The Republicans as the bad guys

Denerick

I can't think of a better title for what I'm about to post.

I've been following US politics relatively closesly since around the 2006 midterms. I've always read about US history and have enjoyed US political dramas. The West Wing in particular I would consider one of my all time favourite shows. Why is it that with very few exceptions, Republicans are unlikable, loud, brash, ignorant and jingoistic? Its not as if the Democrats are somehow much more intelligent, but the chances of someone like George Bush or Sarah Palin being anywhere near the Presidency would be all but impossible in that party. Why do the Republican party insist on making stupidity a virtue?

This is a serious question and I couldn't think of a more tactful way of putting it.

CptSternn

Because they don't care. The party consists of mega-wealthy elite who could care less what anyone else says or thinks about them. The only time they feign being human is during the run up to elections.

Overheal

They cashed in all of their chips basically and they suffered for it with a stained political image. Even the base turned away with them for a while but I think they will come bolting back with token tea party candidates in the room.

They've also basically done nothing else to fix their image - that I've spotted - except some Pledge 2.0 which is a virtual verbatim of something similar they did in the 90s. Leading me to think that they have learned nothing and changed nothing. It's worrying.

nyarlothothep

I think the point that they simply don't give a damn is very telling. They're generally reactive and take up very antagonistic policies in most spheres, domestic/foreign/environmental relations. They wrecked the economy in 10 years, in fact if I do recall Bush left Texas with a huge deficit before taking up the presidency but people still voted him in. Although that and the second election were stolen...but a sizeable number of people vote them in nonetheless warranting wtf!? responses from me. I mean the citizenry voted them in during this years elections thinking the economy should already be fixed in two years and forgetting who messed it up so royally in the first place. sigh.

I guess ignorance is appealing to people, you don't have to think, you just have to trade in generalizations that appeal to emotions, but its often negative in the outcomes. America is totally divided, I think Obama made a mistake in being concilliatory towards the GOP.

metaoblivia

Denerick wrote: »

I can't think of a better title for what I'm about to post.

I've been following US politics relatively closesly since around the 2006 midterms. I've always read about US history and have enjoyed US political dramas. The West Wing in particular I would consider one of my all time favourite shows. Why is it that with very few exceptions, Republicans are unlikable, loud, brash, ignorant and jingoistic? Its not as if the Democrats are somehow much more intelligent, but the chances of someone like George Bush or Sarah Palin being anywhere near the Presidency would be all but impossible in that party. Why do the Republican party insist on making stupidity a virtue?

This is a serious question and I couldn't think of a more tactful way of putting it.

I'm not quite sure how to say this, but there's a large portion of the Republican base that fears intellectuals. There's a history of this in the US. These people value what they call "common sense" over formal education. They fear intellectuals because they're afraid the more educated person might trick them into doing something that's adverse to their well being, leaving them none the wiser. The Republican party has manipulated these people incredibly well. They've put out people like Sarah Palin who galvanize a certain base with her talk of "common sense" and "real Americans," but who are nothing more than puppets for the Republican leadership. They tell these people that you don't need to be educated to understand complicated economic or political policies - you just need common sense. In a nutshell, they tell these people what they want to hear. No government interference? Sounds good. No taxes? Sounds good. Personal freedom (except when it comes to those who live "immoral" lifestyles)? Sounds good.

The Republican party says a lot of things that sound good if you don't think about it too much and take it at face value.

That said, not every Republican is like this. A good friend of mine is Republican and she's a doctor. Funnily enough, she truly has no common sense and is very out of touch with the realities that people outside of her social circle face. And she very earnestly believes that while the government does not have our best interests at heart, corporations do.

Denerick

My comment is about the Republican party. Not about American conservatism. American conservatism which has it roots in Barry Goldwater and William Buckley is at least measured, principled and consistent. The Republican party, a true bastardisation of conservative principles, is like a parody of American conservatism. I truly worry about such a large group of people who pay homage to self evidently ridiculous morons like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin etc. It makes me despair a little.

stretchtex

That's a very interesting observation there scoop. Perhaps that image of Republicans fits nicely with the narrative that your trying to promote. My best guess is that Europeans fancy themselves as intellectuals and view independent thinking, right leaning successful types as a threat. The Republicans by and large don't subscribe to the collective mindset and insist that there must always be a villain(those pesky hard working successful types) other than the folks up at central planning(nanny state).
Speaking of unlikeable, wonder why the Democrats just got their arse handed to them and why Obama has a 39 percent approval rating?
Lefties, your exercise for today...repeat after me. "I will not be a victim, I will not be a victim, because I'm strong enough, I'm smart enough and doggone it people like me.

Victor

Denerick wrote: »

Its not as if the Democrats are somehow much more intelligent

Actually, someone did an exercise on the 2000 election result and there was a strong correlation between Democrat-voting states and high IQ. While IQ isn't perfect, the difference was rather telling.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/4/171620/3258

That said, the Democrats do well in coastal, valley and city areas and the Republic do well in mountainous areas, the plains and rural areas. As most universities and knowledge based business is in urban areas, this does give things a slant.

stretchtex

This is just a hunch..
I'm guessing the highest percentage of Democratic votes comes from the inner city. I would look to Detroit city proper, how they voted and compare that to some education stats.

