# The Future of the GOP



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Recommended reading for my Republican friends---a serious proposal to start a new party:

https://thefederalist.com/2016/03/17/lets-resurrect-the-federalist-party/


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

The Republican Party has devolved to the point this is bound to happen soon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Recommended reading for my Republican friends---a serious proposal to start a new party:
> 
> https://thefederalist.com/2016/03/17/lets-resurrect-the-federalist-party/


Thanks for this; my students will be reading the article first thing this morning.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Thanks for this; my students will be reading the article first thing this morning.


Excellent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

I recently made a similar point on another forum. For many decades, the Republican Party has been an uneasy alliance between social conservatives and libertarians, with a small third faction of populists/nativists that has now been cast into the limelight by Trump. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become an uneasy alliance between labor and the intellectual elite (with a small but rapidly growing identity politics / social justice warrior set). We may be witnessing a once-in-multiple-generations fracturing and realignment of both parties.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

All this would be fine if Trump actually became the nominee. But he won't. 


Remember, it's the Party that nominates. If they have to take a defeat in 2016 to save it, they will.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> All this would be fine if Trump actually became the nominee. But he won't.
> 
> Remember, it's the Party that nominates. If they have to take a defeat in 2016 to save it, they will.


Except for the fact that the Party can't stand the guy who is in second place. Taking the nomination away from the guy in first place, skipping over the guy in second place, and giving it to one of the guys in third or fourth place strikes me as implausible. Skipping over everyone and giving it to someone who wasn't even in the race strikes me as something that would only hasten the Party collapse that tocqueville is predicting.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I am not an advocate of Trump being the Republican nominee, but having the party hacks takeover at the convention, setting aside the electorate's favored candidate and anointing one of the "good old boys" as the Republican candidate for the Presidency strikes me as just wrong. How much more can they do to devalue the involvement of "Joe Average citizen" in our electoral process? Is there a better answer? :icon_scratch:


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

SG_67 said:


> All this would be fine if Trump actually became the nominee. But he won't.
> Remember, it's the Party that nominates. If they have to take a defeat in 2016 to save it, they will.


Just curious, who do you think it will be? Cruz or Kasich, or someone totally off the ballot?

I'm inclined to agree that if Trump fails to get a first ballot majority, he's not walking out of the convention as the nominee. Then again, I've been wrong about Trump's prospects from day one. But the options for the GOP are pretty terrible, in that scenario: the party leadership would have to work to get delegates to come together FOR Trump, which would look awful to a wide range of moderate/independent voters, as they could no longer distance themselves from him. OR, they have to look like conniving politicians stealing the nomination from the people's choice. Not a fun set of choices. They're probably best off if Trump just wins it outright at this point.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> I am not an advocate of Trump being the Republican nominee, but having the party hacks takeover at the convention, setting aside the electorate's favored candidate and anointing one of the "good old boys" as the Republican candidate for the Presidency strikes me as just wrong. How much more can they do to devalue the involvement of "Joe Average citizen" in our electoral process? Is there a better answer? :icon_scratch:


Yes, although so few people bothered to vote...it was a tiny minority of the electorate. But, yes, you're right. I think the better answer--besides having a completely different primary system--is for the party big whigs to let Trump take the nomination but then, if they have any principles--walk away and start anew as the article I posted argues for. Think of it as a Dunkirk moment for French officers. Do you hop on the boats with the Brits and start anew à la De Gaulle, or stay and cozy up to the Germans like Petain? Either way involves swallowing a lot of pride, but De Gaulle wanted to save France's values, which he did. Petain betrayed them.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I do think that it is quite humorous how many people want to point out - with the appropriate level of shock and disrain of course - that the promises Trump is making on the campaign trail may not come to fruition. 

Remind me, how's that Gitmo closing thing going again?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> I am not an advocate of Trump being the Republican nominee, but having the party hacks takeover at the convention, setting aside the electorate's favored candidate and anointing one of the "good old boys" as the Republican candidate for the Presidency strikes me as just wrong. How much more can they do to devalue the involvement of "Joe Average citizen" in our electoral process? Is there a better answer? :icon_scratch:


I totally agree. No one said that we the people don't make stupid choices sometimes.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Indeed, we do with remarkable consistency, seem to embrace arguably flawed decisions. LOL. But for those of us who are spiritually inclined, even our creator allows us to exercise our free will. Should the leadership of the Republican party do less?



tocqueville said:


> Yes, although so few people bothered to vote...it was a tiny minority of the electorate. But, yes, you're right. I think the better answer--besides having a completely different primary system--is for the party big whigs to let Trump take the nomination but then, if they have any principles--walk away and start anew as the article I posted argues for. Think of it as a Dunkirk moment for French officers. Do you hop on the boats with the Brits and start anew à la De Gaulle, or stay and cozy up to the Germans like Petain? Either way involves swallowing a lot of pride, but De Gaulle wanted to save France's values, which he did. Petain betrayed them.


My friend, it would pain me to see such occur, but I agree with you conclusions regarding this dilemma.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> I totally agree. No one said that we the people don't make stupid choices sometimes.


_I just posted this on the "Republicans and Donald Trump" thread, but it's apropos here:
_
The Trump - and Sanders, among others - phenomena are precisely why the framers of the U.S. Constitution did not want the general population to vote for the newly created position of president (chief executive). The electoral system delineated in Article II Section 1 was designed to allow States to have the ultimate power in determining the holder of that office, both because of the power-sharing arrangement between the States and the new general ("federal") government and the wisdom of knowing that the average person would not possess the requisite capacity to make a reasoned and informed choice.

As the "democratization" disease spread in the early years of the Republic, more and more States turned the power of choosing presidential electors over to their citizenry. We can see the consequences in not only who wins elections, but in who even bothers to run for office.

It's not pretty...I'd vote for some of the people who post here rather than any of the remaining choices of either party!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> I recently made a similar point on another forum. For many decades, the Republican Party has been an uneasy alliance between social conservatives and libertarians, with a small third faction of populists/nativists that has now been cast into the limelight by Trump...


I'm not sure that's really the focal point of the Republican Party's fracture. I think the real fissure - if you'll pardon the implied arrogance - is between the traditionalist, constitutionalist, non-interventionist, and laissez-faire conservative elements of the party and the now-dominant aspects of the modern party: neoconservative (interventionist) foreign policy, lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution (despite the rhetoric to the contrary), bloated government/deficit spending/debt accumulating tendencies, and fixation on promoting party interests rather than those of the United States and its citizens.

