Y U NO Reasonable?
Since when did it become a bad thing not to blindly stick to the party line and vote for something you support even if it originated in the other party?
Caveat: I am fully aware that not all Republicans are unreasonable. See: Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani. But those people are increasingly being marginalized by the ultra-far-right members of the party.
Case in point: Newt Gingrich. I don't really like Gingrich all that much; he's just synonymous with the old establishment which I feel is ridiculously flawed and needs to be reformed. But his comments on Meet the Press seemed to show a certain independence. He spoke against the Ryan budget plan, his party's rallying point. I was impressed that he didn't blindly follow the party line, quite frankly. His point that it isn't good to impose "radical change from either the right or the left" is so reasonable as to be common sense.
Of course, he immediately back-tracked and said that everything he said on that program was a mistake. (And then blamed David Gregory for asking leading questions and "trapping him," which is so untrue on so many levels, and just eliminated any respect he might have gained because (a)Gregory is one of the only people I consider an actual journalist because he doesn't do stuff like that, he just tries to to get the facts straight and (b) it isn't taking responsibility for his actions. They are your words; he didn't make you say them.) This is because he alienated his base with the remarks (*cough*and lost a lot of campaign donors*cough*), and that is the biggest mistake the Republican candidates can make. Mike was going on a rant about Newt is "a liberal in Republican's clothing"- um, Newt Gingrich is liberal? Really? It's because of his Ryan remarks.
I'm a (proud) liberal, so you'd think I'd be happy about a strong candidate like Newt shooting himself in the foot. But, I'm totally not. I'm actually even more scared than before. (Not the least because, I never really viewed him as a strong candidate to begin with.) This is because of how reactionary the "party base" seems to be. The Tea Party faction, specifically, is so far to the right I don't think they can even see the center anymore. And in spite of what the pundits will say I remain convinced that the majority of the country is relatively moderate.
This is a good read for people interested in the dynamic that the Tea Party is creating in the Republican party. The Tea Party takes credit for the Republican surge in the House (because they did create a lot of enthusiasm) and as such the other party members are pandering to them. But, they really have no concept of how to lead; they are so new to everything. And, even more worrisome, they have no concept of compromise. This political system can't really function without compromise, give and take. But the Tea Partiers are blatantly unwilling to do that.
Look at Boehner's troubles. He got a compromise on the budget, and his base blasted him because he didn't get more cuts. Many of the Tea Party faction would rather the government shut down than give an inch. And, have you heard the term RINO? It means Republican in Name Only, which blatantly refers to moderate conservatives. It's like, you can't be a REAL Republican if you're moderate, if you're willing to concede some point to the other side- if you're reasonable. Hence the comic I made.
I find it dreadfully amusing that Paul Ryan's Medicare reform plan boils down to this: seniors will be given vouchers and subsidies to use in free-market exchanges for purchasing their own insurance. Sound familiar? That's because it is "the design for nonseniors found in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the health reform law passed by Democrats last year."
Uh huh. He's using one of Obamacare's main provisions. And conservatives LOVE his plan, but the same exact thing from the Democrats is "a government takeover." That's what gets me: clearly, they recognize the value of that system. But they can't say that, because that helps the other party out. Wouldn't it be so much better for the American people if BOTH parties had the guts to say, "You know what? The other guys have a good idea in X; let's combine that with our idea Y and really improve things."
Not that that will ever happen, of course. Because the reactionaries (and some Democrats) will viciously attack anyone who tries. Poor Mitt Romney- if there was someone on the Republican side for whom I could vote, it would be him, because he is reasonable and moderate. (Heck, I like Boehner infinitely more than any of the Republican front-runners.) But those very qualities mean he can't get the nomination (I'm talking his Romneycare thing, which I think was a good idea and could still work with tweaking. But since it's the "basis for Obamacare" no one on the right views it as an accomplishment anymore, only a failure.)
And because we have no give-and-take, only take (on both sides), we get things like Paul Ryan's budget which guts social programs. (How it is Christian to ignore the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, is beyond me...) And the PPACA which is significantly flawed because Pelosi et al were like "Our way or nothing, bucko!" (I blame Pelosi, not Obama, for the crappy bill.) If she had been willing to add some Republican ideas (tort reform) into it, it would be so much better. And if Ryan and his lot were to see that Democrats' concerns for the poor, elderly etc are valid and that some of their ideas have merit, we could have a balanced budget that everyone could live with. The lack of true conversation and compromise means so many amazing solutions are missed.