Lirange

There has been an awkward marriage in the Republican Party between the conservatives and the populists (the Palin wing). Some of you have sort of touched on this. The populists tend to be religious and emphasise a social agenda. They also have an element of anti corporatism/protectionism as well. The populists tend to be anti government/anti corporate/anti Hollywood/anti intellectual. They are very much a holdover from the Dixiecrats and socially conservative elements of the Democrats of yore. They dominated the Democratic Party in the South and other rural areas for more than a century. Over time most of them switched to the Republican Party (e.g. Strom Thurmond). Perhaps no state symoblises this populist element in American politics more than West Virginia. Gun toting bible belters that also have a strong inclination against what they see as corporate and intellectual elitism. There's a strong union history there with the mining industry and the state still elects Pro Gun socially conservative Democrats to federal office. But the voters there would never vote for Obama who they see as the very embodiment of liberal elitism.

stretchtex wrote: »

This is just a hunch..
I'm guessing the highest percentage of Democratic votes comes from the inner city. I would look to Detroit city proper, how they voted and compare that to some education stats.

The "inner city" (as opposed to urban areas in general) have a low voter registration rate and the percentage of those voters that go to the polls is much lower than the rest of America. Inner city voters make up a small part of the electorate. Exit polls in past elections consistently show that those with Bachelor's Degrees are split evenly between the two parties whereas those with Master's/Doctorates vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

southsiderosie

Denerick wrote: »

I can't think of a better title for what I'm about to post.

I've been following US politics relatively closesly since around the 2006 midterms. I've always read about US history and have enjoyed US political dramas. The West Wing in particular I would consider one of my all time favourite shows. Why is it that with very few exceptions, Republicans are unlikable, loud, brash, ignorant and jingoistic? Its not as if the Democrats are somehow much more intelligent, but the chances of someone like George Bush or Sarah Palin being anywhere near the Presidency would be all but impossible in that party. Why do the Republican party insist on making stupidity a virtue?

This is a serious question and I couldn't think of a more tactful way of putting it.

I see two reasons.

First, they are more interested in winning elections in the short-term, than laying the groundwork to be a sustainable party in the long-term. This has consistently been a huge fight between the RNC and party campaign operatives. The operatives know that via populism and inflammatory dog whisting, they will get a significant chunk of the base riled up and ready to vote. But the RNC knows that demographically this base - which is disproportionately white and over 50 - is shrinking, and in particular this approach is chasing off young voters and Hispanic voters.

The second reason is that the people you see the most of are the most likely to be obnoxious. Sane Republicans (or sane politicians in general) don't make for good tv or copy.

I've actually stopped paying close attention to American politics over the last two years. For me that is huge, especially since it used to be my job to track politics closely, but I honestly can't stomach the insanity, or the way the media covers it. I get my weekly update from the Economist, and that's about it.

Denerick

southsiderosie wrote: »

I've actually stopped paying close attention to American politics over the last two years. For me that is huge, especially since it used to be my job to track politics closely, but I honestly can't stomach the insanity, or the way the media covers it. I get my weekly update from the Economist, and that's about it.

Yeah, the economist is great. They provide fantastic analysis of all kinds of international politics, more than enough to get your average politico through the week. (Politico.com isn't bad either )

Jaafa

Why? Because they have to cater to one half of the american populous.So they have to SEEM different to the democrats.

In that way they can appear to be a credible 'opposition'. When in reality (at least in foreign policy) they are no different whatsoever.

McCain would have kept Guantanamo open.
He would have stayed in Afghanistan for at least 4 more years.
He would have left 50,000 'non combat' troops in Iraq.
He would have went ahead with missile defense plans in Europe.
He would be supporting Israel unquestionably with no progress in the peace process there.

Right?

Well Obama has done all these things.

The American public has to have the illusion that they can choose who to vote for. So the status quo can be maintained.

Conspiracy theory I here you say? Look it up. Differences are minimal.

southsiderosie

Jaafa wrote: »

Why? Because they have to cater to one half of the american populous.So they have to SEEM different to the democrats.

In that way they can appear to be a credible 'opposition'. When in reality (at least in foreign policy) they are no different whatsoever.

McCain would have kept Guantanamo open.
He would have stayed in Afghanistan for at least 4 more years.
He would have left 50,000 'non combat' troops in Iraq.
He would have went ahead with missile defense plans in Europe.
He would be supporting Israel unquestionably with no progress in the peace process there.

Right?

Well Obama has done all these things.

The American public has to have the illusion that they can choose who to vote for. So the status quo can be maintained.

Conspiracy theory I here you say? Look it up. Differences are minimal.

All of the points you have raised relate to foreign policy and national security.

There are significant differences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to social policy, immigration, and the nature of government spending, just to name a few.

Jaafa

southsiderosie wrote: »

All of the points you have raised relate to foreign policy and national security.

There are significant differences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to social policy, immigration, and the nature of government spending, just to name a few.

I know. I said that in the start of my post.

southsiderosie

Jaafa wrote: »

I know. I said that in the start of my post.

Oh lord. I clearly need a good night's sleep!

Sorry!

Jaafa

southsiderosie wrote: »

Oh lord. I clearly need a good night's sleep!

Sorry!

Your alright.

Denerick

Jaafa wrote: »

I know. I said that in the start of my post.

No you didn't. You repeated the irritating fallacy that 'the Republicans and the democrats are the same', common to those with a simplistic vision of how politics operates. I agree that Obama and certain Republican counterparts share common foreign policy principals - a natural result from being the most powerful nation on earth anxious to maintain its influence in a world increasingly being shaped by China, India, Russia and Brazil. There is little ideology in American foreign policy any more, other than the maintainance of American supremacy.

