I posted the following to the New York Times article "Yes, Senator, You Wouldn't Want to Lose Your Mammograms – or Women Voters". See http://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/yes-senator-you-wouldnt-want-to-lose-your-mammograms-or-women-voters.html?comments#permid=21906167
I think we should stop calling "Republicans" Republicans. They definitely are not the party of Res Publica (public things). They either are corporatists or stone throwing sinners.
I always wonder where the party I once was a precinct officer of would have become if John Anderson had won the nomination in 1980.
- End of NYT submission
Around the time Ronald Reagan became President the term RINO started being used heavily: Republican in Name Only. It was used to cast out those who believed in the "big tent" that both parties claimed to be.
But I often wonder if the term shouldn't be "RHINO", a big, lumbering mammal with poor eyesight and a willingness to attack anything it sees as a threat. Which is just about anything that moves.
Showing posts with label RINO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RINO. Show all posts
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Whatever happened to real Republicans?
Once upon a time we were active Republican Party members at the precinct level. Then Reagan won the nomination instead of John Anderson, and Republicans became more rigid in their beliefs. It was about this time that the term RINO was coined: Republican In Name Only. And the Republicans stopped being a big tent party. This rigidity should not be mistaken for conservatism, a thoughtful consideration of change.
There have been a few bright spots like Bill Frenzel, Representative of 3rd Minnesota district, and Arne Carlson, Gov. of Minnesota after the Republican candidate imploded because of inappropriate behavior with teen-age girls. So much for the "moral" party. BTW Carlson still writes a blog: http://govarnecarlson.blogspot.com/
Since then, there have been more and more rigid stances, including eight years of obstruction of a Democratic President. Bi-partisan legislation happens too infrequently.
I would say the only thing "conservative" is to "conserve our world view" despite plentiful evidence to the contrary.
Comment to New York Times article "On Where the Republican Party Went Wrong", Charlie Sykes, 2016-12-15
There have been a few bright spots like Bill Frenzel, Representative of 3rd Minnesota district, and Arne Carlson, Gov. of Minnesota after the Republican candidate imploded because of inappropriate behavior with teen-age girls. So much for the "moral" party. BTW Carlson still writes a blog: http://govarnecarlson.blogspot.com/
Since then, there have been more and more rigid stances, including eight years of obstruction of a Democratic President. Bi-partisan legislation happens too infrequently.
I would say the only thing "conservative" is to "conserve our world view" despite plentiful evidence to the contrary.
Comment to New York Times article "On Where the Republican Party Went Wrong", Charlie Sykes, 2016-12-15
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Conservatives are liberals and Liberals are conservative?
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I’ve often tried to make sense of the above phrase, frequently quoted out of context. Without looking up anybody else’s thoughts for this article, I’ve understand it to mean that we should adapt to the context of the situation. For example, a “foolish consistency” would be to work in the garden in a three-piece suit or a ball gown. If one dresses in a certain way for many situations, then one should always dress that way. No! No! One should adapt to the situation.
In reference to political parties, I think the phrase can be turned around to:
“A foolish inconsistency is the work of little minds.”
Rather than a set of general principles, political positions seem to have degenerated into a set of bullet points. I think this started when some Republicans thought that other Republicans were RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). These RINOs did not take seriously every single position that the “True Republicans” did.
I am sure this “conservative”/“liberal” dialog has been going on longer than that, but for some time the Republicans and Democrats were called “big-tent” parties, meaning that they accepted people with a variety of views. The Democrats accepted Southern segregationists and the Republicans accepted those who thought business should be regulated.
For a long time Republicans have been “pro-business” but not every Republican has been “business can do no wrong”. Think Teddy Roosevelt and the trust busters. Think Eisenhower warning of the “military-industrial complex.”
I think in the nineteenth century, liberals were the ones who embraced the change from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing economy. The conservatives were the one’s who wanted to protect local farmers from the “liberal” large corporations.
Now it seems the roles have reversed. Liberals want to promote and protect local agriculture; conservatives want to protect the rights of large agribusinesses to do as they please.
For the rest of this article, I am going to write mostly about the short-comings of conservatives. It’s not that there are not short-comings of liberals; it’s just that I think the short-comings of conservatives are more dangerous to our democracy than those of liberals.