In this, the Republican Party has become indistinguishable from the Democratic Party. Anyone holding to traditionalist core beliefs has to be disgusted by the modern iteration of the Republican Party.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

jd202 said:


> Just curious, who do you think it will be? Cruz or Kasich, or someone totally off the ballot?
> 
> I'm inclined to agree that if Trump fails to get a first ballot majority, he's not walking out of the convention as the nominee. Then again, I've been wrong about Trump's prospects from day one. But the options for the GOP are pretty terrible, in that scenario: the party leadership would have to work to get delegates to come together FOR Trump, which would look awful to a wide range of moderate/independent voters, as they could no longer distance themselves from him. OR, they have to look like conniving politicians stealing the nomination from the people's choice. Not a fun set of choices. They're probably best off if Trump just wins it outright at this point.


That's a really good question. I honestly don't know.

It's down the 3 right now. rtd1 is right, no. 1 and no.2 are both disliked. I'm not a political pro, but I'll guess if Kasich starts to pick up steam and start winning a few primaries, he may end up going into the convention in a strong position. If no one had the requisite delegate count after the first ballot, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets it.

Now, if he doesn't start winning a few contests, then it's over.

A Cruz/Kasich ticket night sweeten the bitter Cruz after taste.

Who knows. I know Trump is bringing in new voters, albeit those who have a rather limited understanding of how the world works, but even if they do vote for him, will they do so in numbers that will offset the votes he will lose from independents and other key voting blocks. Once we've gone through the Duck Dynasty block is there enough left?


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> I'm not sure that's really the focal point of the Republican Party's fracture. I think the real fissure - if you'll pardon the implied arrogance - is between the traditionalist, constitutionalist, non-interventionist, and laissez-faire conservative elements of the party and the now-dominant aspects of the modern party: neoconservative (interventionist) foreign policy, lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution (despite the rhetoric to the contrary), bloated government/deficit spending/debt accumulating tendencies, and fixation on promoting party interests rather than those of the United States and its citizens.


Non-interventionist AND laissez-faire? In terms of actual politicians, this represents Rand Paul, his dad, and probably one or two others I'm forgetting. In terms of members of the Republican Party, yes there are quite a few libertarians who want the GOP to be the Libertarian Party lite, but there are just as many social conservatives who want no such thing (people like Ted Cruz have made a career out of playing to both sides, incongruent as their positions may be). What Trump has exposed, though, is that there are many many Republicans (mainly white, working class, blue collar folks from the suburbs whom the GOP won over from the Democrats many years back) who have no use for either social conservatism or libertarian economic policy and who just want the government to "do something" to bring back their jobs and previously higher standard of living (while kicking ass overseas as necessary to establish American supremacy).


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> Non-interventionist AND laissez-faire? In terms of actual politicians, this represents Rand Paul, his dad, and probably one or two others I'm forgetting. In terms of members of the Republican Party, yes there are quite a few libertarians who want the GOP to be the Libertarian Party lite, but there are just as many social conservatives who want no such thing (people like Ted Cruz have made a career out of playing to both sides, incongruent as their positions may be). What Trump has exposed, though, is that there are many many Republicans (mainly white, working class, blue collar folks from the suburbs whom the GOP won over from the Democrats many years back) who have no use for either social conservatism or libertarian economic policy and who just want the government to "do something" to bring back their jobs and previously higher standard of living (while kicking ass overseas as necessary to establish American supremacy).


One can be socially conservative _*and *_non-interventionist and laissez-faire, rtd1. Perhaps you are defining the fissure in the Republican Party as a more recent event, whereas I'm seeing it as an incremental process that has been occurring for many decades, and manifesting itself more clearly over the past few years.


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

Tiger said:


> One can be socially conservative _*and *_non-interventionist and laissez-faire, rtd1. Perhaps you are defining the fissure in the Republican Party as a more recent event, whereas I'm seeing it as an incremental process that has been occurring for many decades, and manifesting itself more clearly over the past few years.


I agree that there's a certain type of Republican supporter that is socially moderate-to-conservative, non-interventionist, and laissez faire (with laissez faire translating here to anti-regulation and pro-tax-cuts). However, actual "establishment" Republican policies have hardly been non-interventionist for a very long time. That split, however, is not what primarily divides the party. It's a couple of things: first, the establishment pro-business, free-trade (laissez faire) position vs. the populist distrust of big business and protectionist tendencies that Trump appeals to, to an extent. Second, perhaps more notably, the disconnect between the "shrink the government" side of the party with the voters who don't want that shrinking to impact social security/medicare/etc. That's another thing Trump appeals to, by telling voters we can have our cake (huge tax cuts, eliminate the deficit) and eat it too (keep our big military, social security, and medicare) just by dealing with "waste/fraud/abuse". Plenty of other politicians have tried to make that same specious argument in recent years, but Trump does it most brazenly.

Those tensions will be hard to reconcile; will be very interesting (in a scary way) to see how it plays out.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Perhaps the most positive outcome, maybe more long run, for the GOP is that Trump has finally broken the grip of evangelicals on the party primary system.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

jd202 said:


> I agree that there's a certain type of Republican supporter that is socially moderate-to-conservative, non-interventionist, and laissez faire (with laissez faire translating here to anti-regulation and pro-tax-cuts). However, actual "establishment" Republican policies have hardly been non-interventionist for a very long time. That split, however, is not what primarily divides the party. It's a couple of things: first, the establishment pro-business, free-trade (laissez faire) position vs. the populist distrust of big business and protectionist tendencies that Trump appeals to, to an extent. Second, perhaps more notably, the disconnect between the "shrink the government" side of the party with the voters who don't want that shrinking to impact social security/medicare/etc. That's another thing Trump appeals to, by telling voters we can have our cake (huge tax cuts, eliminate the deficit) and eat it too (keep our big military, social security, and medicare) just by dealing with "waste/fraud/abuse". Plenty of other politicians have tried to make that same specious argument in recent years, but Trump does it most brazenly.
> 
> Those tensions will be hard to reconcile; will be very interesting (in a scary way) to see how it plays out.


I respectfully disagree. The Republican Party was non-interventionist, laissez-faire, and stood for a constitutionally-limited federal government in all areas. That has not been the case for many years, and the party is now indistinguishable from the Democratic Party on every macro issue, I believe.


