The internal fallout

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

"Any jackass can kick down a barn door. It takes a carpenter to hang one. We need a few more carpenters around here, and everybody knows it." (Charlie Dent (R)).

Yeah, well, the GOP are tearing themselves apart from within, the right wing of the party having now forced John "Crybaby" Boehner to step down.

It's the "mavericktards" vs "establishsters" battle all over again. And this, just a year after the GOP had won Congress. And about a year before the general and presidential election. Congrats, GOP! You do like to contest the Democrats' title in the best self-shooters-in-the-foot competition.

Of course, John "Orange-face" Boehner has only himself to blame here, despite his contributions to the party. What he and the likes of Mitch "Turtleman" McConnell have failed to understand is that they wouldn't need the erratic teabaggers if the vast majority of silent moderates at their side of the political divide had truly said enough is enough and reached out to the Democrats for bipartisan cooperation, which would've saved the US from its increasingly detrimental political polarization. It's no surprise that the best times for the country for the last few decades, both economically and socially, had been at a time when in the Clinton years bipartisan work was largely the norm rather than a curious exception (the whole impeachment debacle aside).

That said, when Peter King calls the caucus "crazies", you can be sure as hell they've gone way beyond the fringe already.

Comments

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I was gonna say good riddance, but then I realized you're making it sound as if his departure is actually bad news.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

It could be. There are even worse options than the Boner. Imagine if a teabagger got at the helm.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Worst case scenario, the Dems would be "forced" to use their filibuster or veto, quelle horreur!

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

I know, roles change like a swing.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

::shrugs::

Republicans are, in general, closely wedded to their principles and ideology. It is, therefore, not particularly surprising that this causes more fractious debate and diversity within the party. The GOP is always, always on the brink of disintegration in the eyes of many commentators.

Nevertheless, Republicans have a firm grip on the Congress for at least the next couple cycles, 31 of the 50 states have Republican governors, the party controls something like 2/3 of State legislatures, they control both the legislature and the executive branches in almost half of all states. There is a pretty good chance that the next president will sport an "R" after their name. In last decade the GOP has risen to a level of dominance unprecedented in the modern era. Thanks, Obama!

You will pardon me if I don't hold my breath in anticipation of any imminent collapse.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Any chance that the tea partiers would figure they could further hijack the GOP? Raise a Speaker, maybe? Now wouldn't THAT be helpful to the country!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

They will try, the person most likely to take over would be House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. That said if the GOP's big-shots really wanted to stave off further defections they would pick someone from the House Oversight Committee or at least someone who is a bit more of a budget hawk and as a carrot to the Tea Party.

ETA:
With a solid majority in both the house and the senate one would have expected the Republicans to do more to reassert the power of the legislature or at the very least try to clean house, and put Obama on the defensive. The fact that they haven't is the chief reasons that "outsiders" like Trump and Carson are so popular. If you ignore your base for long enough they will eventually find someone else to back .

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Interesting use of the word "hijack." As if someone other than the members of a democratically organized party can decide which policies are best for the party to follow without obviating the whole "democracy" thing. If "tea partiers" have the votes, then they get to decide the direction of the party. By definition. No one hijacks anything when they win the argument, they just win the argument. For better or worse.

Would it be helpful to the country? I guess that depends on what you think would be more helpful to the country, further centralization and concentration of power in the hands of Washington politicians and their cronies, or less. I always like to vote for less, but I never seem to get my way. So, I won't hold my breath for the "tea partiers" to get anywhere, either. I am increasingly persuaded that the US's time as a constitutional republic with a limited government is coming to a slow and cumbersome end. I hope it out lives me by at least little bit.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Yes, hijack. It's a conservative party, not a libertarian party.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

If enough republicans decide that thier party ought to be more libertarian why shouldn't it?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

How many is "enough"?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

We're talking about a nominally democratic organization so 50% or more.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

In that case, citation needed that 50% or more of the republicans want their party to be more libertarian.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The fact that tea-party backed candidates keep winning.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

But are they 50% or more of the republicans? Because that's what you said. I still need a citation that the tea partiers now constitute a majority within the Republican party.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Unless you are trying to imply that the internal elections are fraudulent, the results would seem to indicate that at least 50% of GOP voters are ok with the party heading in that direction. If they weren't, Cantor would still be majority leader, and the primary field would look a lot different.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

No, you're not going to get away so easily. Show me undeniable proof that more than 50% of the Republicans are supporters of the Tea Party, or I'll consider that you're pulling shit out of your ass.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Can you offer evidence that the GOP electorial results do not reflect GOP voter preference?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Proving a negative is a fallacy.