Conservatives have devolved from those who deliberate carefully to those who want to preserve the power of corporations or of certain religious groups. This is in itself a contradiction. Corporations tout the free market (a “liberal” idea); certain religious groups tout certain moral standards. Interestingly, the “free market” is amoral. According to some “free marketers”, it is perfectly logical to sell fetus parts.
These “free marketers” often ignore two important points of a true free market: buyer and seller have all the information they need to conduct a transaction, and there are no externalities. Can you easily get the cost of a telecommunication service? Is not pollution an externality?
It is interesting that the religious groups allied with conservatives don’t call them on pollution. Isn’t it a basic tenet of almost all religions to “do unto others as you would have then do unto you?” Would these polluters like it if their neighbors burned garbage in their backyards or had malfunctioning chimneys?
Unfortunately, it seems many of these “conservative” religious groups are overly selective in what they quote from scripture. They seem to prefer the punitive verses to the open and generous verses. Stone adulterers and homosexuals, but forget “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” They complain that abortion is murder, but they ally with a party that favors the murder of executions and of war.
In the late twentieth century, many conservatives complained about “activist courts” interpreting the law in such a way to make “new law”. Now, a conservative Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “persons” and has interpreted “people” (a collective noun) to mean “person” (a singular noun).
Many conservatives are interpreting “freedom of religion” to mean freedom of action instead of freedom of thought. But what happens when one persons “free exercise” interferes with another person’s “free exercise”. Second guessing the writers of the Second Amendment, I would say that they meant “free exercise” meaning one could go to a church of his or her choice.
One violation of the Constitution is even “infecting” “liberals”: the Fourth Amendment seems to be completely forgotten in massive collection of telecommunications data without “probable cause” or “an oath or warrant” “describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I guess the place is “everywhere” and the persons and things are “everyone and everything.”
I think of the Constitution as an outline of governing ourselves: not some foreign government or self-appointed dictator. Now it seems, that conservative politicians, who gave an oath to protect the Constitution are more interested in selling government to the highest bidder. And they have the gall to call unpatriotic those who question any war that will benefit some large corporations.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
- Lewis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland
Have we fallen down “the rabbit hole” into a political “Wonderland”?
Those who believe as Humpty Dumpty should remember “Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall; Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.”
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-09-17 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/09/16/5933_conservatives_are_liberals_and_liberals_are.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I’ve often tried to make sense of the above phrase, frequently quoted out of context. Without looking up anybody else’s thoughts for this article, I’ve understand it to mean that we should adapt to the context of the situation. For example, a “foolish consistency” would be to work in the garden in a three-piece suit or a ball gown. If one dresses in a certain way for many situations, then one should always dress that way. No! No! One should adapt to the situation.
In reference to political parties, I think the phrase can be turned around to:
“A foolish inconsistency is the work of little minds.”
Rather than a set of general principles, political positions seem to have degenerated into a set of bullet points. I think this started when some Republicans thought that other Republicans were RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). These RINOs did not take seriously every single position that the “True Republicans” did.
I am sure this “conservative”/“liberal” dialog has been going on longer than that, but for some time the Republicans and Democrats were called “big-tent” parties, meaning that they accepted people with a variety of views. The Democrats accepted Southern segregationists and the Republicans accepted those who thought business should be regulated.
For a long time Republicans have been “pro-business” but not every Republican has been “business can do no wrong”. Think Teddy Roosevelt and the trust busters. Think Eisenhower warning of the “military-industrial complex.”
I think in the nineteenth century, liberals were the ones who embraced the change from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing economy. The conservatives were the one’s who wanted to protect local farmers from the “liberal” large corporations.
Now it seems the roles have reversed. Liberals want to promote and protect local agriculture; conservatives want to protect the rights of large agribusinesses to do as they please.
For the rest of this article, I am going to write mostly about the short-comings of conservatives. It’s not that there are not short-comings of liberals; it’s just that I think the short-comings of conservatives are more dangerous to our democracy than those of liberals.
Conservatives have devolved from those who deliberate carefully to those who want to preserve the power of corporations or of certain religious groups. This is in itself a contradiction. Corporations tout the free market (a “liberal” idea); certain religious groups tout certain moral standards. Interestingly, the “free market” is amoral. According to some “free marketers”, it is perfectly logical to sell fetus parts.
These “free marketers” often ignore two important points of a true free market: buyer and seller have all the information they need to conduct a transaction, and there are no externalities. Can you easily get the cost of a telecommunication service? Is not pollution an externality?
