So, Republicans -- What's the Next Step?

[paft.livejournal.com]

There's been some discussion here about the right wing response to the shocking, I tell you, SHOCKING re-election of President Obama and the over-the-top reaction we've been seeing. A lot of it has involved personal idiocies from Freeper vowing everything from cutting off disabled Obama supporting relatives from support (I kid you not) divorcing spouses, spitting on neighbors, moving into bunkers, etc.

And there have been some hints of payback from people actually in a position to hurt either Obama supporters or perceived Obama supporters. The CEO of the same coal company that forced employees to spend a day without pay listening to a Romney speech laid off over a hundred employees on November 9th after publicly reading an unctuous and insulting "prayer," and on Thursday a man claiming to be a business owner in Georgia called C-Span and boasted about cutting employee hours and laying off two people because of the election. “I tried to make sure the people I laid off voted for Obama,” he said.

The fact remains -- Obama won.

Attempts at limiting the franchise and making it hard to vote didn't help Republicans. It just pissed off a lot of voters to the point where they were willing to stand in line for seven hours to vote for a Democrat. Threatening to fire employees if Obama were re-elected didn't help Republicans. It just highlighted the insidious damage Citizens United has done to our political environment. Attacking blacks, women, gays, and hispanics didn't work. It just galvanized a large portion of black, gay, female, hispanic, etc. voters into fighting Republicans.

So my question is, Republicans, what's the next step?

A couple of weeks ago, Frank Rich wrote a piece in Salon about the fact that losing an election does not seem to make the Republicans reassess their extended march to the right. They just double down and march further to the right.

Is that what's going to happen, Republicans? Because I have to tell you, you've been marching to the right for so many years you're on the verge of stepping off one hell of an ideological cliff. Are you going to openly embrace the genteel racism of Charles Murray? Are you going to openly work to limit the vote only to people of a certain income level? Is the aim going to be disenfranchising large portions of the public and telling the rest, "vote for us or we'll fire you?"

Just curious.

*

Comments

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

The country being "run into the ground" doesn't sound like it would fare well for most people.

But whatever. Just like, don't go flying any planes into any buildings ok.

[paft.livejournal.com]

dp: No, that is not nearly on the same scale as firing people, and so it's irrelevant. - A girl fearing for her life isn't on the same level as someone losing their livelihood? I beg to differ. Life isn't insignificant or even "irrelevant", in case you need to be reminded.

You think there aren't Obama supporters who've been harassed to the point of being afraid?

dp: Saying there are assholes on both side and no one is denying that "but then again..." doesn't help your argument.

Your entire approach to argument seems to consist of ignoring nuance, of pretending that if any assholery exists at all on side B, the much greater assholery on side A is absolved.

dp: Ageist B.S. aside, I can tell you I was old enough to remember the 2000 election. In fact, it was the first election where I could vote. It wasn't as incendiary before the election, nothing like the kind of violence that was seen during the health care town halls or anything like that, but it certainly wasn't a love-in.

And was there a rash of Democratic employers talking about firing Republican employees? Were there a lot of Democrats in general talking about shunning Republican friends, neighbors, and relatives. Again, as someone who lives in one of the most liberal cities in the country, I didn't see any of that.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I see no evidence to support that assertion. Assuming it is true, I'd also expect those neighoborhoods to be the most heavily populated, and thus the most likely to be a target of fraud.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

There's no point to concede. You cry wolf at supposed racism at every opportunity, and then get surprised when no one hears them except the left. I see nothing to concede here.

[paft.livejournal.com]

paft: Capitalism practiced with some level of government oversight as opposed to a laissez-faire system.
sw: What level of oversight constitutes "some" and, of far greater import, what is that level of oversight meant to achieve?

The Glass Steagal act is one example, and it's meant to prevent what happened to our economy in 2008.

sw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

In other words, you're not using the common usage of the term "liberalism" as used in modern political discussion. You're just playing your usual word games.

SW: In contrast modern Liberalism is primarily defined by the fetishization of a group/tribal identity over that of the individual emphasizing the concepts of both collective achievement/reward and collective guilt/punishment.

Uh, no, it's not "primarily defined" that way except by right wingers opposed to liberalism.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Citizens United, the organization founded in the late 1980s and the group behind the Hillary movie and USSC case, is not the same as Citizens United Not Timid, a Roger Stone-backed 527 launched in 2008.

[paft.livejournal.com]

And how to do that? Why did those 400,000 people not vote?