In domestic affairs the divergences are profound and exist because of the two different voting bases each party attracts. Each party is shaped by the class and social interests of its voters - which is why the democrats essentially believe in a welfare state, and Republicans believe in 'free enterprise' (In reality they favour corporatism, but thats another matter) These are not mere superficial differences manufactured for sinister, tactical reasons (Though the polarisation is often exploited by machiavellian politicians) they are profound, they divide Americans in every way.

kaiser sauze

The problem is not the party, it is the stupid electorate who are prepared to believe the tripe they peddle for facts.

The recent re-taking of The House-on a promise to fix the economy!!-by the very party who were booted out for fúcking up the economy only two years earlier exemplifies this idiocy.

southsiderosie

Denerick wrote: »

In domestic affairs the divergences are profound and exist because of the two different voting bases each party attracts. Each party is shaped by the class and social interests of its voters - which is why the democrats essentially believe in a welfare state, and Republicans believe in 'free enterprise' (In reality they favour corporatism, but thats another matter) These are not mere superficial differences manufactured for sinister, tactical reasons (Though the polarisation is often exploited by machiavellian politicians) they are profound, they divide Americans in every way.

But the states that vote republican are disproportionately poor. There is an interesting book on this, "Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State", and the authors note that the wealthy in poor states often vote Republican, but the wealthy in rich state often vote Democrat. This explains how a state like Mississippi, which is one of the poorest in the nation, goes red while a wealthy, but relatively conservative state like Connecticut goes blue.

Denerick

southsiderosie wrote: »

But the states that vote republican are disproportionately poor. There is an interesting book on this, "Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State", and the authors note that the wealthy in poor states often vote Republican, but the wealthy in rich state often vote Democrat. This explains how a state like Mississippi, which is one of the poorest in the nation, goes red while a wealthy, but relatively conservative state like Connecticut goes blue.

The class contradictions only really became apparant following 1964 - prior to that Mississipi was as dark blue as you could get. Cultural, social reasons underpin the intense reddening of the south. I admit it somewhat contradicts my thesis but it also in someways strengthens it - the Republicans do well in the south as southern whites (Historically strong democrats, mainly for class reasons (Huey Long, who made Chavez look like a capitalist, for example) are now Republicans for a combination of the fallout of 1964, the rising importance of evangelism to that region, the second amendment etc. etc. Through a combination of cultural/tribal reasons and social interests (Conservative in religion and social issues, 'guns and gods' and all that stuff)

Connecticut can be explained away by the fact that it is populated in large part by socially liberal minded New Yorkers with deep pockets. The same goes for New Jersey, who also have their dark red spots as well.

Exile 1798

southsiderosie wrote: »

But the states that vote republican are disproportionately poor. There is an interesting book on this, "Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State", and the authors note that the wealthy in poor states often vote Republican, but the wealthy in rich state often vote Democrat. This explains how a state like Mississippi, which is one of the poorest in the nation, goes red while a wealthy, but relatively conservative state like Connecticut goes blue.

It's a somewhat accurate cliche that has developed over the last 15 years that the new money billionaires and millionaires support Democrats, while the old money, minor millionaires tend to support Republicans.

Wealthy people who've made their own are generally pretty confident they can continue to make more. However the old money, petty millionaires who've inherited property and stock are more paranoid and desperate to "defend" what they've got. In other words, archetypical Republicans.

EastTexas

Denerick wrote: »

I can't think of a better title for what I'm about to post.

I've been following US politics relatively closesly since around the 2006 midterms. I've always read about US history and have enjoyed US political dramas. The West Wing in particular I would consider one of my all time favourite shows. Why is it that with very few exceptions, Republicans are unlikable, loud, brash, ignorant and jingoistic? Its not as if the Democrats are somehow much more intelligent, but the chances of someone like George Bush or Sarah Palin being anywhere near the Presidency would be all but impossible in that party. Why do the Republican party insist on making stupidity a virtue?

This is a serious question and I couldn't think of a more tactful way of putting it.

I hope it’s OK to dust this thread of.

Because this is one of the talking points of the far or extreme left, not even Democrats as whole.
Calling everybody they don’t agree with, stupid, uneducated, intellectually challenged, rednecks, hicks, b.gg.rs, talk funny, K-mart people, rethugs, recons, teacons, rethuglicons, Tealiban, tearrorists, ….along with unlikable, loud, brash, ignorant and jingoistic.

With that adapted a strategy of blanket character assassination of anybody they don’t agree with, instead of engaging on the issues.
And or to bolster their point of view by implying that THOSE Americans should have less say so in the process.
Which the Right of course considers elitist. (just to explain the origin of that Republican talking point).

And since Europe and I hope I don’t generalize too much and this not meant in any disparaging way whatsoever, is more on par with US far left wing suggested policies,( but not near as vitriolic as the American left, as far as I can tell),
I suppose Europeans are more likely the relate to and trust the talking points emitting from the camp they have an easier time relating to on policy issues and perhaps even culture.
Which is perfectly understandable.

That said I am delighted that Europeans take such an interest in our politics and process.
As I like to say” Best damn variety show in town”

Memnoch

There is no FAR LEFT political movement or party in the US. There is barely even a LEFT party or movement. SOME of the democrats might be considered LEFT of CENTRE but many, including the current president are RIGHT of Centre.

A very simple example of this is socialised health care. Which even CENTRE RIGHT governments such as that of David Cameron in the UK or Angela Merkel (who is even further right than Cameron) fully support. While in the US, even the very watered down health care legislation is portrayed as some kind of communist takeover.