It is interesting that the religious groups allied with conservatives don’t call them on pollution. Isn’t it a basic tenet of almost all religions to “do unto others as you would have then do unto you?” Would these polluters like it if their neighbors burned garbage in their backyards or had malfunctioning chimneys?
Unfortunately, it seems many of these “conservative” religious groups are overly selective in what they quote from scripture. They seem to prefer the punitive verses to the open and generous verses. Stone adulterers and homosexuals, but forget “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” They complain that abortion is murder, but they ally with a party that favors the murder of executions and of war.
In the late twentieth century, many conservatives complained about “activist courts” interpreting the law in such a way to make “new law”. Now, a conservative Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are “persons” and has interpreted “people” (a collective noun) to mean “person” (a singular noun).
Many conservatives are interpreting “freedom of religion” to mean freedom of action instead of freedom of thought. But what happens when one persons “free exercise” interferes with another person’s “free exercise”. Second guessing the writers of the Second Amendment, I would say that they meant “free exercise” meaning one could go to a church of his or her choice.
One violation of the Constitution is even “infecting” “liberals”: the Fourth Amendment seems to be completely forgotten in massive collection of telecommunications data without “probable cause” or “an oath or warrant” “describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I guess the place is “everywhere” and the persons and things are “everyone and everything.”
I think of the Constitution as an outline of governing ourselves: not some foreign government or self-appointed dictator. Now it seems, that conservative politicians, who gave an oath to protect the Constitution are more interested in selling government to the highest bidder. And they have the gall to call unpatriotic those who question any war that will benefit some large corporations.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
- Lewis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland
Have we fallen down “the rabbit hole” into a political “Wonderland”?
Those who believe as Humpty Dumpty should remember “Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall; Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.”
Also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-09-17 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/09/16/5933_conservatives_are_liberals_and_liberals_are.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Fake Republicans
"A Fake Republican mistakes conformism for conservatism, forgetting that the history of true conservatism (in the Burkian tradition) rest[s] on intelligent and thoughtful non-conformism distilled from independent thinking, careful analysis, and tradition—and not the spewings of pre-determined talking points that ignore evidence, facts, and rationality."
-Michael Charney, Tea with the Mad Hatter
Michael Charney has a blog "Chasing Glenn Beck, An Incredibly Minor Public Figure". Charney also contributes to the Coffee Party http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/ where he is known the Coffee Party Conservative.
I highly recommend "Tea with the Mad Hatter" as a refreshing attempt to get some sanity back into politics.
As for the conservatism of Edmund Burke, see several of his quotes at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/edmund_burke.html. Included among them are:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (not in writings, but may be a paraphrase)
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
-Michael Charney, Tea with the Mad Hatter
Michael Charney has a blog "Chasing Glenn Beck, An Incredibly Minor Public Figure". Charney also contributes to the Coffee Party http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/ where he is known the Coffee Party Conservative.
I highly recommend "Tea with the Mad Hatter" as a refreshing attempt to get some sanity back into politics.
As for the conservatism of Edmund Burke, see several of his quotes at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/edmund_burke.html. Included among them are:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (not in writings, but may be a paraphrase)
"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Just what are conservatives conserving?
Just
what are conservatives conserving?
Melvyn D. Magree
Originally published in
Reader Weekly
August 8, 2004
Melvyn D. Magree
Originally published in
Reader Weekly
August 8, 2004
Conservative – another sweeping term that is used as a pejorative by some and as a badge of honor by others. In many ways both views are wrong, conservatism is not necessarily a bad idea and is not necessarily the best idea. The problem is that the term conservative is used to describe a grab bag of conflicting ideas and to pretend that all who call themselves conservatives will adhere to all these conflicting ideas.
Both George Will and William Safire have catalogued the factions contained in the Republican party – economic, social, libertarian, idealistic, and cultural (1). Safire wrote that the economic conservative is against “enforced redistribution of wealth” and for reduced taxes; the social conservative doesn’t like the violence in entertainment and opposes partial-birth abortion; the libertarian “is pro-choice and anti-compulsion”, the idealistic conservative believes it is America’s role to extend freedom, and the cultural conservative prefers traditional to avant-garde and the thoughtful to the emotional. He offered more complex descriptions but space and copyrights limit my explaining more. He also offered some stands that “liberals” would agree with – consumer protection from monopolies, right of counsel, and keeping “fundamentalists out of schoolrooms.”