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

tocqueville said:


> I think the better answer--besides having a completely different primary system--is for the party big whigs to let Trump take the nomination but then, if they have any principles--walk away and start anew
> ...


The challenge, I think, is that if Trump fails to get that first ballot majority, it won't be quite as simple as "letting" Trump take the nomination. Presumably, most of the non-Trump delegates won't be particularly eager to switch their votes to Trump, and actually many of the Trump delegates will be pretty happy to switch away from Trump after they're no longer "bound", since their positions as delegates will mostly reflect some level of party establishment status and/or involvement, depending on the state. If the plan is to get Trump over the hump after the first ballot, someone is going to need to persuade/strong-arm/bribe those folks to vote for him. And I'm serious about bribes: there's no law or rule that prevents the delegates from being paid to vote a certain way at the convention.

The rules are so malleable that they'll figure out a way to make it work if they need to, but it would require the party apparatus to actively work to get Trump the nomination, which would/will be amazing to watch.

Now, of course, he still looks reasonably likely to get the simple majority on the first ballot, which would certainly simplify things.


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

Tiger said:


> I respectfully disagree. The Republican Party was non-interventionist, laissez-faire, and stood for a constitutionally-limited federal government in all areas. That has not been the case for many years, and the party is now indistinguishable from the Democratic Party on every macro issue, I believe.


On the first, we only need to respectfully disagree depending on the definition of "many years", as I believe the Republican party was pretty interventionist throughout the Cold War and mostly since it ended, save a few disputes with Clinton foreign policy in the mid-90's. I'm also fine with your point that the Republican party has been, at least in principle, laissez faire and for constitutionally limited government. There are some exceptions (farm subsidy policy and other favored industry tax exemptions and such not particularly laissez faire, for instance), but politics is messy and that's fine.

I do, however, think it's a pretty big overstatement that the two parties are indistinguishable on "every macro issue". They're increasingly less distinguishable on many foreign policy issues, for sure, but their core policy positions on taxes, size of government programs (see the Obamacare debate), financial and other regulation, the judiciary, the military, labor (unions, minimum wage), immigration, and many other major issues are very, very distinct. If at least some of those aren't "macro" issues, I don't know what are.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

jd202 said:


> I do, however, think it's a pretty big overstatement that the two parties are indistinguishable on "every macro issue". They're increasingly less distinguishable on many foreign policy issues, for sure, but their core policy positions on taxes, size of government programs (see the Obamacare debate), financial and other regulation, the judiciary, the military, labor (unions, minimum wage), immigration, and many other major issues are very, very distinct. If at least some of those aren't "macro" issues, I don't know what are.


1.) Taxation policy of the two parties is essentially the same; they argue over a few percentage points re: tax rates, but that's about it. Additionally, neither party seriously seeks to reduce annual deficits/accumulated debt.
2.) Please let me know when the Republican Party seriously tried to greatly scale back or end any federal government program(s). Even Reagan did not!
3.) Please tell me about all of the federal regulations that have been repealed by Republicans, financial or otherwise. Not sure if this is even remotely a macro issue, either.
4.) You do realize that many Republicans voted in favor of confirming Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsberg, et al.? Also, can you please point out all of the Republicans who believe - I mean really believe, not the rhetoric - in a strict (Jeffersonian) view of the Constitution?
5.) What military differences are you referring to - both parties are interventionist, support superfluous and often obsolete military programs, and have sought to maintain a military budget far beyond what is needed for actual defense of the United States.
6.) Please point out all of the minimum wage laws that have been overturned by the Republican Party on the federal, State, and local level.
7.) Differences on immigration between the parties? You're joking, right?
8.) To which other major issues are you referring?

See my point?


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

Ooh, a quiz! Fun!


Tiger said:


> 1.) Taxation policy of the two parties is essentially the same; they argue over a few percentage points re: tax rates, but that's about it. Additionally, neither party seriously seeks to reduce annual deficits/accumulated debt.


The Republicans have sought to enact fairly major tax cuts in recent years (see House-passed budgets). The Democrats have sought fairly major tax increases on the wealthy. If you think it's no big deal as it's just a "few percentage points", we can respectfully disagree, as the differences have been scored by CBO into the hundreds of billions. Agreed there's no serious deficit reduction efforts (though I also don't think we need to reduce the deficit much), save various claims by Paul Ryan that his tax cuts would reduce the deficit due to dynamic scoring, but my point was just that the parties differ on tax policy.


Tiger said:


> 2.) Please let me know when the Republican Party seriously tried to greatly scale back or end any federal government program(s). Even Reagan did not!


The Ryan budgets passed by the House make some pretty major changes (reductions) to Medicaid and other big federal programs. And in any case, the Democrats have certainly made major attempts to expand government programs (Obamacare as the big example), facing strong Republican opposition. Pretty clear differences to me.


Tiger said:


> 3.) Please tell me about all of the federal regulations that have been repealed by Republicans, financial or otherwise. Not sure if this is even remotely a macro issue, either.


This one seems easy to me. There was significant financial deregulation in the Bush administration. Dodd-Frank created major new financial regulations, and was passed on pretty stark party lines. The Republicans are still trying to undo parts of it, and the Democrats are still trying to go further on financial regulation. Most people who work in finance and most economists think this is all a pretty big deal.


Tiger said:


> 4.) You do realize that many Republicans voted in favor of confirming Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsberg, et al.? Also, can you please point out all of the Republicans who believe - I mean really believe, not the rhetoric - in a strict (Jeffersonian) view of the Constitution?


Yes, some Republicans voted for those judges. The differences between the parties are not absolute, of course. But the current supreme court fight, as well as congressional and political debates in the wake of Citizens United, Ledbetter, the overturning of parts of the Voting Rights Act, etc., show major differences on judiciary issues. And the current stalemate on the Supreme Court also supports this point. Re: a strict view of the Constitution, that's irrelevant to my point: All I said was that they differ on the judiciary, not that Republicans are constitutionalists.


Tiger said:


> 5.) What military differences are you referring to - both parties are interventionist, support superfluous and often obsolete military programs, and have sought to maintain a military budget far beyond what is needed for actual defense of the United States.


Mostly, I meant that Republicans have sought to increase the size of the military (see Ryan's budgets, etc.), while Democrats have sought some reductions (see Pentagon proposals, Obama budgets, etc.). I take it that you think the Democrats' reductions don't go far enough. A fair point of view, but the fact that your view is to one side of both parties doesn't mean there isn't a difference between them.