This whole idea of the far left is a mythical construction by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin and the rest of the good people on Fox "news." This is so that their own extremist and fundamentalist views can be portrayed as being closer to the centre, which they most certainly aren't.

John Stewart for example is often labelled as a "lefty," and so is "Colbert" though the majority of the time I've seen Stewart take fairly centrist positions on most issues.

Admittedly I haven't watched much MSNBC, and while Olberman's rants are a bit hyperbolic, I haven't really seen one where he expounds extremist left ideology.

Out of curiosity I'd love for you to highlight ideas pushed forward by any movement/party in the USA that YOU consider to be 'far left.'

For the record, I'm sure the above cadre of right wing commentators would probably consider a person with my political views to be a "far left extremist," which I find thoroughly amusing.

EastTexas

Memnoch wrote: »

There is no FAR LEFT political movement or party in the US. There is barely even a LEFT party or movement. SOME of the democrats might be considered LEFT of CENTRE but many, including the current president are RIGHT of Centre.

A very simple example of this is socialised health care. Which even CENTRE RIGHT governments such as that of David Cameron in the UK or Angela Merkel (who is even further right than Cameron) fully support. While in the US, even the very watered down health care legislation is portrayed as some kind of communist takeover.

This whole idea of the far left is a mythical construction by the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Palin and the rest of the good people on Fox "news." This is so that their own extremist and fundamentalist views can be portrayed as being closer to the centre, which they most certainly aren't.

John Stewart for example is often labelled as a "lefty," and so is "Colbert" though the majority of the time I've seen Stewart take fairly centrist positions on most issues.

Admittedly I haven't watched much MSNBC, and while Olberman's rants are a bit hyperbolic, I haven't really seen one where he expounds extremist left ideology.

Out of curiosity I'd love for you to highlight ideas pushed forward by any movement/party in the USA that YOU consider to be 'far left.'

For the record, I'm sure the above cadre of right wing commentators would probably consider a person with my political views to be a "far left extremist," which I find thoroughly amusing.

Thank you, you just confirmed the point I tried to make in my above post.
Of course and I understand that from YOUR perspective in Europe there is no far left wing movement ( a.k.a. as Liberal, progressive movement) in the US because you live in a much further left environment.(From the US mainstream perspective)
To some extent we are all products of our environment.
And US Republicanism may appear strange and foreign to you as it’s not part of your culture.
Yet it is an integral and perfectly normal part of US politics, culture and history.

The US left and European mainstream cultures have much in common on social values and political goals.
However what is considered Right wing in Europe has little in common with the US Right wing not even with moderate Republicans from what I can tell.

You’ re limiting your impression of the US national conversation to Jon Steward, Olberman, MSNBC, and Fox commentators, whereas I’m spoke of the conversation of 300 million people with each other at home, work, the water cooler, on blogs, websites, social networks and so on.
I am not privy to your media in Ireland and therefore can’t gage through which lense they observe and report on US politics.
For example, in Germany/ German language, American politics and especially Republicanism is often and sometimes extremely distorted in their media.
Because again they look at everything from the German point of view prism and judge it based on their cultural values.
Sometimes translate things word for word, which in many instances distorts what was said.

Can you imagine watching SouthPark dubbed over in German?
To me that is just bizarre and I can’t even recognize the characters because they are “adjusted” to make the show viewable and relatable to Germans.

To sum it up, it is my impression that US Republicanism overall is poorly understood and difficult to relate to in Europe.
Lost in translation so to speak.
Just because something is different than what you are used to in your environment, doesn’t mean it’s bad.:)

Memnoch

EastTexas wrote: »

Thank you, you just confirmed the point I tried to make in my above post.
Of course and I understand that from YOUR perspective in Europe there is no far left wing movement ( a.k.a. as Liberal, progressive movement) in the US because you live in a much further left environment.(From the US mainstream perspective)
To some extent we are all products of our environment.
And US Republicanism may appear strange and foreign to you as it’s not part of your culture.
Yet it is an integral and perfectly normal part of US politics, culture and history.

The US left and European mainstream cultures have much in common on social values and political goals.
However what is considered Right wing in Europe has little in common with the US Right wing not even with moderate Republicans from what I can tell.

You’ re limiting your impression of the US national conversation to Jon Steward, Olberman, MSNBC, and Fox commentators, whereas I’m spoke of the conversation of 300 million people with each other at home, work, the water cooler, on blogs, websites, social networks and so on.
I am not privy to your media in Ireland and therefore can’t gage through which lense they observe and report on US politics.
For example, in Germany/ German language, American politics and especially Republicanism is often and sometimes extremely distorted in their media.
Because again they look at everything from the German point of view prism and judge it based on their cultural values.
Sometimes translate things word for word, which in many instances distorts what was said.

Can you imagine watching SouthPark dubbed over in German?
To me that is just bizarre and I can’t even recognize the characters because they are “adjusted” to make the show viewable and relatable to Germans.

To sum it up, it is my impression that US Republicanism overall is poorly understood and difficult to relate to in Europe.
Lost in translation so to speak.
Just because something is different than what you are used to in your environment, doesn’t mean it’s bad.:)

You accused people of dismissing the republican argument through character assassination and caricaturisation. I asked you to give examples of what you consider extremist left ideology and you responded with another rhethorical rant about mythical extremist leftists. I'm up for a serious discussion here, so lets try again. Please give examples of ideas or thoughts that YOU consider to be "extremist left," and I will do my best to point out why I think they are not.