I would make a slightly different catalog: pro-business, religious right, libertarian, and militaristic. Pro-business is more pro-CEO of larger companies; religious right is enforcing one’s religious views on others; libertarian is as Safire described, and militaristic is projecting power more than defense. They are all mixed up in a weird dance of support and conflict. Some very large businesses provide the violent entertainment that the religious right opposes; businesses like military contracts but they don’t want to pay the taxes to pay for the contracts; the religious right supports the militaristic because they believe it is bringing on Armageddon, the battle to end all battles; the libertarians resent actions of the religious right; and the militaristic play on the desires of all to promote “freedom and democracy” even as they run roughshod over “freedom and democracy” here and elsewhere. Please note: I did not write “military” but “militaristic”. The members of the military may be behaving honorably but the “militaristic” have designs beyond “defense”.
The classical definition of conservatism is holding on to what is traditional and making change gradually. It is hard to find fault with this view, we all have a bit of conservatism in ourselves. The business owner who doesn’t alter his plans until he has looked thoroughly at what change will bring about. The religious person who prefers the King James Bible rather than reading the newer translations. The person who prefers older music or art to the latest trend. Or the person who eats the same thing for breakfast every day.
However, much of what passes for conservatism is more radicalism – the abrupt change of how things were. Large businesses destroy smaller competitors or businesses that are in the way of their expansion. The religious right takes small parts of the bible literally and ignores the larger truths accepted by more traditional churches. The militaristic ignore traditional international relations in order to act on their own worldview. It seems to me that what these conservatives are attempting to conserve is their power over others.
One way they attempt to conserve power is to wrap themselves in the flag and proclaim that they are promoters of freedom and democracy. Freedom is not promoted by telling people how to conduct their private affairs, what they must believe, and what rituals they must perform. Democracy is not promoted by hiding information in the name of security or by taking checks and balances from voting to promote sales of technology.
One of the characteristics of current conservatism is unquestioning promotion of “approved” beliefs. Have you noticed that no matter how many news quotes from “conservative” sources, no matter how many letters from “conservatives”, and no matter how many opinion pieces by “conservatives”, if a newspaper or broadcaster has any news or opinions outside of this set of views, it is “liberal”? Very interesting because many newspapers and broadcasters are owned by “conservative” businesses.
A slogan that captures this mind set is RINO – Republican in name only. One of the supposed attributes of having only two political parties is that they each will cover a wide range of views – the so-called “big tent” parties. However, conservatives are increasingly demanding orthodoxy – a strict adherence to a set of beliefs. You can see this is the writings or hear it on radio shows of conservatives.
Rush Limbaugh is supposedly the master of not allowing anyone to contradict him with a different interpretation of facts. Ann Coulter hammers away with a repetitious call for orthodoxy. I’m having a tough time making it through her book Slander because of all the generalizations and selective quotes she makes to show how bad “liberals” are.
This orthodoxy carries over to support for President George W. Bush. About the only conservative commentators who might question Bush’s actions are William Safire and George Will. They may point out an inconsistency in something Bush said or did. Otherwise the President can do no wrong, unless it is not going to the right far enough.
Maybe George Bush doesn’t see himself as the Roman Emperor that Garry Trudeau depicts him as in “Doonesbury” (the empty helmet), but many of Bush’s supporters treat him as if his actions should no more be challenged than those of early Roman Emperors.
Remember, the Roman Republic fell when a general overstepped the limits the Senate set for him. Could the American Republic fall when a Commander-in-Chief reinterprets the Constitution and oversteps its limits? If so, conservatives will not have conserved freedom and democracy.
(1) William Safire, “Inside a Republican Brain”, New York Times, July 21, 2004 (Page may be available online only to subscribers)
©2004, 2007, 2013 Melvyn D. Magree
Friday, December 07, 2012
Can Gov. Chris Christie change the Republican Party?
I had my Jon Stewart dose of the day. In http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-6-2012/exclusive---chris-christie-extended-interview-pt--2, Stewart tries to pin down Christie on why Republicans thinks it's alright for the Federal Government to pay for the aftermath of natural disasters but its wrong for any government to pay for health insurance. For example, Stewart asks if having cancer and no health insurance is a natural disaster.
Christie spoke about how he tries to work with those with different philosophical ideas to come to some agreement. I understood his meaning to be that one cannot take a rigid stand.
Will other Republicans follow his lead or will they consider him a RINO (Republican in Name Only)?
