Therein lies the problem. The money is on the far right at the moment, so that's where candidates have to run. Believe it or not- and I know people are going to freak out when I say this, but Donald Trump is actually best chance we have. Whether you like him as a candidate or not, the biggest thing Trump is doing though is kicking the ever-living-crap out of the Republican leadership and embarrassing the establishment candidates.
The best case scenario is for him to get the nomination and lose in November. That would be enough to cause a massive revolt in the Party, and then we rebuild a new, much more modern, Republican party from the ashes.
I couldn't agree more. I hope others can see that as well. I find him despicable as a person but think he is also a symptom of a hidebound party that's become too beholden to its hardliners in both the right wing and the establishment - and that's why he won't win a general election. He's doubled down on the hardline nativist, authoritarian stuff that can't win in the electoral college. The Reagan-era hardliner stuff and the anti-government stuff won't either. But without the Trump nativists, Tea Partiers, and Christian right, the GOP could actually pivot toward what I think you mean by Rockefeller Republicanism. I hope that happens, and I hope the Democrats adjust their rhetoric accordingly if it does. I just worry what the far right might do if given its freedom from the GOP. Not too many voices of moderation or strategy over there, but plenty of anger and disaffection.
What about Huntsman for a standard-bearer? I don't know a ton about him and I know he's running as a Libertarian, but he always struck me as a throwback Republican in terms of policy and temperament - though that could just be in comparison to his contemporaries.
Huntsman is a very capable and experienced individual. I like his style, delivery, message. He is moderate and tempered in his positions and obviously has a firm grasp of negotiating...aka compromising, which we have certainly lost in the polarized environment we are in.
His Mormon background has been a contentious issue to some extent, and may cloud a positive picture of him for many, both within the religion and outside.
I agree with the Trump sentiment. I love the fact that all of the entrenched Republicans are being sidelined. Trump is winning because he is an outsider....and people are sick of insiders. The same could be said for Bernie. They are throwing the insider Hillary over the side. I think both parties need a good cleansing. With a 15% approval rating for Congress, the majority feel that way, not the minority.
If we could get the Christian Right and the Tea Party to split off and form their own party, and open the door for the moderates who got pushed out to come back, we'd gain far more than we'd lose; it's the textbook definition of "addition through subtraction". With them gone, and candidates no longer having to try and “out crazy” each other in order to win the nomination, Republican candidates would be able to focus solely on the real issues. Sound Republican policies, absent the Christian agenda, would be hard for the Democrats to beat.
As for John Huntsman, he's not a terrible choice but I'm not sure he's what we need. If things go as I mentioned earlier (Trump wins nomination but loses the General Election), the party would be in chaos. We need someone who'll be able to fight through that, take charge, and actually lead the party; in short we're going to need a leader who can kick a little ass. I don't know that John Huntsman is that kind of leader.
Thanks. You've confirmed what I suspected about Huntsman. I don't know if he'd pass muster as a Rockefeller Republican, but he'd have outsider appeal if the party wanted to cut the far right and establishment factions loose.
I agree about the appeal of outsiders right now. Both parties are too entrenched in the world of special interests and D.C. insider politics. But IMO the main problem with outsiders has always been that they're not all equal in their outsider-ness. Some of them have been on the outside because in less turbulent times people could see more clearly that they had no business anywhere near the levers of power.
Sure, Trump has been dancing around the halls of power for many years, The Clinton's at his wedding to boot. Cruz gets tagged for his "outsider" loans, so they are not that far from the Golden Fleece....and Bernie has been in politics all of his life, but is considered an outsider. Are any of them truly capable to be a president? Who knows, but they certainly are capable of connecting with their constituents and that alone is driving changes in the status quo.
True. I like that people are rethinking the status quo. I prefer Bernie's take on it because he's focused on solutions that I believe could benefit the most people and shift the tone of politics away from fear-mongering, aggression and cultural revanchism.
I like many of Bernie's stands, but I am leery of government given perks.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
I am too, if they are misappropriated. I believe that a society has to care for its most vulnerable and keep a wary eye on its most powerful. That's why I think Wall Street and billionaires should lose some of their government-given perks and we should spend some of that (our) money on society as a whole and caring for the least among us. Not because the wealthy deserve to be punished (some likely do, but that's a job for the wary eye of regulators, who I think have a bigger role to play in a healthy society) but because such perks, given to those who are already doing very, very well, are misappropriated IMHO.
Turns out that that Tytler quote is misattributed. It seems that it was invented by some American anti-New Dealers in the mid 20th century and attributed to Tytler (an anti-democracy monarchist), likely to give them extra weight. I'm not sure who they had in mind as far as "the world's greatest civilizations," but I'm not sure that history shows us anything quite so cut and dry about the cycles of "civilization." The warning about the risks of apathy and selfishness seems solid, but the dependence part is harder for me to understand, in a broad historical context or as a natural result of social apathy and selfishness.
