The criteria here is very basic. If a government is theoretically devised in a way that it is supposed to be responsive to the will of the people then the government and what it provides will be accordingly responsive. Where that influences political affiliations is only a factor relative to what party may or may not support a certain initiative. If a political party follows according to the devisement of how the government is supposed to work then parties would actually always be in sync and therefore redundant. We know that is not the case. Here's the basic part. Does a given party fulfill the criteria required of government as devised? Yes or No.

Where this always gets screwed up is where people and especially politicians insert all kinds of intangibles that can't ever be measured or otherwise defy objective evaluation. Politicians know most voters don't have enough brains to toss those intangibles out as part of their considerations and thus take advantage of peoples stupidity.

What this all means is when a politician strays away from facts and is plucking away on your emotional strings it's time to change the friggin channel.

I find the notion that GOP is all of a sudden going to die to be not in keeping with the historical facts. This country has been bi-polar politically since all those white guys gathered in Constitution Hall in Philadelphia to craft of system of government. Though we always had a fundamentally progressive charter, the means by which that promise was attained have been both conservative and liberal.

The Labor Party didn't kill the conservatives in the UK. Instead, they redefined the expectations of the average British citizen to include things like nationalized health care, better education outcomes and an ultimately unsustainable social welfare system that is nonetheless central to transforming an oligarchy into a more equitable society. The experiment has been by and large successful, but not through the efforts of the UK's liberal politicians alone. Once their common strategy was decided, both sides of their political elite sought to promote their particular solutions.

Just like any organization who wants to thrive finds a way to create consensus where possible.

This year's election isn't so much a repudiation of conservative methodology, just the strategy that their domination of government allowed them to pursue. That ideology has been proved to be insufficient to our needs as a country, which is Obama has been given a new mandate to pursue progressive solutions. Barack is still suggesting a fairly conservative model by which he expects to get things done. He seems to be more about evolution than revolution and is actually challenging republicans to return to the party of their roots. The party of Lincoln and Teddy and Ike, one that traces its philosophical roots back to the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson.

The goal for democratic party, as I see it, is to not call for the killing of the GOP as it seems so contradictory to the message our new democratic president won on. I would expect (and hope) that democrats are able to give rank and file republicans the time and space they need to change their party.

As Obama, like the Labor Party, changes the average American's expectations of government, I suspect the republican party will become a part of that transformation, only from a conservative viewpoint. There is nothing written in stone that the republican party from the last 40 years is the one that will move into the future. Any more than it was a foregone conclusion the democratic party would never shake the DLC. The former head of the DLC and one of its founding members are both taking very prominent roles in an Obama administration, despite the DLC's accomplishment representing the antithesis of progressive policy.

Why not call for the republican party to get on board with the national strategic shift we are witnessing and to start offering solutions to meet these very ambitious goals? Why not continue to push for unity of purpose even as you use the bully pulpit to bypass any lingering GOP obstructionism? The republican grassroots will change underneath the party leadership over the coming years and the rhetoric coming from the top will adjust accordingly.

The only thing constant in this country is change.

Most republican voters are going to want the same future for their children as democratic voters. Republicans also have some smart and capable citizens to help with the national project we are embarking upon. I can think of a dozen ways that I would use my more conservative nature to offer alternative views of our progressive goals as envisioned by President-elect Obama.

I think it is time we all laid aside our self-imposed limitations and labels in order to forge a sustainable future for us all.

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

-- Friedrich Hayek, in The Road To Serfdom

(Note to so-called conservatives and libertarian hacks -- that's one of your "heroes" talking about the state organizing a comprehensive system of social insurance. You might do well to actually read the books...)

I think Jason Miller is pretty much right.

The National Health Service did not sink the Conservative Party (Tories for short) here in Britain - in fact they were back in power within three years of its creation, under the same leader, Winston Churchill, partly because Labour failed to end the wartime rationing system.

The Tories were the dominant political party in Britain for the the next half-century, though the Labour (labour is spelled with a 'u' in Britain!) government of 1945-51 set the tone for an interventionist state up until the 1970s. Tory Prime Minister of the early 60s, Harold MacMillan, declared, "We are all socialists now!".

The NHS did however change the public's expectations of how health care should be provided and subsequent Tory governments may have resented the NHS but have been careful not to openly discuss dismantling and privatising it.

So I wouldn't be so confident that Obama's health care plan will keep the Republicans from power for a generation. But I'd be delighted if that turned out to be true.

Certainly it wouldn't do the Democratic Party any harm to show it can meet the needs of working and middle-class people in this area, and others.

The other reason (besides thwarting the Democrats) that die-hard conservatives reject universal health care is their social-Darwinist beliefs. They believe that this is America, land of the free with opportunity for all - but you, rugged individual, are on your own - and if you fail to grab a big enough piece of the pie to pay for health care and other benefits for you and yours, then fuck you - through your lack of success, you have proven that you are unworthy!

[I just posted a comment about this at tiggers thotful spot's blog, Lies My (Right Wing) Teacher Told Me, a little below this one in the recommended list. But it actually fits better here and adds more information to Matthews's original post. So I'm putting it here, edited slightly for content, and if it's the wrong thing to do, I'll hit the report abuse button and have it removed.]

For everyone who ever wondered about the extreme hatred and vitriol directed towards the Clintons by the right wing noise machine ...

It's about Healthcare and how Britain's Labor Party saw a lasting rise in party popularity after it established the National Health Service after World War II. Conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic recognized the implications and took notice.

Almost 50 years later, the lessons learned bore fruit in the form of a memo from Bill Kristol, in what may have turned out to be the first and only time he got something right. He sent the memo about two weeks after Hillary Clinton had presented her Health Care Bill to Congress:

Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. [Emphasis mine.]

Fast forward 15 years to the 2008 elections where the Republicans have lost the White House, both Congressional chambers and their majorities in state governorships and assemblies. In fact, about the only place they are welcome is the federal prison system, which they themselves had designed with Democrats in mind, not each other.

The real kicker comes after the Obama landslide and his campaign promises to make healthcare reform a priority, because it is the selection of Tom Daschle for Secretary of Health and Human Services that has Republicans rethinking their stance towards physician assisted suicide.

Michael Cannon at the Cato Institute saw the writing on the hospital walls when he blogged, Blocking Obama’s Health Plan Is Key to the GOP’s Survival. (Link below)

If this was a video in Republican circles, it would be viral.