I don't find US republicanism to be complicated or difficult to understand, it seems pretty straight forward to me. I understand it quite well, I just don't agree with it. That's not saying I'm adamantly against them on every single issue. But I don't see on what basis you are attacking my ability to understand what underlies their ideology. You're attacking the person instead of the argument.

Also, since when did the US get to decide what was moderate and what wasn't? Surely moderation and extremism should be argued in the context of all of humanity? Why are European viewpoints any less valid than American ones? But I agree that it is pointless to get caught up in this kind of semantical argument and much more fruitful to debate the actual issues, so let's try and do that.

I'll ask again. Please give an example of what you consider 'extremist left,' ideology on a substantive issue.

GuanYin

Denerick wrote: »

I've been following US politics relatively closesly since around the 2006 midterms. I've always read about US history and have enjoyed US political dramas. The West Wing in particular I would consider one of my all time favourite shows. Why is it that with very few exceptions, Republicans are unlikable, loud, brash, ignorant and jingoistic? Its not as if the Democrats are somehow much more intelligent, but the chances of someone like George Bush or Sarah Palin being anywhere near the Presidency would be all but impossible in that party. Why do the Republican party insist on making stupidity a virtue?

The problem with a two party system (effectively at least), is that each of the two parties have so many varying degrees of conservatism or liberalism that it is impossible to paint an accurate representation of the party demograph.

I, for instance, am a republican. However, my lean towards the Republican party is largely due to their fiscal management, which at the end of the day, is one of the most important aspects of a federal constitutional republic such as the United States.

However, I am pro choice, pro gun control, anti-war etc which paints me very much as a liberal.

The problem with US politics is that in most cases the "circus" politics is aimed at a very specific part of the electorate who are less inclined to vote by the more cerebral issues of government. These people, make up a minority percentage of the population, but because of the way the US voting system works, critically, they still make up an important percentage of the vote.

So I for one, would have forgiven McCain some of his more preachy outbursts as a presidential candidate, knowing that he's really towing the party line and putting on a Republican party show, while actually being, based on record, an astute and responsible politician with an excellent and relatively moderate track record. Unfortunately, the GOP installed Palin as his running mate in what can only be called a catastrophic mis-calculation and many, like myself, viewed an Obama/Biden ticket as a better choice than an anyone/Palin ticket.

The sad truth is, the "noise" from the republicans is really aimed at a small demographic who happen to hold a lot of cards, and these people make more sound than the more astute and reasonable republicans.

I will point out, that Democrats are just as bad, there are those on the street and in the media (MSNBC I'm looking at you) who are just as loud and ill informed as the loud and ill informed Republicans. They just seem to represent a smaller and less powerful section of the electorate than the Republicans, but they ARE there.

So yeah, the key thing is the separation of politics and media circus. Once you get past that you'll see that things tend to be more sensible and the Republicans and Democrats don't really differ much at all.

Exile 1798

EastTexas wrote: »

Thank you, you just confirmed the point I tried to make in my above post.
Of course and I understand that from YOUR perspective in Europe there is no far left wing movement ( a.k.a. as Liberal, progressive movement) in the US because you live in a much further left environment.(From the US mainstream perspective)

To some extent we are all products of our environment.
And US Republicanism may appear strange and foreign to you as it’s not part of your culture.

Yet it is an integral and perfectly normal part of US politics, culture and history.

The US left and European mainstream cultures have much in common on social values and political goals.

However what is considered Right wing in Europe has little in common with the US Right wing not even with moderate Republicans from what I can tell.

You’ re limiting your impression of the US national conversation to Jon Steward, Olberman, MSNBC, and Fox commentators, whereas I’m spoke of the conversation of 300 million people with each other at home, work, the water cooler, on blogs, websites, social networks and so on.
I am not privy to your media in Ireland and therefore can’t gage through which lense they observe and report on US politics.

Far Left = Communism, Trotskyism ect.

This is not a cultural difference or "cultural misunderstanding", just a misunderstanding on your part.

Referring to the Democratic Party (Centre-Right) or American Liberals (Centre, Centre-Left) as the "Far Left" is a pure Bill O'Riellyism, a pure propaganda ploy. It's your personal failing if you're unable to see through this obvious manipulation of language.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

GuanYin wrote: »

So yeah, the key thing is the separation of politics and media circus. Once you get past that you'll see that things tend to be more sensible and the Republicans and Democrats don't really differ much at all.

Maybe they don't differ that much, but it does feel like, with the advent of the neocon movement, the 'loud voices,' are holding sway over the republican party. I mean Bush... and then Palin? Seriously? How do you compare that to Clinton and then Obama?

The moderate and sensible republicans you speak of constantly come under attack for being RINOs. Even Mccain, who I had great respect for had to do a U-Turn on most of his principles in his recent campaign in order to win favour with the tea party.

Also, the republicans seem all for fiscal responsibility except the 700 billion odd the US spends on 'defence.' China spent the 2nd highest in the world at 70 billion or so. (Not saying that the democrats are much different, but they aren't waving the fiscal responsibility flag around nearly as much now are they?)

EastTexas

GuanYin wrote: »

The problem with a two party system (effectively at least), is that each of the two parties have so many varying degrees of conservatism or liberalism that it is impossible to paint an accurate representation of the party demograph.

I, for instance, am a republican. However, my lean towards the Republican party is largely due to their fiscal management, which at the end of the day, is one of the most important aspects of a federal constitutional republic such as the United States.

However, I am pro choice, pro gun control, anti-war etc which paints me very much as a liberal.