Christie spoke about how he tries to work with those with different philosophical ideas to come to some agreement. I understood his meaning to be that one cannot take a rigid stand.
Will other Republicans follow his lead or will they consider him a RINO (Republican in Name Only)?
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
The second American Revolution has started, and it ain't pretty
The Republican Party has become a revolutionary party, one that tolerates no opposition.
Consider that if a Republican politician doesn't follow party doctrine then he or she is is sidelined as soon as possible. Why do you think there are so many ex-Republicans? See Jim Ramstad's praise of Wellstone, "Remembering Paul Wellstone", Star Tribune 2012-10-19.
Consider that Republicans keep insisting that their solutions will solve certain problems even when experts point out historic facts that show similar policies have not worked in the past.
Consider that Republicans' stated goal at the start of Obama's presidency was to ensure he did not have a second term. Some commentators think this is barely concealed racism. This may be true, but it is also an effective smokescreen. Their true motive may be to destroy the Democratic Party and to become the only party.
Consider the Republican claims of voter fraud. Are not voter ID requirements a thinly disguised attempt to reduce the number of Democratic voters?
Consider that the Republicans may have already started a civil war. As they give more power to corporations, are they transforming our government from "by the people" to "by the corporations"? Once corporations were tools of the people to be dissolved when their purpose was fulfilled. Now people seem to be the tools of corporations to be discarded when no longer economically useful.
See "The Great Unraveling" by Paul Krugman. He saw this revolution in 2003!
Consider that the Republicans call themselves "conservatives" but they are nowhere near being classical conservatives as defined by Edmund Burke in the Eighteenth Century. In fact, many of the so-called liberals in the Democratic Party may be closer to the Burkian model of Conservative than the Republicans. For more details, see "Why Voters Should Turn From the Pseudoconservative Party of the Great Recession, Part I", Louis M. Guenin, Huffington Post, 2012-10-24. It is quite an indictment of the hodgepodge of conflicting ideas of the Republican Party. Watch for Part II in the Huffington Post tomorrow (2012-10-25).
Consider that if a Republican politician doesn't follow party doctrine then he or she is is sidelined as soon as possible. Why do you think there are so many ex-Republicans? See Jim Ramstad's praise of Wellstone, "Remembering Paul Wellstone", Star Tribune 2012-10-19.
Consider that Republicans keep insisting that their solutions will solve certain problems even when experts point out historic facts that show similar policies have not worked in the past.
Consider that Republicans' stated goal at the start of Obama's presidency was to ensure he did not have a second term. Some commentators think this is barely concealed racism. This may be true, but it is also an effective smokescreen. Their true motive may be to destroy the Democratic Party and to become the only party.
Consider the Republican claims of voter fraud. Are not voter ID requirements a thinly disguised attempt to reduce the number of Democratic voters?
Consider that the Republicans may have already started a civil war. As they give more power to corporations, are they transforming our government from "by the people" to "by the corporations"? Once corporations were tools of the people to be dissolved when their purpose was fulfilled. Now people seem to be the tools of corporations to be discarded when no longer economically useful.
See "The Great Unraveling" by Paul Krugman. He saw this revolution in 2003!
Consider that the Republicans call themselves "conservatives" but they are nowhere near being classical conservatives as defined by Edmund Burke in the Eighteenth Century. In fact, many of the so-called liberals in the Democratic Party may be closer to the Burkian model of Conservative than the Republicans. For more details, see "Why Voters Should Turn From the Pseudoconservative Party of the Great Recession, Part I", Louis M. Guenin, Huffington Post, 2012-10-24. It is quite an indictment of the hodgepodge of conflicting ideas of the Republican Party. Watch for Part II in the Huffington Post tomorrow (2012-10-25).
Monday, August 13, 2012
Which set of no-shows will give the election away?
I started this entry as a Quote of the Day entitled "Something very disgusting". It was from hearing a radio interview with a man who called himself a Democrat. He wouldn't vote for any Republican but he was unhappy with Obama. He said, "I think I'll sit this election out." Effectively, he's helping the party he doesn't want elected. It's happened over and over again with Democratic voters, even when in a large majority, staying home on election day and "giving" the election to the Republicans. I've never heard of major no-shows by Republicans.
With Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, there may be many Republicans who stay home on election day. These would be some of the mainline Republicans who consider the Tea Party as too doctrinaire. These would also be the RINOs who have been unhappy with the Republican move to more uncompromising stances on many issues.