Ha Ha....no more Goodreads.com for quotes!....but the "Tytler cycle" has some merit points. When 62 individuals own as much wealth as 3.5 billion, there is something out of balance. Part of it is the consolidation of power though wealth, ie our current plutocracy. The aggregators of wealth inject that into the political process to further consolidate. It becomes self serving. They in turn rob people of opportunity, which I see as the greatest loss in society right now. You see it everywhere in the world, and automation is just around the corner, displacing even more opportunity.
Consolidation is the enemy of opportunity.
I see some talk about a basic wage, a stipend given by government to every citizen and It may come to that some day. People should dread that. It really is the ultimate loss of opportunity.
I couldn't agree more about consolidation and I am very wary of a national wage. Such ideas have the ring of real desperation to them, and despite what we hear from the politicians, I don't think we're that far up S**t Creek yet.
I think sufficient opportunity to take a national wage off the table can be created through correcting consolidation, ending plutocracy, and investing in society through things like infrastructure repair and creation, new energy sources, addiction treatment, education (which is a whole other topic I won't uncork here), etc. It's not the final answer or guaranteed to be awesome, but I believe it should be tried before we dismiss government spending as a tonic entirely simply because of its potential to negatively affect opportunity. We've seen how deregulation, multinationals, and neoliberalism affect opportunity and they're no sure thing either.
I don’t get it. Jon Huntsman gave up on the Republican Party. He’s not in the clown car any longer. Because he realized what it’s become, and that was before it got to where it is this year. From what you’ve said, I would think you’d be more interested in where he’s gone than the smoking cinders of the party he quit in absolute, unmitigated disgust. All due respect to the roughly even half of the country’s electorate that identifies as Republican, but this is a party that has devolved to the point that the thinking-person’s go-to most-sane likely candidate is the doomsday prophecy Christian Dominionist that’s Hell-bound for leather on carpet bombing as a foreign policy. Death, even of a political party, can be a relief. Let it go, already. A very great many Democrats are right there with you, ready for their party to go peacefully.
I see what you mean. It's a tall order. A post-Christian Right/Tea Party mess would take a while to clean up. No doubt many would volunteer in hopes of being the new face of the GOP (or whatever it may be called by then). Here's hoping someone worthy pulls it off, if it comes to that.
Therein lies the problem. The money is on the far right at the moment, so that's where candidates have to run. Believe it or not- and I know people are going to freak out when I say this, but Donald Trump is actually best chance we have. Whether you like him as a candidate or not, the biggest thing Trump is doing though is kicking the ever-living-crap out of the Republican leadership and embarrassing the establishment candidates.
The best case scenario is for him to get the nomination and lose in November. That would be enough to cause a massive revolt in the Party, and then we rebuild a new, much more modern, Republican party from the ashes.
I couldn't agree more. I hope others can see that as well. I find him despicable as a person but think he is also a symptom of a hidebound party that's become too beholden to its hardliners in both the right wing and the establishment - and that's why he won't win a general election. He's doubled down on the hardline nativist, authoritarian stuff that can't win in the electoral college. The Reagan-era hardliner stuff and the anti-government stuff won't either. But without the Trump nativists, Tea Partiers, and Christian right, the GOP could actually pivot toward what I think you mean by Rockefeller Republicanism. I hope that happens, and I hope the Democrats adjust their rhetoric accordingly if it does. I just worry what the far right might do if given its freedom from the GOP. Not too many voices of moderation or strategy over there, but plenty of anger and disaffection.
What about Huntsman for a standard-bearer? I don't know a ton about him and I know he's running as a Libertarian, but he always struck me as a throwback Republican in terms of policy and temperament - though that could just be in comparison to his contemporaries.
Huntsman is a very capable and experienced individual. I like his style, delivery, message. He is moderate and tempered in his positions and obviously has a firm grasp of negotiating...aka compromising, which we have certainly lost in the polarized environment we are in. His Mormon background has been a contentious issue to some extent, and may cloud a positive picture of him for many, both within the religion and outside.
I agree with the Trump sentiment. I love the fact that all of the entrenched Republicans are being sidelined. Trump is winning because he is an outsider....and people are sick of insiders. The same could be said for Bernie. They are throwing the insider Hillary over the side. I think both parties need a good cleansing. With a 15% approval rating for Congress, the majority feel that way, not the minority.
If we could get the Christian Right and the Tea Party to split off and form their own party, and open the door for the moderates who got pushed out to come back, we'd gain far more than we'd lose; it's the textbook definition of "addition through subtraction". With them gone, and candidates no longer having to try and “out crazy” each other in order to win the nomination, Republican candidates would be able to focus solely on the real issues. Sound Republican policies, absent the Christian agenda, would be hard for the Democrats to beat.
