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

[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.

[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?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Paft: The Glass Steagal act is one example, and it's meant to prevent what happened to our economy in 2008.
s: Well it didn't, so can you really consider it an example to be followed?

It likely would have if it had been left intact.

Is it your claim that Glass Steagal was not significantly undermined over the past few decades?

Paft Uh, no, it's not "primarily defined" that way except by right wingers opposed to liberalism.
sw: And I could say the same thing about your definition of what it means to be right-wing. ;)

Your typically gassy and pretentious definition of liberal is "fetishization of a group/tribal identity over that of the individual emphasizing the concepts of both collective achievement/reward and collective guilt/punishment." That's a definition that could be applied to Nazi Germany, about as notorious a right-wing society as there is.

I realize that part of you guys playing around with language is an attempt to rewrite history so that the Nazis qualify as liberals rather than right wingers, but you really need to be honest about it while you're doing it. Admit that you want to fundamentally change the definition of "liberal" rather than pretend that you're invoking common usage. At least be that honest.

What is incorrect about my observation that "Typically being defined as 'right wing' rather than moderate in this country involves an emphasis on social issues -- as in opposition to feminism, gay rights, abortion rights -- a covert or overt appeal to white supremacists, and an opposition to Communism that borders on or overtakes McCarthyism."

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

Well, my primary "core principal" in our discussions is a certain allegiance to language, i.e., the common usage of terms like "liberal," "conservative," "left wing" and "right wing." You don't seem to share that allegiance, possibly because you prefer that language not actually be connected in any meaningful way with reality.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It likely would have if it had been left intact.

Is it your claim that Glass Steagal was not significantly undermined over the past few decades?.

No but I'd like to know what you think changed, and in what way it would have prevented or mitigated the 2008 crisis.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

as for the rest...

Your definition of "right-wing" was simply a list of ideas and positions you disagree with. What is it about those ideas that makes them specifically right-wing as opposed to something else? Likwise what is it about a given idea or position that makes it "left-wing". Do you even have a process for making that determination?


***

Well, my primary "core principal" in our discussions is a certain allegiance to language, i.e., the common usage of terms like "liberal," "conservative," "left wing" and "right wing." You don't seem to share that allegiance, possibly because you prefer that language not actually be connected in any meaningful way with reality

Language is not some immutable thing. It is a medium for communication, and as variable as the people who speak it. "The common usage of terms" is by nature subjective and subject to change. One need only look at something trivial as by what name you call a soft drink to see this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/soda-vs-pop_n_2103764.html). (I'm guessing that you're a "soda"-lady being from the west coast)

It is clear that despite sharing a common language and common nationality we have vastly different cultural and biographical backgrounds. What is common to you is not neccesarily common to me or to anyone else reading this for that matter. This is why I harp on definitions.