I think the Democrats will "win" the no-show battle thus losing the election to the Republicans.
Why? Because the Republicans have more "true believers" who feel the issues personally. They "don't want our guns taken away", they "want government off our backs", they "know better how to spend our own money", and on and on.
The "true believers" among the Democrats are more empathetic to other people. Their issues are helping the poor, protecting wetlands, reducing emissions, and so on. They might not even experience any of these problems directly. Because many people who lean Democratic don't feel as strongly on these issues, they are more likely to not show up at elections than the "true believers"
In other words, lukewarm Democrats far outnumber lukewarm Republicans, putting Democrats at a disadvantage when voters stay home.
Whatever your political leanings are, don't give elections away. Show up and vote!
With Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, there may be many Republicans who stay home on election day. These would be some of the mainline Republicans who consider the Tea Party as too doctrinaire. These would also be the RINOs who have been unhappy with the Republican move to more uncompromising stances on many issues.
I think the Democrats will "win" the no-show battle thus losing the election to the Republicans.
Why? Because the Republicans have more "true believers" who feel the issues personally. They "don't want our guns taken away", they "want government off our backs", they "know better how to spend our own money", and on and on.
The "true believers" among the Democrats are more empathetic to other people. Their issues are helping the poor, protecting wetlands, reducing emissions, and so on. They might not even experience any of these problems directly. Because many people who lean Democratic don't feel as strongly on these issues, they are more likely to not show up at elections than the "true believers"
In other words, lukewarm Democrats far outnumber lukewarm Republicans, putting Democrats at a disadvantage when voters stay home.
Whatever your political leanings are, don't give elections away. Show up and vote!
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Is the Republican Party following its predecessor?
In 1852-1856, the Whig Party began disintegrating because of various factions within it. Some went with the new Republican Party, some went with the Democrats, and some formed various new parties. See Wikipedia's article on the Whig Party (United States).
Now the Republican Party has morphed from a party of general principals to a party of rigid orthodoxy. If you are for issues A and B but not C, you are considered a RINO (Republican in name only). Some like Olympia Snowe resisted but have given up seeking office any longer. Some like John Posner, a federal appellate judge have spoken out strongly – "Top Reagan-Appointed Judge Slams 'Goofy' Republican Party", Ian Miller, Think Progress, 2012-07-06. Some like former Utah governor and Presidential primary candidate Jon Huntsman have withdrawn from party activities – "Huntsman scolds GOP for losing focus, will skip convention", Thomas Burr, Salt Lake Tribune, 2012-07-06.
I'm seeing more and more people write that they were once Republican but have dropped out or even become Democrats. We saw the future when Ronald Reagan was nominated over John Anderson. Now even Ronald Reagan is to "the left" of many Republicans.
Will many of these dissatisfied Republican politicians work to form a "deliberative" party that looks for long-range solutions? It could happen, especially if a few well-known journalists start promoting the idea. There might not have been a Republican Party without Horace Greeley and his New York Tribune.
"[W]e think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery." - Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, June 1854. Change "propagandist of slavery" to "propagandist of large corporations and rigid dogma" and we have the makings of a new party. See "The Origins of the Republican Party".
Maybe a new party could adopt the 1856 Republican Party platform with suitable contemporary modifications
Now the Republican Party has morphed from a party of general principals to a party of rigid orthodoxy. If you are for issues A and B but not C, you are considered a RINO (Republican in name only). Some like Olympia Snowe resisted but have given up seeking office any longer. Some like John Posner, a federal appellate judge have spoken out strongly – "Top Reagan-Appointed Judge Slams 'Goofy' Republican Party", Ian Miller, Think Progress, 2012-07-06. Some like former Utah governor and Presidential primary candidate Jon Huntsman have withdrawn from party activities – "Huntsman scolds GOP for losing focus, will skip convention", Thomas Burr, Salt Lake Tribune, 2012-07-06.
I'm seeing more and more people write that they were once Republican but have dropped out or even become Democrats. We saw the future when Ronald Reagan was nominated over John Anderson. Now even Ronald Reagan is to "the left" of many Republicans.
Will many of these dissatisfied Republican politicians work to form a "deliberative" party that looks for long-range solutions? It could happen, especially if a few well-known journalists start promoting the idea. There might not have been a Republican Party without Horace Greeley and his New York Tribune.
