservative party to fill the gap between ideation and implementation. That's not to absolve them of any specific trespasses, but they are really immaterial at this point. We can't change them by refusing to change ourselves.

This blog was about recapturing that spirit at the highest levels of the part so we could reclaim our heritage as the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower instead of Nixon, Reagan and Bush.

user-pic

Well, I am far more of a reactionary libertarian than a typical republican, but what I resent is the idea, expressed by both Biden and Obama, that a conservative is automatically disqualified from the bench but a liberal is not. If it is fair game to reject a conservative, then it is equally fair game to reject a liberal. So far the republicans have not followed through on this, Sotomayor was the first example of them even starting to resist. I would have preferred they had rejected Ginsburg as payback for Bork and Thomas. Republican presidents have nominated Conservatives, moderates, and liberals (like Souter) to the bench. When was the last time a conservative was nominated by a Democrat?

user-pic

Again, I believe the notion of "pay-back" of any sort is more damaging to the nation as a whole than it would be effective at limiting ideological differences in the nomination process.

The fact of the matter is republican presidents nominate conservative jurists that are usually approved with very little trouble. Ditto with liberal judges from democratic presidents. In both cases, the actual decisions they make once getting to the court are mostly moderate and tack across the center of the political spectrum rather than bouncing from one extreme to the next like Congress seems to do.

I was actually trying to convey that the nomination process, out of any of our partisan-tainted procedures, has largely been effective at creating a balanced court.

user-pic

When you and your ilk are done playing games, maybe then, we can have realistic political discussions.

user-pic

I think when both side are finished playing games we will be able to get something done. Too much "He said, She said" going right now for us to move into more substantive debates.

user-pic

Speaking of fantasy land, you want pragmatic politicians and a responsible media, good luck with that Jason. lol

user-pic

I'll be happy if we can start with a pragmatic grassroots! Yes, I know, more tilting at windmills.

user-pic

Nixon was scum,however ideologically he should not be placed with RR/Bushes. Nixon was to the left of Clinton, when you consider the total political package.

user-pic

That's a good point, but his paranoia created an atmosphere that led directly to the neocon infestation of the party. I agree that Nixon was the last actual republican president to sit in the White House, though still believe he is directly responsible for the current state of the party.

user-pic

Great post, Jason. And applaud your sentiments. But as a pragmatic matter, how does the GOP get from here to there? The corporate money behind the GOP really is attached to the status quo, as are the incumbent political elite. And so their political program is obstruction. And even in their weakened state, the institutional framework - whether the media landscape, senate rules, district lines, primary election rules, etc - gives them enough leverage to effectively obstruct all progress. You only have an incentive to move towards the middle insofar as you need a majority to implement your agenda. But their agenda is to a good extent just maintaining the status quo. And they can do that with the vocal and disruptive minority that they hold, and don't seem in danger of losing.

user-pic

I think it happens over a number of years much like it seems to be happening in the democratic party. Corporate money is red and blue, so the tendency of this country toward status quo by way of political dysfunction and distraction is strong with both parties.

I suspect that moderates will continue to take control of both parties at the grassroots, but without a massive change in turnout for the primary elections in both parties, we will continue to slide into anarchy by way of cultural warfare. Though I guess anarchy is the wrong word because that implies an absence of government.

What we have is a perversion of government by way of partisan politics.

user-pic



Partially correct ... but allow me to expand . . .

Yes... we do have a perversion of government by way of partisan politics in addition to a partridge in a pear tree.

Keep being divisive and you'll slowly but surely disappear.

So ... How small ARE you when you disappear?

~OGD~

Leave a comment

jason everett miller

user-pic

Following:
Followers: 46

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Party Republican (Bull Moose 2.0)
  • Politics Progressive conservative. I believe we need governing policies that are based in common sense and not dogma. An evolution of society and not a revolution that seeks to tear everything down and start from scratch. We don't have enough time for that nonsense.

Favorites

  • Favorite Blogs TPM. Much easier to get everything in one place than visiting a million blogs every day. Who has time for that?
  • Favorite Books Squandering of America by Robert Kuttner and People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn immediately come to mind, but there are way too many to list.
  • Favorite Quotes "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

    "It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things." - Teddy Roosevelt

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address