Tiger said:


> 6.) Please point out all of the minimum wage laws that have been overturned by the Republican Party on the federal, State, and local level.


This is a straw man argument: yes, minimum wage laws are never overturned. That's one reason why the Republican party regularly seeks to block them from being implemented in the first place, which they have done at the federal level and in state and local debates many, many times in the past few years. The difference is very clear on this one.


Tiger said:


> 7.) Differences on immigration between the parties? You're joking, right?


I'm flabbergasted on this one: you don't think there's a difference on immigration? The Democrats have sought pathways to citizenship, for so-called "Dreamers" and beyond, the Republicans have opposed those things while seeking greater border security and pushing for stronger deportation policy, etc. If there's no difference, why haven't they been able to pass anything? Again, you may be frustrated with either side for attempts to compromise or for not sharing your stance, but to suggest that they don't differ on this issue seems baffling.


Tiger said:


> 8.) To which other major issues are you referring?


I don't really care to extend the scope of this debate, especially as the definition of "major" is contestable, but I pretty much left aside social issues, housing policy, intellectual property, infrastructure/transportation, energy policy, etc. 


Tiger said:


> See my point?


I see your point, I just don't agree with it. I have a good high school friend who is a committed socialist activist (he refuses to vote for Bernie, even, because Bernie is a sell-out, apparently). I also have many relatives who are committed Tea Party supporters who think the Republican party isn't nearly conservative enough. I respect both of these positions, but I argue against both of them when they suggest that the differences between the parties are inconsequential. Perhaps more than ever there are real, major differences between the parties, and the fact that you might not find your own perspective reflected in either party doesn't change that.

I do hope all of this is taken in good nature- I'm enjoying this discussion, and mean all of this quite respectfully.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

You've made a noble effort to make minimal differences major ones, but alas, not quite good enough!

Arguing over a few percentage points on tax rates are not major differences! If the debate was whether to have a flat income tax or a progressive one, or a national sales tax versus an income tax - those would be significant. Besides, when did a few hundred billion dollars (and I doubt that level of impact, and would it be an increase or a decrease in revenue?) become significant, when you're on record as not being concerned about annual deficits near a trillion dollars and a debt exceeding $19 trillion? By your own logic, the difference is a drop in the proverbial neo-Keynesian bucket!

The changes in federal programs over the past few decades have been minimal, and you know it. If anything, the programs have become more enlarged, not reduced. Citing political wish lists within a party conference has nothing to do with how legislators actually vote.

As per regulations, when Republicans dominated Congress and the Executive branch, was the regulatory state eviscerated, or tweaked? And if the latter, isn't that precisely my point?

Your defense of judicial difference is weak, and current. My argument extends over decades. Example: David Souter and Earl Warren were Republicans, nominated by Republicans. You also dodged my point - neither party truly has an originalist view of the Constitution. That would make them far more similar than significantly different.

Again, you try to finesse the points on defense spending. Both parties have maintained defense spending at comparable levels, in order to fund their interventionism. No stark differences here, either. 

"Straw man argument" on minimum wage? Either one is for such laws, or opposed. Yet, Republicans haven't overturned any of them, even when they had the power to do so. Why you believe there is a clear difference here is puzzling...

Your statements on immigration are the "flabbergasting" ones! Both parties have allowed - for different reasons, perhaps - a flood of illegal immigration into the United States. Neither party has seriously addressed the issue in decades. You act as if the current debate defines party stances. We have the illegal immigration problem precisely because neither party has sought to remedy it for decades!

Your "other issues" are far from major ones, so I agree they should be left out of our discussion. My own political views matter not; but my original point still stands: there are no significant differences between the two parties on overarching political, economic, and military issues.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I don't think it's so much an issue as no difference, or very little difference, between the parties. If weighing simply the rhetoric, there is a big difference. 

The problem is neither do anything. Politicians have a very short attention span. Partly because most voters have a short attention span. A 24/7 news cycle probably doesn't help either. 

Most of these guys start fundraising for the next race the day they are sworn into office. They glom onto whatever hot story is going on in order to raise their profile. The less risk, the better. 

As soon as one tries to scale something back or tries to actually effect change, they are dragged through the ringer. 

People get the government they deserve. Collectively, we deserve what we have because we are basically fat, lazy and stupid.


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

Tiger said:


> You've made a noble effort to make minimal differences major ones, but alas, not quite good enough!


Clearly, we will not agree on this, and there's not much more to say that would take the conversation any further. Just one last thing from me: the fact that the parties have NOT acted on immigration and other policies has quite often been because of just how much difference between the two parties, as evidenced by their actual votes. Both parties have "sought" to remedy immigration in particular, in their different ways, but have not been able to achieve enough consensus to enact anything impactful. To me, that furthers my point, not yours. Same on major reductions to federal programs: it hasn't happened because of the disagreements, not because the disagreements don't exist. And Democrats don't WANT to reduce programs, really, so why should the absence of reductions prove that they're the same as Republicans?


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> One can be socially conservative _*and *_non-interventionist and laissez-faire, rtd1. Perhaps you are defining the fissure in the Republican Party as a more recent event, whereas I'm seeing it as an incremental process that has been occurring for many decades, and manifesting itself more clearly over the past few years.


On the contrary, I'm taking a much longer term view here, going back to the American Revolution and beyond. Quite a few people seem to think that conservatism is just libertarianism that's been "hijacked" by the religious right. Nothing could be further from the truth. As political philosophies, they have completely different lineages. Libertarianism was an outgrowth of classical liberalism. Conservatism was an outgrowth of the reaction to the French Revolution and traces back to Burke and de Maistre. Now, one might say that AMERICAN conservatism is an attempt at conserving the ideas of the framers who were influenced by classical liberalism, but they were also influenced by Athenian Democracy, Roman Republicanism, and a whole host of other history and thinking that no one would identify as conservatism.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The meanings have changed over the years and reflect nothing of their historical origins. Somehow not completely surprising for a country and a people who seem not to value history. 

Two events in the past century have served to define liberalism and conservatism as we know it now. The first was the new deal. The second, was the civil rights act of 1964. Our modern political discourse as it is now has its origins in those 2 movements.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> On the contrary, I'm taking a much longer term view here, going back to the American Revolution and beyond. Quite a few people seem to think that conservatism is just libertarianism that's been "hijacked" by the religious right. Nothing could be further from the truth. As political philosophies, they have completely different lineages. Libertarianism was an outgrowth of classical liberalism. Conservatism was an outgrowth of the reaction to the French Revolution and traces back to Burke and de Maistre. Now, one might say that AMERICAN conservatism is an attempt at conserving the ideas of the framers who were influenced by classical liberalism, but they were also influenced by Athenian Democracy, Roman Republicanism, and a whole host of other history and thinking that no one would identify as conservatism.