So you've got nothing. Okay then.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I've got election results.

If you're going to argue that they are fraudulent that's on you.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Show me.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

No, You're the one making the assertion here.

Are election results indicative of voter preference or aren't they?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Stop wasting my time and show me the proof that you've been so stubbornly trying to wriggle away from. More than 50% of the Republicans have decided that their party ought to be more libertarian - that is exactly your assertion (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/2018295.html?thread=150258167#t150258167). It's yours, not mine. Prove it or stop wasting my time.

For your info, unless your very next comment contains concrete evidence of your assertion, I shall consider this conversation done, and you having failed to support your argument with anything beyond blowing hot air.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The fact that you refuse to accept electoral results as evidence shows that the only person wasting his time here is me.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Yeah, just as I suspected, you've got nothing. Have a nice day then.

(frozen) (no subject)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I have plenty just nothing that you're willing to accept it seems.

I am still waiting for your proof that libertarian-leaning candidates only win through fraud rather than through people actually voting for them.

(frozen) (no subject)

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

What?

(frozen) (no subject)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Another deliberate strawman. You've done this before. You've been warned (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/2010881.html?thread=150231297#t150231297) against it before. Many times. You've also been explicitly penalized for it. And you still keep doing it.

You're a shameless troll. And you don't even bother to hide that any more.



Go spend another 2 weeks off.

You've already been told more than once that these would keep coming at an ever accelerating rate. Given your complete lack of responsiveness, I think we'd be better off without you at this point.

For you information, your next suspension will be your last.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

The crickets. Can you hear them?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

On one hand his resignation has been a long time coming. The establishment wing of the GOP (as personified by folks like Beohner, Jeb Bush, and Rove) is trying like he to undercut the appeal of the Tea Party and other "outsider" candidates like Trump. The problem of course is that their appeal is directly attributable to the establishment's own perceived weakness (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/26/every_now_and_then_the_gop_should_disrupt_the_status_quo__128227.html).

From a Democrat’s perspective, why would you let an appropriations bill pass if you know that the Republican leadership will just surrender at the end of the fiscal year?

On the other hand, I kind of feel sorry for Beohner. He out-maneuvered Obama in the 2013 budget negotiations and as a result federal spending genuinely declined for the first time since World War II. Without control of the White House or a veto-proof majority in the Senate, I'm not sure how much more he could have realistically accomplished.

ETA:
Sure, I would have liked to see the Democrats actually forced to Veto, Filibuster, or (unthinkable of unthinkables) actually Pass a Republican-backed budget but that's exactly why the GOP establishment is being trounced by their own base.

Better to have a Rep willing to fight and loose, than one who is all talk and no action.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I'm lovin the partisanship in US politics. There's partisanship even within parties. Of course that's what happens when all you've got is two parties.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

That is not a bug, it is a feature.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Do you believe the two-party system is helpful for the better representation of all political belief systems? How is it conductive to pluralism?

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on how much you value stability and predictability versus responsiveness and reform. On balance, I think the current US tradition of two more or less broad coalitions aligning themselves along a two party axis has been helpful. More people feel more represented and each party is kept from becoming too myopic on any given issue. As I have said before, there is more diversity within the main US parties than most Europeans realize. Their heterogeneous natures would be incompatible with a lot of other county's political parties who often hew much more closely to a central ideology.

In the Democratic party, for instance, you have members who would be considered Christian Democrats in Germany, Social Democrats or even Leftists as well as Greens. In the GOP you have Christian Democrats, Free Democrats, Family Party and some who are analogous to Euroskeptic/nativist parties. When you vote for a congressman in the US you are most often voting for the person themselves, not for the party. The party is not unimportant, but it is secondary to the individual. It is more of a broad marker for general attitudes toward government than it is a statement of any specific set of policies.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Has been helpful to what. The status quo? It sure as hell has. But that wasn't my question.