"[W]e think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery." - Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, June 1854. Change "propagandist of slavery" to "propagandist of large corporations and rigid dogma" and we have the makings of a new party. See "The Origins of the Republican Party".
Maybe a new party could adopt the 1856 Republican Party platform with suitable contemporary modifications
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Republicans are not republicans
The current Republican party is in no way republican. The word "republican" comes from the Latin "res publica" meaning public thing. In the Eighteenth Century Anglo-American world, it meant considering the public good over private gain. In the Twenty-First Century United States too many Republicans consider the private good of large corporations over the public good of a well-governed nation.
So many Republicans do the bidding of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and take big bags of campaign donations from the member companies to promote these companies' private gain, I wonder if the Republicans shouldn't be called ALEC's Bag-Time Band.
Fortunately, we do still have a republic with a democratic foundation. Some of the people are getting fed up with a narrow-minded party that many movements have begun to get us back to some semblance of civility and interest in the public good.
There is the Coffee Party that calls for "civility and reason". Although many of its stances might be considered on the left, it is more for people rather than corporations.
It has a "community" called Coffee Party Conservatives: The Conservative Side of the Coffee Party USA, but it is a aggregator of news that generally finds fault with the current Republican Party, though Obama and the Democratic Party do get a bit of criticism.
One of the interesting articles referenced is "A Phoenix Rising: Common-Good Conservatism" by Michael Stafford and D.R. Tucker, Truthout, 2012-04-27. Stafford and Tucker are or were Republicans.
Even a member of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, Norman Ornstein, along with Thomas E. Mann has written a critique of the current Republicans: "It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How The American Constitutional System Collided With The New Politics Of Extremism"
by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein. You can listen to an interview of them on NPR and read a summary of the interview at "Extremism In Congress: 'Even Worse Than It Looks'?", 2012-04-30.
So many Republicans do the bidding of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and take big bags of campaign donations from the member companies to promote these companies' private gain, I wonder if the Republicans shouldn't be called ALEC's Bag-Time Band.
Fortunately, we do still have a republic with a democratic foundation. Some of the people are getting fed up with a narrow-minded party that many movements have begun to get us back to some semblance of civility and interest in the public good.
There is the Coffee Party that calls for "civility and reason". Although many of its stances might be considered on the left, it is more for people rather than corporations.
It has a "community" called Coffee Party Conservatives: The Conservative Side of the Coffee Party USA, but it is a aggregator of news that generally finds fault with the current Republican Party, though Obama and the Democratic Party do get a bit of criticism.
One of the interesting articles referenced is "A Phoenix Rising: Common-Good Conservatism" by Michael Stafford and D.R. Tucker, Truthout, 2012-04-27. Stafford and Tucker are or were Republicans.
Even a member of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, Norman Ornstein, along with Thomas E. Mann has written a critique of the current Republicans: "It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How The American Constitutional System Collided With The New Politics Of Extremism"
by Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein. You can listen to an interview of them on NPR and read a summary of the interview at "Extremism In Congress: 'Even Worse Than It Looks'?", 2012-04-30.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Quote of the day: Governance
"The big difference is that the protesters don’t believe in governance." "The Possum Republicans", David Brooks, New York Times, 2012-02-29.
Brooks wrote that the protesters of the Tea Party and the professionals may agree on the issues, but that the protesters would rather make a statement of belief than get any legislation passed. He has many more right-on observations in this column on the polarizations within the party creating legislative polarizations.
Brooks wrote that the protesters of the Tea Party and the professionals may agree on the issues, but that the protesters would rather make a statement of belief than get any legislation passed. He has many more right-on observations in this column on the polarizations within the party creating legislative polarizations.
Monday, January 02, 2012
Many famous Republicans would be RINOs today
Many can make a long list of Republicans who would not be welcome in today's Republican Party. Because these Republicans of another era didn't fall in lockstep with a laundry list of "conservative" positions, they would be called RINOs – Republicans in name only. Among them would be Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower.
Here's a surprising Republican who definitely would not be welcome in today's Republican Party. He said "Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul." This person was a personal secretary to Sen. William Morris Stewart, Republican, Nevada, a friend of former Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, and a supporter of James A. Garfield in the 1880 election. A forged letter was circulated that Garfield was in favor of Chinese immigration, something very unpopular at the time. You can see more about it in http://www.twainquotes.com/BillBarnum.html. This same article has a speech in which our surprising Republican praises the Republican Party and skewers the Democratic Party.