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: There's no point to concede. You cry wolf at supposed racism at every opportunity, and then get surprised when no one hears them except the left. I see nothing to concede here.

If the Republican party embraces the willful ignorance you show here, it is doomed.

[paft.livejournal.com]

v: I didn't say you're shifting. The point was - there are many factors influencing election results and it's incorrect to pick one you like the most or generalize, like Paft does.The initial question was to Paft cause she likes things simple and straight - feed the poor to stop poverty and so on.

Should the poor not be fed? And no, my claim is not that feeding the poor will end poverty. Feeding the poor will, however, make poverty less dangerous and keep the poor healthy enough that they have a better chance of getting out of poverty.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> Feeding the poor will, however, make poverty less dangerous and keep the poor healthy enough that they have a better chance of getting out of poverty.

Poverty is when you have no food, clothing, shelter and medical treatment.
That's why people afraid it in the first place.
That's why people want to get out of it.
Getting out of poverty usually means working hard to get some food, clothing, etc.

You want to eliminate the "working hard" portion and provide things for free. But that's changes the whole thing - there are no more poor people, they all have shelter, food AND they don't need to do anything at all to get it.
And thus your words "getting out of poverty" simply don't apply cause that's not the poverty we defined above.

[paft.livejournal.com]

v: Poverty is when you have no food, clothing, shelter and medical treatment.

In a developed, industrialized country, poverty includes having inadequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical treatment.

v: That's why people afraid it in the first place.That's why people want to get out of it. Getting out of poverty usually means working hard to get some food, clothing, etc.

Do you think the poor don't work hard?

There are many families in this country who have jobs, work hard, and are still poor.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

So let's give to these families everything for free so they can stop working?

It's obvious that feeding and sheltering those whom you call "poor" doesn't eliminate or reduce what you call "poverty" because the more comfortable life you create for them, the less incentives they have to abandon this life.
Your method doesn't work.

I don't mind reducing poverty, I'm on your side - but you're not.

[paft.livejournal.com]

v: So let's give to these families everything for free so they can stop working?

No. Let's ensure that they have enough food, shelter, and medical care that they don't have to spend every spare minute struggling for these things, and stay healthy enough to work.

Most civilized and developed societies grasp this concept.

v: It's obvious that feeding and sheltering those whom you call "poor" doesn't eliminate or reduce what you call "poverty" because the more comfortable life you create for them, the less incentives they have to abandon this life.
Your method doesn't work.

And you imagine allowing people to get sick from malnutrition and descend into homelessness DOES work?

We've tried a society without a social safety net. It didn't work. It just meant large numbers of people either dying or becoming disabled.

Do you like that idea?

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> Let's ensure that they have enough food, shelter, and medical care that they don't have to spend every spare minute struggling for these things, and stay healthy enough to work.

I.e. let's give them more food, shelter and medical care for free.

As expected, you DO want it simple and straight - but it's not.

So, there are Smith and Jones families, immigrants. Both have shitty place to live and junkfood cause that's what newcomers can afford.
Babysitting and dish-washing for $X per hour.
Smith family works harder, longer hours, establishes reputation, charges $(X+5) per hour, buys insurance and moves into better apartment.
Jones family works not that effective so they can't raise prices and stay where they were.

And here come you and move Jones family in a better place, providing them for free all the things the other family has earned working hard.
The fact that Smith's taxes were spent to keep you and to supply Jones family makes the situation even nicer.


>>And you imagine allowing people to get sick from malnutrition and descend into homelessness DOES work?

If we're talking about silly kids eating candies instead of a full meal - your language may apply.
But we're talking about self-responsible adults whom you picture as silly kids requiring care.
Otherwise I don't understand your constant willing to decide for the others what to eat and how to live.

I don't even think in terms of "allowing people" to do this and that, because I respect others, and I don't think my _ideas_ on how to live are better or worse than let's say yours.
You, obviously, think that your ideas are the best, and other people shall be forced to do as you want.

>> We've tried . It didn't work. It just meant large numbers of people either dying or becoming disabled.
Sorry, but this makes no sense.
it's like saying in 1960 in the USSR, "We've tried to live without communist party, it didn't work."
Or in Germany in 1940: "We've tried to live without World War 2, it didn't work."
Or nowadays, "We've tried to live without Facebook, it didn't work."

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I'm not the one running it into the ground, now am I?

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Better GOTV efforts?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It should be obvious what the oversight is meant to achieve: no breadlines and no large revolutionary movements hellbent on destroying the established order.