As for John Huntsman, he's not a terrible choice but I'm not sure he's what we need. If things go as I mentioned earlier (Trump wins nomination but loses the General Election), the party would be in chaos. We need someone who'll be able to fight through that, take charge, and actually lead the party; in short we're going to need a leader who can kick a little ass. I don't know that John Huntsman is that kind of leader.
Thanks. You've confirmed what I suspected about Huntsman. I don't know if he'd pass muster as a Rockefeller Republican, but he'd have outsider appeal if the party wanted to cut the far right and establishment factions loose.
I agree about the appeal of outsiders right now. Both parties are too entrenched in the world of special interests and D.C. insider politics. But IMO the main problem with outsiders has always been that they're not all equal in their outsider-ness. Some of them have been on the outside because in less turbulent times people could see more clearly that they had no business anywhere near the levers of power.
Sure, Trump has been dancing around the halls of power for many years, The Clinton's at his wedding to boot. Cruz gets tagged for his "outsider" loans, so they are not that far from the Golden Fleece....and Bernie has been in politics all of his life, but is considered an outsider. Are any of them truly capable to be a president? Who knows, but they certainly are capable of connecting with their constituents and that alone is driving changes in the status quo.
True. I like that people are rethinking the status quo. I prefer Bernie's take on it because he's focused on solutions that I believe could benefit the most people and shift the tone of politics away from fear-mongering, aggression and cultural revanchism.
I like many of Bernie's stands, but I am leery of government given perks.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler
I am too, if they are misappropriated. I believe that a society has to care for its most vulnerable and keep a wary eye on its most powerful. That's why I think Wall Street and billionaires should lose some of their government-given perks and we should spend some of that (our) money on society as a whole and caring for the least among us. Not because the wealthy deserve to be punished (some likely do, but that's a job for the wary eye of regulators, who I think have a bigger role to play in a healthy society) but because such perks, given to those who are already doing very, very well, are misappropriated IMHO.
Turns out that that Tytler quote is misattributed. It seems that it was invented by some American anti-New Dealers in the mid 20th century and attributed to Tytler (an anti-democracy monarchist), likely to give them extra weight. I'm not sure who they had in mind as far as "the world's greatest civilizations," but I'm not sure that history shows us anything quite so cut and dry about the cycles of "civilization." The warning about the risks of apathy and selfishness seems solid, but the dependence part is harder for me to understand, in a broad historical context or as a natural result of social apathy and selfishness.
Ha Ha....no more Goodreads.com for quotes!....but the "Tytler cycle" has some merit points. When 62 individuals own as much wealth as 3.5 billion, there is something out of balance. Part of it is the consolidation of power though wealth, ie our current plutocracy. The aggregators of wealth inject that into the political process to further consolidate. It becomes self serving. They in turn rob people of opportunity, which I see as the greatest loss in society right now. You see it everywhere in the world, and automation is just around the corner, displacing even more opportunity.
Consolidation is the enemy of opportunity.
I see some talk about a basic wage, a stipend given by government to every citizen and It may come to that some day. People should dread that. It really is the ultimate loss of opportunity.
I couldn't agree more about consolidation and I am very wary of a national wage. Such ideas have the ring of real desperation to them, and despite what we hear from the politicians, I don't think we're that far up S**t Creek yet.
I think sufficient opportunity to take a national wage off the table can be created through correcting consolidation, ending plutocracy, and investing in society through things like infrastructure repair and creation, new energy sources, addiction treatment, education (which is a whole other topic I won't uncork here), etc. It's not the final answer or guaranteed to be awesome, but I believe it should be tried before we dismiss government spending as a tonic entirely simply because of its potential to negatively affect opportunity. We've seen how deregulation, multinationals, and neoliberalism affect opportunity and they're no sure thing either.
I don’t get it. Jon Huntsman gave up on the Republican Party. He’s not in the clown car any longer. Because he realized what it’s become, and that was before it got to where it is this year. From what you’ve said, I would think you’d be more interested in where he’s gone than the smoking cinders of the party he quit in absolute, unmitigated disgust. All due respect to the roughly even half of the country’s electorate that identifies as Republican, but this is a party that has devolved to the point that the thinking-person’s go-to most-sane likely candidate is the doomsday prophecy Christian Dominionist that’s Hell-bound for leather on carpet bombing as a foreign policy. Death, even of a political party, can be a relief. Let it go, already. A very great many Democrats are right there with you, ready for their party to go peacefully.
I see what you mean. It's a tall order. A post-Christian Right/Tea Party mess would take a while to clean up. No doubt many would volunteer in hopes of being the new face of the GOP (or whatever it may be called by then). Here's hoping someone worthy pulls it off, if it comes to that.