Who is this RINO who would be very disappointed in today's Republican Party? Mark Twain!!
Here's a surprising Republican who definitely would not be welcome in today's Republican Party. He said "Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul." This person was a personal secretary to Sen. William Morris Stewart, Republican, Nevada, a friend of former Republican President Ulysses S. Grant, and a supporter of James A. Garfield in the 1880 election. A forged letter was circulated that Garfield was in favor of Chinese immigration, something very unpopular at the time. You can see more about it in http://www.twainquotes.com/BillBarnum.html. This same article has a speech in which our surprising Republican praises the Republican Party and skewers the Democratic Party.
Who is this RINO who would be very disappointed in today's Republican Party? Mark Twain!!
Speaking of party lines
The Whig Party was the precursor to the Republican Party. If the Whigs demanded as much party loyalty as the Republicans do today, what would the Whigs call somebody who didn't toe the Whig party dogma? WINO!
Monday, November 28, 2011
An argument against a moderate third party, for now
E.J. Dionne wrote an interesting article on why the radical right must be defeated before we can think about having a successful moderate alternative party. See "Divided moderates will be conquered", Washington Post, 2011-11-27.
I dislike the terms "throwing your vote away" or "stealing votes from". It's not the supporters of third parties fault that others didn't join them. And third party candidates have won.
Unless there is someone or are somebodies who show exceptional leadership, it seems like Dionne's ideas are best for the long-term interests of the country. But the chances for exceptional leadership seem rather minuscule this "close" to the election. Maybe a new party will arise in time for the 2014 elections. A core might be the RINOs, the Republicans In Name Only, those believe in the Republican Party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower and not in the Republican Party of Reagan, Nixon, and the Bushes.
I dislike the terms "throwing your vote away" or "stealing votes from". It's not the supporters of third parties fault that others didn't join them. And third party candidates have won.
Unless there is someone or are somebodies who show exceptional leadership, it seems like Dionne's ideas are best for the long-term interests of the country. But the chances for exceptional leadership seem rather minuscule this "close" to the election. Maybe a new party will arise in time for the 2014 elections. A core might be the RINOs, the Republicans In Name Only, those believe in the Republican Party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower and not in the Republican Party of Reagan, Nixon, and the Bushes.
Monday, June 20, 2011
How Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality
The Coffee Party put a link on Facebook to "How Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality", Fareed Zacharia, Time, 2011-06-16. When Zacharia was a student, he interviewed George Will, who told him that "Conservativism is true." Although Zacharia thought the statement a bit arrogant, he wrote that down through the ages conservative thought has been based on how the world was, not on some abstract principles. Current American "conservatives" have gone from the pre-Reagan realism to a laundry list of abstract principles.
I knew the Republican Party was in trouble when it nominated Ronald Reagan, an abstractionist, over John Anderson, a pragmatist. I knew it was in even further trouble when it described those Republicans who didn't fully subscribe to a laundry list of abstract principles as RINOs - Republicans in name only. Actually RINOs are realists insist no orthodoxy.
I knew the Republican Party was in trouble when it nominated Ronald Reagan, an abstractionist, over John Anderson, a pragmatist. I knew it was in even further trouble when it described those Republicans who didn't fully subscribe to a laundry list of abstract principles as RINOs - Republicans in name only. Actually RINOs are realists insist no orthodoxy.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The wrong people are labeled RINOs
It has been popular among certain Republicans to call other Republicans RINOs: Republican In Name Only. Essentially, if a member of the Republican Party does not hew rigidly to certain "Republican principles", then he or she is a RINO.
After I read some recent news reports about Republican charges and reactions, I began to think many of the most prominent and objecting Republicans are the real RINOs. Among this bestiary are
Really Irritating Needless Obstructionists
Reality Is Not Ours
Ridiculous Innuendo Needlessly Obscuring
Robots Intimidating Needed Objectivists
Rigidity Is Needed Often
and the one that set this list off
Response Is NO.
After I read some recent news reports about Republican charges and reactions, I began to think many of the most prominent and objecting Republicans are the real RINOs. Among this bestiary are
Really Irritating Needless Obstructionists
Reality Is Not Ours
Ridiculous Innuendo Needlessly Obscuring
Robots Intimidating Needed Objectivists
Rigidity Is Needed Often
and the one that set this list off
Response Is NO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)