Weren't we discussing the fissures of the Republican Party in the United States?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

jd202 said:


> Clearly, we will not agree on this, and there's not much more to say that would take the conversation any further. Just one last thing from me: the fact that the parties have NOT acted on immigration and other policies has quite often been because of just how much difference between the two parties, as evidenced by their actual votes. Both parties have "sought" to remedy immigration in particular, in their different ways, but have not been able to achieve enough consensus to enact anything impactful. To me, that furthers my point, not yours. Same on major reductions to federal programs: it hasn't happened because of the disagreements, not because the disagreements don't exist. And Democrats don't WANT to reduce programs, really, so why should the absence of reductions prove that they're the same as Republicans?


I will disagree again - when Republicans had control of Congress and the Executive branch, they could have accomplished much re: illegal immigration and federal spending. Yet, nothing substantive was implemented to alter the pattern of illegal immigration, federal spending continued to rise, and the welfare state continued to grow. All outcomes very much in line with the desires of the Democratic Party!

I enjoyed the discussion!


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> The meanings have changed over the years and reflect nothing of their historical origins. Somehow not completely surprising for a country and a people who seem not to value history.


This is a commonly heard refrain, and while the philosophies may have evolved over the years, I don't think it's correct to claim that they mean something completely different from what they meant in the past. Russell Kirk's Book, The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot combined with George Nash's The Conservative Intellectual Movement In America Since 1945 trace a relatively unbroken lineage of conservatism from the time of the Founding to the present day. Likewise, it's common for people to claim that modern progressive liberalism is the exact opposite of classical liberalism. However, a read of LT Hobhouse's Liberalism and TH Green'sPrinciples of Political Obligation demonstrate precisely how there is a fairly seamless transition from classical liberalism to modern liberalism.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> Weren't we discussing the fissures of the Republican Party in the United States?


Yes, and my point was that the Republican Party has always been an uneasy alliance between conservatives and libertarians with a healthy dose of nativism/populism thrown in.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> Yes, and my point was that the Republican Party has always been an uneasy alliance between conservatives and libertarians with a healthy dose of nativism/populism thrown in.


Not sure at all how there's "always been an uneasy alliance between conservatives and libertarians" in the United States...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> This is a commonly heard refrain, and while the philosophies may have evolved over the years, I don't think it's correct to claim that they mean something completely different from what they meant in the past. Russell Kirk's Book, The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot combined with George Nash's The Conservative Intellectual Movement In America Since 1945 trace a relatively unbroken lineage of conservatism from the time of the Founding to the present day. Likewise, it's common for people to claim that modern progressive liberalism is the exact opposite of classical liberalism. However, a read of LT Hobhouse's Liberalism and TH Green'sPrinciples of Political Obligation demonstrate precisely how there is a fairly seamless transition from classical liberalism to modern liberalism.


_From Wikipedia.com:_ "*Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom."

*Doesn't sound remotely close to what seems to emanate from modern liberals...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tiger said:


> _From Wikipedia.com:_ "*Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom."
> 
> *Doesn't sound remotely close to what seems to emanate from modern liberals...


Yes exactly. Today's conservative values are actually classic liberalism.

Today's liberals, who advocate bigger government and centralized power would likely identify more with the royalists in 18th century France.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> _From Wikipedia.com:_ "*Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom."
> 
> *Doesn't sound remotely close to what seems to emanate from modern liberals...


So today's liberals don't advocate for civil liberty or representative democracy? Regarding liberty, much hinges on whether one defines it in a negative or positive sense.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

rtd1 said:


> Yes, and my point was that the Republican Party has always been an uneasy alliance between conservatives and libertarians with a healthy dose of nativism/populism thrown in.


Pretty relaxed understanding of "always" in that statement.
In any case, political parties in the US have always comprised unlikely and shifting groups living with uneasy alliances. In recent years the GOP platform has favored traditional social values, free market economics, smaller government including at state levels, and a strong military capable of protecting national interests. As (i) traditional social values collapse, (ii) middle America interprets free markets as Big Business, (iii) an emerging majority of Americans depend on government for their basic income, and (iv) aggressive international military interventions appear costly and feckless, the GOP platform and its institutional leadership look dated and vulnerable. When that happens the aforementioned alliances start to crumble. Will the odd Trump phenomenon rehabilitate the GOP or destroy it? Neither? We'll know more in 5 years.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

rtd1 said:


> *So today's liberals don't advocate for civil liberty or representative democracy? * Regarding liberty, much hinges on whether one defines it in a negative or positive sense.


So do today's conservatives.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> So today's liberals don't advocate for civil liberty or representative democracy? Regarding liberty, much hinges on whether one defines it in a negative or positive sense.


Modern American liberalism has ensured that: a business cannot sell to whom it wishes or hire whomever it believes best for the job. College acceptances use admission tools that are not merit-based, as do many federal, state, and local government hiring processes. Language is proscribed, even on college campuses! If one has the temerity to make obvious observations about certain events/trends/proclivities, they are pejoratively labeled. History books are purged to reflect a progressive view, often without any other perspective. Media and academia not only perpetuate this progressive view, but seek to hire those of the same ilk, and disagreement is perilous to one's career. Quota systems - de jure or de facto - by definition harm liberty, yet they've permeated private business as well as the public realm. The expropriation of property by the state to be used for various purposes, including distribution to others. The list is endless...

By "representative democracy" do you mean the system where liberals have used political machines to gain monolithic control over very large American cities, so that although a candidate could win 60% or (far) more of a State's counties, the Democratic Party will still be assured of winning a State's electoral vote in presidential elections? (The manner in which the electoral vote is now determined is also a bastardization of the initial process.) Do you mean the stranglehold both parties have on so many congressional districts? The attempts to allow anyone to vote - even if they're not citizens? How representatives in Congress as a whole have embarrassingly low approval ratings, yet win re-election 90% of the time?

Need we really discuss economic liberty? Please, please don't turn modern liberals into Frederic Bastiat. I wish to enjoy dinner...


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> So do today's conservatives.