The problem with US politics is that in most cases the "circus" politics is aimed at a very specific part of the electorate who are less inclined to vote by the more cerebral issues of government. These people, make up a minority percentage of the population, but because of the way the US voting system works, critically, they still make up an important percentage of the vote.

So I for one, would have forgiven McCain some of his more preachy outbursts as a presidential candidate, knowing that he's really towing the party line and putting on a Republican party show, while actually being, based on record, an astute and responsible politician with an excellent and relatively moderate track record. Unfortunately, the GOP installed Palin as his running mate in what can only be called a catastrophic mis-calculation and many, like myself, viewed an Obama/Biden ticket as a better choice than an anyone/Palin ticket.

The sad truth is, the "noise" from the republicans is really aimed at a small demographic who happen to hold a lot of cards, and these people make more sound than the more astute and reasonable republicans.

I will point out, that Democrats are just as bad, there are those on the street and in the media (MSNBC I'm looking at you) who are just as loud and ill informed as the loud and ill informed Republicans. They just seem to represent a smaller and less powerful section of the electorate than the Republicans, but they ARE there.

So yeah, the key thing is the separation of politics and media circus. Once you get past that you'll see that things tend to be more sensible and the Republicans and Democrats don't really differ much at all.

Ha Ha I wouldn’t have pegged you as a Liberal based on that, but a Democrat, since none of those positions are extreme.
Not that I did make any assumptions in the first place.

Addressing your comment on the Two Party system…I beg to differ.
Since Democrats and Republicans come in so many varying shades with overlapping issues, the two party system causes us to have to compromise with each other which is also a cornerstone of democracy.
Moreover protects us from rise of extremist parties.

In the end we have to let go of 2nd and third tier personal pet peeve issues and concentrate on the nuts and bolts of a greater good and come together on those.
I would argue that this is the virtue of the two party system.
Imagine if we had a whole host of various little parties with overlapping platforms, only identifiable by their own particular special interest (pet peeves) issues.
What a squabbling mess this would be.

To paraphrase John Wayne
“ I did not vote for him, but now he is my President too and hope he does a good job”

Valmont

Paul Krugman wrote a very hilarious column on this topic recently. He puts forth a very elaborate thesis proposing that Democrats = good and Republicans = evil. How someone putting forward such vacuous arguments receives such considerable praise is beyond me.

EastTexas

Valmont wrote: »

Paul Krugman wrote a very hilarious column on this topic recently. He puts forth a very elaborate thesis proposing that Democrats = good and Republicans = evil. How someone putting forward such vacuous arguments receives such considerable praise is beyond me.

Good call.
You have to consider from where those praises emit.
Largely only from one demographic of one side only.
Continuously fanning the flames of division whilst pretending to not be part of it.


From the closing statement of the article:
It’s not enough to appeal to the better angels of our nature. We need to have leaders of both parties — or Mr. Obama alone if necessary — declare that both violence and any language hinting at the acceptability of violence are out of bounds. We all want reconciliation, but the road to that goal begins with an agreement that our differences will be settled by the rule of law."

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

We are settling our difference by the rule of law since the inception of the country.
Is he implying that we are not?
And that Obama should embrace unilateralism?
Which is contrary to democracy.
In fact, Obama declining on that call from the far left has earned him much criticism and disenchantment from that camp as of late.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

http://wikibin.org/articles/list-of-hollywood-republicans.html

EastTexas

RichieC wrote: »

http://wikibin.org/articles/list-of-hollywood-republicans.html

Thank you for validating Permabear’s assertion by demonstrating via your link how petite that list of self proclaimed Hollywood Republicans is.
Below is a list limited to stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_on_the_Hollywood_Walk_of_Fame
And please feel free to scroll down.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

EastTexas wrote: »

I wouldn’t have pegged you as a Liberal based on that, but a Democrat, since none of those positions are extreme.

The sarah palin school of political science...

Liberals are extremists.

EastTexas

InTheTrees wrote: »

The sarah palin school of political science...

Liberals are extremists.

You pretend as if nobody ever had a thought before S.P appeared.
Not that I even subscribe to her peculiar narrative.

Also the typical knee-jerk reaction and precisely what I put forth in my above post.
That instead of responding in civility to the subject, many from the left simply invoke Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and co…..since two years and counting.
That’s just intellectually lazy.
Somebody for the love of god needs come up with some new ideas.

Memnoch

EastTexas wrote: »

You pretend as if nobody ever had a thought before S.P appeared.
Not that I even subscribe to her peculiar narrative.

Also the typical knee-jerk reaction and precisely what I put forth in my above post.
That instead of responding in civility to the subject, many from the left simply invoke Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and co…..since two years and counting.
That’s just intellectually lazy.
Somebody for the love of god needs come up with some new ideas.

Nonsense. You speak of civility and new ideas.

Yet when I asked you TWICE, CIVILLY to give examples of ideas/viewpoints on substantive issues that you believe categorise the so called far left, you've failed to respond or provide a single example.

Perhaps you should practise what you preach. Intellectual laziness and knee-jerk reactions are invoking the mythical "far-left/extremist liberals" at every juncture... since x years and counting. A typical ploy of the far right extremists. (see what I did there and how easy it is?)

EastTexas

Memnoch wrote: »

You accused people of dismissing the republican argument through character assassination and caricaturisation. I asked you to give examples of what you consider extremist left ideology and you responded with another rhethorical rant about mythical extremist leftists. I'm up for a serious discussion here, so lets try again. Please give examples of ideas or thoughts that YOU consider to be "extremist left," and I will do my best to point out why I think they are not.