Diversity within a party is not the same like diversity of representation.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I don't think you can look at the history of US society and politics over the last 20, 40 or 60 year spans and argue that the status quo hasn't been fundamentally remade several times over. Unless your definition of "status quo" is so absurdly broad that encompasses all things American.

Diversity within a party is not the same like diversity of representation.

What does that even mean? Diversity as defined how? Gender? Skin color? Ethnicity? Opinion? How many ways do you have to cut the pie before you call it representative? In the US we cut it into about 8 chunks. Three go to the Democrats, three go to the Republicans and one gets squabbled over by both. The last one is just doesn't have enough constituents to be viable. You aren't entitled to a seat in congress just because you can gather together a few percent of people to agree with you that we should return to the gold standard or that we should withdraw from the UN or NATO or the WTO. You need a constituency that at least will get you elected. For a House seat that is about 150,000 people. If you can't convince people you'd be better than their current representatives, then you don't have a convincing enough argument. The problem for these smaller parties is that when they start to gain traction, one or both of the major parties will co-opt some of their policies and incorporate them into the Democratic or GOP platform. Libertarian Party, I am looking at you. This is why politics ain't the same as bean bag.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

> How many ways do you have to cut the pie before you call it representative?

You see, in almost every other democratic country there's a variety of parties, each representing a certain set of ideas. People can vote for their favorite set of ideas by electing this party or the other. They're not confined to just two options.

Nice apologetic attempt in favor of an almost-one-party system, though.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

This is true.

And then, after an election, the compromising and horse-trading begins to form the coalition which will govern, and all of those different and specific interests become watered-down and homogenised. Rarely does a coalition manage to please any of its constituent parts.

Whatever you do, the government gets in.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Forming a coalition requires compromise, yes. The thing with compromise is that all sides remain slightly discontent with the results after the negotiations are done - and yet, they still go back to the table, and prefer compromise to the other options.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

The end result is still essentially a 2 party system. Those in the coalition and those outside.

What is it about pre-arranged coalitions that you find so objectionable?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

No, the end result is essentially a one-party system. With two slightly different flavors of the same thing. If anyone believes either party would like to change the current status quo, they must be living in La-la-land.

I find all pre-arranged things objectionable. Pre-arranging the outcome of an election renders election (and hence, democracy) useless. It's an imitation of democracy, definitely without even the slightest hint of a pretense for pluralism. That's not democracy. It's oligarchy.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

The problem is that governing requires actually being willing to govern. It means understanding that we do not live in a single-party dictatorship, that folks of various ideologies are governing alongside of you, and that sometimes you're not going to get your way. I means understanding that it is not evil to compromise on Issue A in order to get the more important Issue B passed, that governing means understanding priorities, picking one's battles, and being willing to bend so as not to break. It means seeing your ideological rivals as humans that can be compromised with, and not as wicked monstrous demons who must be resisted at every turn. Unfortunately, half of the caucus is made up of folks who are kind-of reasonable (and understand that compromise is a necessary part of the game of politics) and the rest is made up of people who think that any form of compromise is betrayal, or even treason (and whose grasp on things like basic facts is more than a little suspect.) They think that someone like Fiorina "remembering" seeing something horrible on a tape (when such footage does not actually exist) is as damning as if that footage actually existed - and that legislation should be based on that. They think that any deviation from ideological purity makes one "part of the establishment" and a traitor to the cause. They've sold this narrative to themselves for so long that they actually believe it, and attack anyone who dares to act outside of their specific, narrow, script (even when action is needed to, say, salvage the economy: case in point, the debt limit fight from 2011 when Allen West, a Tea Party "darling" got attacked for daring to actually do what his job required. They don't care that the house is burning down around them, so long as purity is maintained. Anyone who goes to fight the fire is a traitor, because damnit, they are going to have a conversation about the color of these drapes.)

Trying to lead that a political coalition like this is like trying to herd cats. I feel bad for the guy; his job had become an impossible one, but honestly the GOP has no one to blame but themselves. They created this monster, now they're enjoying the consequences. Sure, the "we will not compromise with anyone ever" contingent plays well with the base (so sure, they'll always see some success in the mid-terms), but when it comes time for the general election, that kind of attitude can only alienate the average American. They've pushed the "voice" of conservatism farther and farther into the lunatic fringe, and everyday people are starting to notice. They come across less as leaders, and more as petulant toddlers.