We weren't talking about conservatives. I was responding to Tiger's claim regarding the difference between classical liberals and modern liberals.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> Modern American liberalism has ensured that: a business cannot sell to whom it wishes or hire whomever it believes best for the job. College acceptances use admission tools that are not merit-based, as do many federal, state, and local government hiring processes. Language is proscribed, even on college campuses! If one has the temerity to make obvious observations about certain events/trends/proclivities, they are pejoratively labeled. History books are purged to reflect a progressive view, often without any other perspective. Media and academia not only perpetuate this progressive view, but seek to hire those of the same ilk, and disagreement is perilous to one's career. Quota systems - de jure or de facto - by definition harm liberty, yet they've permeated private business as well as the public realm. The expropriation of property by the state to be used for various purposes, including distribution to others. The list is endless...


John Stuart Mill wrote extensively about this in On Liberty. When you are engaged in commerce, you are by definition engaged in an activity that affects others, and so society has every right to regulate those activities.

Regarding political correctness and identity politics, I don't see this as being part of modern liberalism, in fact, it's quite illiberal. It's more an outgrowth of postmodernism than anything.



> Need we really discuss economic liberty? Please, please don't turn modern liberals into Frederic Bastiat. I wish to enjoy dinner...


Here's my view in a nutshell - Free markets work in most cases, and it would be a fool's errand to attempt to replace them with any sort of centralized command structure. However, most is not all. Economics has identified the preconditions for a market to function properly, and if those preconditions are in place, we should leave the market alone. However, when those conditions are NOT met, for example when there are substantial externalities, information problems, differential bargaining power, etc., then the market is going to fail to produce an efficient outcome. In those cases, the state has every right, a duty even, to intervene in the market.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> John Stuart Mill wrote extensively about this in On Liberty. When you are engaged in commerce, you are by definition engaged in an activity that affects others, and so society has every right to regulate those activities.
> 
> Regarding political correctness and identity politics, I don't see this as being part of modern liberalism, in fact, it's quite illiberal. It's more an outgrowth of postmodernism than anything.
> 
> Here's my view in a nutshell - Free markets work in most cases, and it would be a fool's errand to attempt to replace them with any sort of centralized command structure. However, most is not all. Economics has identified the preconditions for a market to function properly, and if those preconditions are in place, we should leave the market alone. However, when those conditions are NOT met, for example when there are substantial externalities, information problems, differential bargaining power, etc., then the market is going to fail to produce an efficient outcome. In those cases, the state has every right, a duty even, to intervene in the market.


Using your interpretation of Mill's logic, we would never have free markets...

You initially made the point that classical liberalism is essentially modern liberalism. I posted a definition of the former, and displayed how the latter is its antithesis. Not sure how your response relates to this...


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> Using your interpretation of Mill's logic, we would never have free markets...


You seem to have adopted an extreme purist view of what constitutes a free market, whereby any regulation at all negates the concept.

Would the mere presence of something like food labeling laws, or laws forbidding the dumping of toxic waste into a river, or laws restricting child labor, in and of themselves, mean that free markets did not exist?



> You initially made the point that classical liberalism is essentially modern liberalism.


No, I did not. I said that modern liberalism is a descendant of classical liberalism, and that if you look at turn of the century writings from authors like Hobhouse and Green that it's fairly easy to see how you get from classical liberalism to modern liberalism.



> I posted a definition of the former, and displayed how the latter is its antithesis. Not sure how your response relates to this...


You're confusing means and ends here. The primary end of the classical liberals was the elevation of the individual. Free markets and free trade were a means to that end for them. Modern libertarians differ in that free markets are an end unto themselves.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps the most positive outcome, maybe more long run, for the GOP is that Trump has finally broken the grip of evangelicals on the party primary system.


Except that plenty of evangelicals are voting for him. Not all, I am sure. I wonder what the proportions are.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> Except that plenty of evangelicals are voting for him. Not all, I am sure. I wonder what the proportions are.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Right but he's getting their vote without pandering to them about school prayer and all the other nonsensical concerns that they have.

Evangelicals will vote for someone. Up to now the GOP has been taking the bait and thinking they have to dance with snakes in order to impress them. Trump is not. For better or worse, perhaps this is one outcome.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

You are shifting gears a bit too much, rtd1! You are the one who made the Mill-related remark that everything was fair game for regulation; I simply noted (correctly) that logically this would destroy free markets. I *never *made the extreme opposite argument that you seek to ascribe to me.

You clearly intimated that classical liberalism is inextricably linked to modern liberalism. You explicitly wrote that this was true with regard to "civil liberties" and "representative democracy." I provided examples of how ludicrous this connection is.

I am confusing nothing! _*You *_are now "confusing" (distorting?) the discussion by comparing "classical liberals" and "modern _libertarians_." Your initial premise compared "classical liberals" and "modern _liberals._" If you believe that "modern liberalism" is synonymous with libertarianism, we couldn't disagree more!


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> I am confusing nothing! _*You *_are now "confusing" (distorting?) the discussion by comparing "classical liberals" and "modern _libertarians_." Your initial premise compared "classical liberals" and "modern _liberals._" If you believe that "modern liberalism" is synonymous with libertarianism, we couldn't disagree more!


Strawman. I never said anything about modern liberalism being synonymous with libertarianism. I said that modern liberalism is descended from classical liberalism, much as libertarianism is also descended from classical liberalism. This is no more saying that they are identical than saying that chimps and humans are descended from a common ancestor is the same as saying that chimps and humans are identical. The only reason I even brought it up was to point out that libertarianism and conservatism come from very different lineages (conservatism was a reaction to the French Revolution, not a descendant of classical liberalism).


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> Strawman. I never said anything about modern liberalism being synonymous with libertarianism. I said that modern liberalism is descended from classical liberalism, much as libertarianism is also descended from classical liberalism. This is no more saying that they are identical than saying that chimps and humans are descended from a common ancestor is the same as saying that chimps and humans are identical. The only reason I even brought it up was to point out that libertarianism and conservatism come from very different lineages (conservatism was a reaction to the French Revolution, not a descendant of classical liberalism).


Strawman? Not at all!

I believe you are conflating/introducing too many terms, and it's making it difficult to follow whatever it is you're trying to say. Please keep in mind that I do not need the ideological history lesson, nor is it profitable to continue to write as if various labels mean the same thing in every epoch and every nation.

You originally made a connection between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, especially with regard to civil liberty and representative democracy, and I believe I refuted it. If you no longer wish to run on that track, it's fine with me...