I don't find US republicanism to be complicated or difficult to understand, it seems pretty straight forward to me. I understand it quite well, I just don't agree with it. That's not saying I'm adamantly against them on every single issue. But I don't see on what basis you are attacking my ability to understand what underlies their ideology. You're attacking the person instead of the argument.

Also, since when did the US get to decide what was moderate and what wasn't? Surely moderation and extremism should be argued in the context of all of humanity? Why are European viewpoints any less valid than American ones? But I agree that it is pointless to get caught up in this kind of semantical argument and much more fruitful to debate the actual issues, so let's try and do that.

I'll ask again. Please give an example of what you consider 'extremist left,' ideology on a substantive issue.

No, I did not accuse anybody of anything, please re-read my post.
I explained the oversimplified narrative very common from the US Left that Republicans are simply bad…a blanket condemnation which by the looks of it appears to have crossed the pond.
As I see the same slogans parroted.

How can we (you and I) have a discussion about the far US left movement if in your opinion there is no such thing?
Besides this thread is not about right or left ideologies, their merits of particular polices but about the blanket demonisation of one party as the main staple when discussing them.

You say you understand Republicans well.
Naturally Republicanism is “easy” to understand when you just dismiss it as “ bad”

Of course the US gets to decide what is considered moderate or extreme within their country.
Why would they not?
Just as much as any other country or a collection of countries like Europe determines that for themselves.
In Montana it would not be uncommon or extreme to ride your horse to the bar for a drink.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/16/sober-friend-ad-has-some-_n_809800.html
Try that in Germany or France.
Confusion and misunderstanding occurs when you judge others by your own standards only.

InTheTrees

EastTexas wrote: »

You pretend as if nobody ever had a thought before S.P appeared.
Not that I even subscribe to her peculiar narrative.

Also the typical knee-jerk reaction and precisely what I put forth in my above post.
That instead of responding in civility to the subject, many from the left simply invoke Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and co…..since two years and counting.
That’s just intellectually lazy.
Somebody for the love of god needs come up with some new ideas.

I pretend? No, its been going on for years, its just that Palin drawws more attention to it.

Bush was the master after all. The orwellian use of words. The endless repetition of half truths. The reliance of an unquestioning base. The celebration of stupidity.

And republicans wonder why they're portrayed negatively?

You implied Liberals are extremists. Thats lazy and untrue so dont go harping on at me about quoting palin, beck et al. You brought it up.

InTheTrees

EastTexas wrote: »

I explained the oversimplified narrative very common from the US Left that Republicans are simply bad…a blanket condemnation which by the looks of it appears to have crossed the pond.

"Simply" bad? Huh?

You're upset because the left just paint the right as bad without anything to back it up?

Somehow a large group of people just decided, for no reason at all, on a whim, to call republicans Bad.

What you really mean is that you dont understand the ideology of the other side and dont have any desire to, so instead you'll proclaim it to be without any reason.

Lazy. And untrue.

EastTexas

InTheTrees wrote: »

I pretend? No, its been going on for years, its just that Palin drawws more attention to it.

Bush was the master after all. The orwellian use of words. The endless repetition of half truths. The reliance of an unquestioning base. The celebration of stupidity.

And republicans wonder why they're portrayed negatively?

You implied Liberals are extremists. Thats lazy and untrue so dont go harping on at me about quoting palin, beck et al. You brought it up.

Oh no please go right ahead and quote Palin, Beck and co to your hearts delight.
In fact let me help you.
Below in this link you can watch fox news streaming live.
Straight from the horses mouth.
http://veetle.com/index.php/channel/view#4cf2f67d0ef30

Enjoy

P.S. Is that how Bush got those low 20% approval rating?
From his unquestioning base?
Interesting

southsiderosie

EastTexas wrote: »

You pretend as if nobody ever had a thought before S.P appeared.
Not that I even subscribe to her peculiar narrative.

Also the typical knee-jerk reaction and precisely what I put forth in my above post.
That instead of responding in civility to the subject, many from the left simply invoke Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and co…..since two years and counting.
That’s just intellectually lazy.
Somebody for the love of god needs come up with some new ideas.

I think that's a bit unfair actually. For the last few years, the GOP has basically defaulted (deflected?) to Limbaugh, Palin & Co. to publicly define the party and conservatism. And this was only accentuated by the fact that the Tea Party is an anti-establishment, decentralized movement with no clear leader. Who in the current and potential GOP leadership has fresh ideas about anything - and furthermore, the will and inclination to forge political compromises in order to get their ideas into law?

When elected officials are scared of unelected tv and radio pundits, is it any wonder that their attributes and ideals are morphed onto the party?

Finally, as for new ideas, I would be happy to see some new ideas from the Republican party that did not always start from the ground assumption that government is always bad, the free market is always good, and taxes are inherently evil (and I could just as easily flip this around to apply to doctrinaire Dems).

Memnoch

EastTexas wrote: »

Besides this thread is not about right or left ideologies, their merits of particular polices but about the blanket demonisation of one party as the main staple when discussing them.

Right, and it astounds me that you fail to see that this is exactly what is being done with this "far left extremist" nonsense. Every time anyone disagrees with something "they" try to do, or say, they are labelled as a "far left extremist." They are convenient bogeymen.

You speak with disdain for the dismissal of ideas, you complain endlessly about how the debate is about caricaturisation and personality rather than issues, yet that's exactly what you are doing yourself.

We CAN have a debate about it because I want to see what you, a seemingly intelligent person considers, 'far left ideology,' and on what basis. This is as much for my education as it is for my desire to debate the issue with you.