This would be the rationalist responce, but Paft is not a rationalist. I want to know what she thinks the goal is or if she even has one beyond more and/or democrat-sponsored regulation = good, less and/or republican-sponsored = bad.

BTW, modern genocides have invariably been the products of Right/conservative regimes.

Invariably? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I'll grant you Imperial Japan, and the US/Indian wars but if you're qualifying Communism and its derivatives or the assorted Post-Imperialist Populism movements in Central Africa as being "right wing" you're clearly using a different definition from the rest of us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics).

Likewise one can debate just how "Left" or "Right" National Socialism is seeing as the only difference between Ultra-Reactionaries and Ultra-Revolutionaries are the labels they apply to eachother.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The first step If you want to learn someone's mind, or change it, is always to attack the base assumptions.

I don't know any serious political observer who doesn't think the Republican party today is significantly more conservative that 40 years ago. And that the Democratic party is also more conservative, but the move for the Republican party has been far more significant. Like I said earlier, the Vote View database shows this, and it's pretty asymmetrical.

But is that a result of a shift in the parties or a shift in the population?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The Glass Steagal act is one example, and it's meant to prevent what happened to our economy in 2008.

Well it didn't, so can you really consider it an example to be followed?

Uh, no, it's not "primarily defined" that way except by right wingers opposed to liberalism.

And I could say the same thing about your definition of what it means to be right-wing. ;)

Do you have a core principal, or are you just in this for the crusade?

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

In other words, the same way you've been tacitly supporting them for the past 4 years.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it getting so it is hard to tell what is an Onion story, and what a republican actually said.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The first step If you want to learn someone's mind, or change it, is always to attack the base assumptions.

Yeah I know how it works. And I've seen enough exchanges between Politikitty and LJ conservatives on this subject with her citing Vote Call's extensive database on this subject.

I'm not interested in beating that dead horse any further.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bdj: I see no evidence to support that assertion.

What would you accept as evidence, other than the demographic breakdown of the people most affected by this suppression?

[paft.livejournal.com]

v: I.e. let's give them more food, shelter and medical care for free.

I have absolutely no problem with giving people who cannot afford to pay for their own food, shelter, and medical care free food, shelter, or medical care.

What do you think is likely to happen to them if we don't?

v: So, there are Smith and Jones families, immigrants. Both have shitty place to live and junkfood cause that's what newcomers can afford. Babysitting and dish-washing for $X per hour. Smith family works harder, longer hours, establishes reputation, charges $(X+5) per hour, buys insurance and moves into better apartment. Jones family works not that effective so they can't raise prices and stay where they were.

What do you mean "not that effective?" Are you claiming that any failure to get ahead economically means the Jones family must be somehow dumber, lazier, less deserving than the Smith family? Maybe the Jones family's employers are screwing them over, not paying them enough and working Mr. and Mrs. Jones into burnout. Maybe Mr. Jones has been hurt and is unable to work long hours. Maybe Mrs. Jones is sick and can't work at all -- not surprising if all they can afford is "junk food."

v: And here come you and move Jones family in a better place, providing them for free all the things the other family has earned working hard.

Uh, no, offering someone assistance to keep them fed, healthy and with a roof over their heads does not mean they're going to be enjoying the same amenities as families who manage to move into the middle class.

You do understand that, right?

v: The fact that Smith's taxes were spent to keep you and to supply Jones family makes the situation even nicer.

My taxes are also being spent. So are the Jones' taxes.

What makes you think I don't pay taxes, by the way?

V: If we're talking about silly kids eating candies instead of a full meal - your language may apply.
But we're talking about self-responsible adults whom you picture as silly kids requiring care.

No, I don't see them as "silly kids." I see them as hardworking people who literally can't afford to pay for the necessities of life.

Do you think every working adult who depends on a foodbank at the end of the month is the equivalent of a "silly kid?"

paft: We've tried . It didn't work. It just meant large numbers of people either dying or becoming disabled.
v: Sorry, but this makes no sense. it's like saying in 1960 in the USSR, "We've tried to live without communist party, it didn't work." Or in Germany in 1940: "We've tried to live without World War 2, it didn't work." Or nowadays, "We've tried to live without Facebook, it didn't work."

Actually, it's this weird analogy of yours that makes no sense. This notion I keep seeing from the right that doing away with the social safety net is some sort of daring and new experiment that won't have dire consequences for many people is more akin to someone saying "Let's get rid of all those pesky traffic signs on the highway and see what happens. And while we're at it, let's eliminate all those silly anti-discrimination laws. And food safety laws. What could happen?"