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> Strawman? Not at all!
> 
> I believe you are conflating/introducing too many terms, and it's making it difficult to follow whatever it is you're trying to say. Please keep in mind that I do not need the ideological history lesson, nor is it profitable to continue to write as if various labels mean the same thing in every epoch and every nation.
> 
> You originally made a connection between classical liberalism and modern liberalism, especially with regard to civil liberty and representative democracy, and I believe I refuted it. If you no longer wish to run on that track, it's fine with me...


Well, since you seem to consider posting links to Wikipedia to be "refuting" something..........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Social_liberalism



> However, although Mill's initial economic philosophy supported free markets and argued that progressive taxation penalised those who worked harder,[SUP][68][/SUP] he later altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his Principles of Political Economy in defence of a socialist outlook, and defending some socialist causes,[SUP][69][/SUP] including the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished in favour of a co-operative wage system.
> 
> Another early liberal convert to greater government intervention was Thomas Hill Green. Seeing the effects of alcohol, he believed that the state should foster and protect the social, political and economic environments in which individuals will have the best chance of acting according to their consciences. The state should intervene only where there is a clear, proven and strong tendency of a liberty to enslave the individual.[SUP][70][/SUP] Green regarded the national state as legitimate only to the extent that it upholds a system of rights and obligations that is most likely to foster individual self-realisation.
> 
> This strand began to coalesce into the social liberalism movement at the turn of the twentieth century in Britain. The New Liberals, which included intellectuals like L.T. Hobhouse, and John A. Hobson, saw individual liberty as something achievable only under favorable social and economic circumstances.[SUP][71][/SUP] In their view, the poverty, squalor, and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish.


Not at all different from the argument I've been making all along here, which is that modern liberals are heirs to the intellectual tradition of the classical liberals, despite obvious differences as to specific policy prescriptions.

As for your specific comments regarding civil liberties and representative democracy, I find your claim that modern liberals do not support these things to be absolutely preposterous. I do not say that to imply that conservatives, libertarians, etc. do not support these ideas. I simply would not single out any mainstream political group in US politics and argue that they oppose civil liberties and representative government. We may all disagree on specifics, but very few people in the mainstream actively oppose the very notion of civil liberties and representative democracy.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> Well, since you seem to consider posting links to Wikipedia to be "refuting" something..........
> 
> As for your specific comments regarding civil liberties and representative democracy, I find your claim that modern liberals do not support these things to be absolutely preposterous. I do not say that to imply that conservatives, libertarians, etc. do not support these ideas. I simply would not single out any mainstream political group in US politics and argue that they oppose civil liberties and representative government. We may all disagree on specifics, but very few people in the mainstream actively oppose the very notion of civil liberties and representative democracy.


?????

My refutation contained two paragraphs that I had written (see post #41); none of it was from wikipedia...

By the way, when classical liberalism begins the descent into socialism, it's no longer "classical liberalism," regardless of whom is doing the transmogrifying.

If your (evolving) point is now that all mainstream groups support "civil liberties" and "representative democracy", then I'm afraid you have no point, especially in the context of this thread. Of course, you have yet to address what I wrote in post #41 about modern liberalism's supposed great love of civil liberties and representative democracy.

Perhaps you might be a modern liberal who cherishes those things, but on balance, modern liberalism does not, at least not as traditionally understood.


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> ?????
> 
> My refutation contained two paragraphs that I had written (see post #41); none of it was from wikipedia...
> 
> If your (evolving) point is now that all mainstream groups support "civil liberties" and "representative democracy", then I'm afraid you have no point, especially in the context of this thread. Of course, you have yet to address what I wrote in post #41 about modern liberalism's supposed great love of civil liberties and representative democracy.


I responded to that in Post #43. The "proscription of language" and other assorted political correctness is not a part of liberalism. It's largely nonsense, IMO, and I will always be on the side of those who argue that the best antidote to bad speech is good speech not censorship. Regarding political machines, the advantage our electoral system grants incumbents, and the low approval ratings of Congressmen, I agree with you 100% on all of that, but it has nothing to do with liberalism or any other political philosophy.



> Perhaps you might be a modern liberal who cherishes those things, but on balance, modern liberalism does not, at least not as traditionally understood.


I am a pragmatist who recognizes problems and then looks at different potential solutions, weighing both likely effectiveness as well as potential unforeseen negative consequences in deciding on the best path forward.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> I responded to that in Post #43. The "proscription of language" and other assorted political correctness is not a part of liberalism. It's largely nonsense, IMO, and I will always be on the side of those who argue that the best antidote to bad speech is good speech not censorship. Regarding political machines, the advantage our electoral system grants incumbents, and the low approval ratings of Congressmen, I agree with you 100% on all of that, but it has nothing to do with liberalism or any other political philosophy.


I disagree; not only did you not address what I wrote, but you are choosing to define "modern liberalism" in a way that may be comforting to you but so deviates from what modern liberalism has become that it makes our discussion pointless; too much fluidity and not enough of a foundation.

However, I promise I'll do my best to reconcile Bernie Sanders' and Hillary Clinton's campaign pronouncements with Bastiat's _That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen_!:great:


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Tiger said:


> However, I promise I'll do my best to reconcile Bernie Sanders' and Hillary Clinton's campaign pronouncements with Bastiat's _That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen_!:great:


The French classical liberals were a lot more extreme and singularly focused than the others. Far less intellectually sophisticated and far more vulgar as well. Comparing a Bastiat or a Say to a Smith or Mill is like comparing a fused Mens Wearhouse special to a fully canvassed Kiton or Oxxford, like comparing a pair of Bostonians to a pair of C&J's.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> The French classical liberals were a lot more extreme and singularly focused than the others. Far less intellectually sophisticated and far more vulgar as well. Comparing a Bastiat or a Say to a Smith or Mill is like comparing a fused Mens Wearhouse special to a fully canvassed Kiton or Oxxford, like comparing a pair of Bostonians to a pair of C&J's.


Inaccurate, insulting, and biased beyond belief. My dialogue with you ends here...


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

I suppose it's a good thing I didn't say what I think of that pseudo-intellectual author of infantile novels, Ayn Rand.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

rtd1 said:


> I suppose it's a good thing I didn't say what I think of that pseudo-intellectual author of infantile novels, Ayn Rand.


Although I am not an acolyte of Rand, I recognize your mean spirited, disdainful nature. You epitomize the modern liberal!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> Although I am not an acolyte of Rand, I recognize your mean spirited, disdainful nature. You epitomize the modern liberal!