Yet you repeatedly refuse to engage and resort to the same cliche's parroted by the people you claim don't really represent you, i.e. fox news and co. Because this seems to be their modus operandi. Any voice of dissent = 'far left/liberal extremist,' which ironically is a perfect mirror of what you are accusing these so called extremists of doing.

So lets try and break from that and talk about the actual ideologies or issues that you claim these extremists support.

EastTexas

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think that's a bit unfair actually. For the last few years, the GOP has basically defaulted (deflected?) to Limbaugh, Palin & Co. to publicly define the party and conservatism. And this was only accentuated by the fact that the Tea Party is an anti-establishment, decentralized movement with no clear leader. Who in the current and potential GOP leadership has fresh ideas about anything - and furthermore, the will and inclination to forge political compromises in order to get their ideas into law?

When elected officials are scared of unelected tv and radio pundits, is it any wonder that their attributes and ideals are morphed onto the party?

Finally, as for new ideas, I would be happy to see some new ideas from the Republican party that did not always start from the ground assumption that government is always bad, the free market is always good, and taxes are inherently evil (and I could just as easily flip this around to apply to doctrinaire Dems).

Actually that came from Chris Mathews (who I like, not meaning that I agree with everything he puts forth).

I remember him harping on that for months.
First declaring Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party. lol
Then Palin which didn’t stick either, except for some left leaning blogs picking it up.
All whilst running that Bachman clip for well over a year now regularly, (heck weekly) where she suggested to investigate Congress for un-Americanism and some other nonsense.
After all, they have diverted a large section of their political programming to report on another network/Fox. LOL.
Where as Fox doesn’t even mention them.

I like Chris, but dude can’t let go.
He’s a “serial repeater” of manufactured infotainment talking points long after they been dead, still carrying the torch.

But none of that is part in any substantive debate about politics or policy.
When people communicate via their favorite talk show hosts by proxy.
Or can only invoke TeeVee personalities they dislike to make a point.
You have to admit that’s rather poor

However I am personally not upset about it, nothing new.
No skin of my nose, just laying it out.
If some y’all fellas wanna discuss US politics like that.
By all means, go ahead and knock yourself out.
Just don’t expect to be taken serious.

EastTexas

Memnoch wrote: »

Right, and it astounds me that you fail to see that this is exactly what is being done with this "far left extremist" nonsense. Every time anyone disagrees with something "they" try to do, or say, they are labelled as a "far left extremist." They are convenient bogeymen.

You speak with disdain for the dismissal of ideas, you complain endlessly about how the debate is about caricaturisation and personality rather than issues, yet that's exactly what you are doing yourself.

We CAN have a debate about it because I want to see what you, a seemingly intelligent person considers, 'far left ideology,' and on what basis. This is as much for my education as it is for my desire to debate the issue with you.

Yet you repeatedly refuse to engage and resort to the same cliche's parroted by the people you claim don't really represent you, i.e. fox news and co. Because this seems to be their modus operandi. Any voice of dissent = 'far left/liberal extremist,' which ironically is a perfect mirror of what you are accusing these so called extremists of doing.

So lets try and break from that and talk about the actual ideologies or issues that you claim these extremists support.

Perhaps you are assuming that I want to have a debate with you.
Please consider that perhaps I don’t, just based on your past posting to me.
It would not be anything personal, rest assured.
Neither would you be the first.

southsiderosie

EastTexas wrote: »

Actually that came from Chris Mathews (who I like, not meaning that I agree with everything he puts forth).

I remember him harping on that for months.
First declaring Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party. lol
Then Palin which didn’t stick either, except for some left leaning blogs picking it up.
All whilst running that Bachman clip for well over a year now regularly, (heck weekly) where she suggested to investigate Congress for un-Americanism and some other nonsense.
After all, they have diverted a large section of their political programming to report on another network/Fox. LOL.
Where as Fox doesn’t even mention them.

I like Chris, but dude can’t let go.
He’s a “serial repeater” of manufactured infotainment talking points long after they been dead, still carrying the torch.

But none of that is part in any substantive debate about politics or policy.
When people communicate via their favorite talk show hosts by proxy.
Or can only invoke TeeVee personalities they dislike to make a point.
You have to admit that’s rather poor

However I am personally upset about it.
No skin of my nose, just laying it out.
If some y’all fellas wanna discuss US politics like that.
By all means, go ahead and knock yourself out.
Just don’t expect to be taken serious.

I'd appreciate it if you actually responded to the issues raised in my post (struggle for control over the direction of the GOP; pundits vs politicians; lack of ideas) rather than assuming that I am some kind of Daily Kos-bot and therefore cannot be "taken serious".

To suggest that over the last few years Limbaugh, and more recently Palin, have not played a powerful role in defining who is a conservative and/or who is a "real" republican is disingenuous at best, and willfully ignorant at worst.

Oh, and for the record (not that it matters), I don't watch MSNBC, so I have no idea what Olbermann or Mathews has to say about anything these days.

Memnoch

EastTexas wrote: »

Perhaps you are assuming that I want to have a debate with you.
Please consider that perhaps I don’t, just based on your past posting to me.
It would not be anything personal, rest assured.
Neither would you be the first.

I simply assumed that you wanted to have a debate on substantive issues rather than engage in the kind of pointless name calling you so claim to loathe. But it's just easier to scream "extremist liberal" at every opportunity than actually face any real probing of your prejudices. I don't blame you for taking the easy option. Neither would you be the first.