As an bemused observer, I thought that your dialogue with *rtd1 *had ended at post number 56?


----------



## rtd1 (Nov 20, 2015)

Anyway, back on topic. There are probably at least 5 identifiable factions within the GOP, though there is obviously a fair amount of overlap:

- Social conservatives, with evangelicals at the far end of that spectrum
- Libertarians
- Foreign policy hawks
- Pro-business establishment types
- The white working class Joe Sixpacks won over from the Democrats

It will be interesting to see how the realignment shakes out.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> As an bemused observer, I thought that your dialogue with *rtd1 *had ended at post number 56?


The topical aspect of the discussion ended, Chouan. However, rtd1 decided to be nasty - he miscalculated in his target, as he presumed me to be a fan of Rand - but the insidious and low-rent nature of his remarks were understood, and thus my response.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Gentlemen, please...we digress! Let's cease the "Cyber-slap fest" and get back on topic.

I thank you in advance for your cooperation. :thumbs-up:


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

One thought that has occurred to me while considering the various discussions in this thread: a very small part of me wishes we could see a Cruz vs. Sanders general election play out. Though I (personally) wouldn't want to see either of the two become President, it would be fascinating to witness such a stark contrast in political visions, both representing the respective party's "base" electorates fairly directly (though I suppose Trump has proven that the Republican "base" is more complicated than just Cruz's core supporters). In other words, Sanders is a pretty good proxy for the hard-left consensus and Cruz is a pretty good proxy for the hard-right consensus, and I really wonder how that would have played out.

A Trump-Clinton race will be compelling for different reasons, I suppose.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I think Trump could surprise people in November. 

If he just got his act together a bit and stopped being so provocative, he could certainly be plausible. Again, he's not my guy but at the same time I look back on the last 8 years and ask, why not him?


----------



## Dcr5468 (Jul 11, 2015)

Trump just made a shockingly well prepared and coherent TelePrompTer speech in DC at AIPAC. If he continues people will listen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Dcr5468 said:


> Trump just made a shockingly well prepared and coherent TelePrompTer speech in DC at AIPAC. If he continues people will listen.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I saw that. He actually sounded presidential.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> I think Trump could surprise people in November.
> 
> If he just got his act together a bit and stopped being so provocative, he could certainly be plausible. Again, he's not my guy but at the same time I look back on the last 8 years and ask, why not him?


That made my day.

Some of the violence he condones at his rallies suggest......??? That kind of behavior doesn't look good. Although Putin has probably taken notice.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WA said:


> That made my day.
> 
> Some of the violence he condones at his rallies suggest....???? That kind of behavior doesn't look good. Although Putin has probably taken notice.


Perhaps inartful and crass, but is that any different from Democratic candidates vilifying anyone in the finance industry.

By the way, I'll grant you Trump has made comments up to now that have been regretful, but the behavior of some of these "protestors", and yes I put that in quotations as these are professional agitators, is not exactly in the best traditions of peaceful political dissent.

It's interesting that the only swastikas I see at Trump rallies are carried by these agitators calling Trump a Nazi and a racist, and by extension anyone in attendance who may support him as the same.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps inartful and crass, but is that any different from Democratic candidates vilifying anyone in the finance industry.
> 
> By the way, I'll grant you Trump has made comments up to now that have been regretful, but the behavior of some of these "protestors", and yes I put that in quotations as these are professional agitators, is not exactly in the best traditions of peaceful political dissent.
> 
> It's interesting that the only swastikas I see at Trump rallies are carried by these agitators calling Trump a Nazi and a racist, and by extension anyone in attendance who may support him as the same.


There is an old joke from at least the sixties.

Democrats will have fist fights in front of everybody. The way they handle disputes.

Whereas, Republicans, when they have a dispute, walk into a room and close the door. Anybody outside who put their ear to the door doesn't hear anything. When they walk out, arm in arm, everything looks fine, until one of their heads rolls off.

Trump seems more Democrat than Republican from this old joke.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps inartful and crass, but is that any different from Democratic candidates vilifying anyone in the finance industry.
> 
> By the way, I'll grant you Trump has made comments up to now that have been regretful, but the behavior of some of these "protestors", and yes I put that in quotations as *these are professional agitators*, is not exactly in the best traditions of peaceful political dissent.
> 
> It's interesting that the only swastikas I see at Trump rallies are carried by these agitators calling Trump a Nazi and a racist, and by extension anyone in attendance who may support him as the same.


Really? Employed by whom? 
That is such a classic tactic of the right, to condemn protest as being carried out by "professional agitators".


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I would urge you to come to Chicago and live for a while. 

I'm not going to try to explain to someone an ocean away how it works over here. 

Tell you what my friend, I'll put it in terms closer to home for you. Think of them as soccer hooligans. They're really not there for the game.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I would urge you to come to Chicago and live for a while.
> 
> I'm not going to try to explain to someone an ocean away how it works over here.
> 
> Tell you what my friend, I'll put it in terms closer to home for you. Think of them as soccer hooligans. They're really not there for the game.


Really? This is an objective provable "truth"? Or is it an opinion?
Do you really think that people demonstrating against Trump are only there as professional agitators?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Really? This is an objective provable "truth"? Or is it an opinion?
> Do you really think that people demonstrating against Trump are only there as professional agitators?


I have no idea whether the protesters at issue in this case were paid or not, but having grown up on Chicago's south side I can attest that SG_67's claim is more than plausible.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Really? This is an objective provable "truth"? Or is it an opinion?
> Do you really think that people demonstrating against Trump are only there as professional agitators?


I'm curious if you're capable of actually answering questions or if your idea of an answer is to pose a contrary opinion disguised as a question. You've turned the Socratic method on its head.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I'm curious if you're capable of actually answering questions or if your idea of an answer is to pose a contrary opinion disguised as a question. You've turned the Socratic method on its head.


Really? I asked you a straight forward question. Are the protestors really professional agitators, or is that merely your opinion?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

What will happen if the rich donors and special interest groups that call the shots do not get their way and block Trump?

What will happen if they do get their way and Trump is blocked? Will significant numbers desert the Republican Party? Pat Buchanan is suggesting this could happen. Buchanan is a paleoconservative and they do not really have a place in the party of neocons and globalists.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Really? I asked you a straight forward question. Are the protestors really professional agitators, or is that merely your opinion?


When people show up with professionally printed signs, I think it suggests something.


----------