I'm convinced that only primary reform will do anything to help. WE NEED OPEN PRIMARIES, DESPERATELY. As it is, only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary, and so candidates take insanely far-right positions in order to appeal to them. This is especially true since the more extreme partisans are more likely to vote in primaries anyway. This is why really reactionary and radical people win the primary. If non-affiliated people can vote (independents), then candidates will have to moderate their views in order to garner votes. And moderated views=more ability to compromise. And a more accurate representation of what the American people actually think.
I think, too, that there is this vicious cycle going on that enforces this stubbornness. Like right now- Ryan's budget is too far to the right for me to even consider supporting it, which makes me lobby harder for the Dems. I don't like the Democrat plan any more than I used to, but since I know that if it doesn't pass that travesty of Ryan's will, I am determined to make sure that doesn't happen. The same dynamic probably applies on the right.
Okay, I have another solution- if the Tea Party becomes it's own party, and we get a radical left-wing party that will draw the extreme left- and right-wingers, then you have the more moderate, reasonable Democrats and Republicans left in those parties, and the government is much less volatile. The fringe beliefs will stay just that- fringe, and not be passed off as the mainstream view. So I think we need to have a third AND fourth party in this country.
Caveat: I am fully aware that not all Republicans are unreasonable. See: Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani. But those people are increasingly being marginalized by the ultra-far-right members of the party.
Case in point: Newt Gingrich. I don't really like Gingrich all that much; he's just synonymous with the old establishment which I feel is ridiculously flawed and needs to be reformed. But his comments on Meet the Press seemed to show a certain independence. He spoke against the Ryan budget plan, his party's rallying point. I was impressed that he didn't blindly follow the party line, quite frankly. His point that it isn't good to impose "radical change from either the right or the left" is so reasonable as to be common sense.
Of course, he immediately back-tracked and said that everything he said on that program was a mistake. (And then blamed David Gregory for asking leading questions and "trapping him," which is so untrue on so many levels, and just eliminated any respect he might have gained because (a)Gregory is one of the only people I consider an actual journalist because he doesn't do stuff like that, he just tries to to get the facts straight and (b) it isn't taking responsibility for his actions. They are your words; he didn't make you say them.) This is because he alienated his base with the remarks (*cough*and lost a lot of campaign donors*cough*), and that is the biggest mistake the Republican candidates can make. Mike was going on a rant about Newt is "a liberal in Republican's clothing"- um, Newt Gingrich is liberal? Really? It's because of his Ryan remarks.
I'm a (proud) liberal, so you'd think I'd be happy about a strong candidate like Newt shooting himself in the foot. But, I'm totally not. I'm actually even more scared than before. (Not the least because, I never really viewed him as a strong candidate to begin with.) This is because of how reactionary the "party base" seems to be. The Tea Party faction, specifically, is so far to the right I don't think they can even see the center anymore. And in spite of what the pundits will say I remain convinced that the majority of the country is relatively moderate.
This is a good read for people interested in the dynamic that the Tea Party is creating in the Republican party. The Tea Party takes credit for the Republican surge in the House (because they did create a lot of enthusiasm) and as such the other party members are pandering to them. But, they really have no concept of how to lead; they are so new to everything. And, even more worrisome, they have no concept of compromise. This political system can't really function without compromise, give and take. But the Tea Partiers are blatantly unwilling to do that.
Look at Boehner's troubles. He got a compromise on the budget, and his base blasted him because he didn't get more cuts. Many of the Tea Party faction would rather the government shut down than give an inch. And, have you heard the term RINO? It means Republican in Name Only, which blatantly refers to moderate conservatives. It's like, you can't be a REAL Republican if you're moderate, if you're willing to concede some point to the other side- if you're reasonable. Hence the comic I made.
I find it dreadfully amusing that Paul Ryan's Medicare reform plan boils down to this: seniors will be given vouchers and subsidies to use in free-market exchanges for purchasing their own insurance. Sound familiar? That's because it is "the design for nonseniors found in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the health reform law passed by Democrats last year."
Uh huh. He's using one of Obamacare's main provisions. And conservatives LOVE his plan, but the same exact thing from the Democrats is "a government takeover." That's what gets me: clearly, they recognize the value of that system. But they can't say that, because that helps the other party out. Wouldn't it be so much better for the American people if BOTH parties had the guts to say, "You know what? The other guys have a good idea in X; let's combine that with our idea Y and really improve things."
Not that that will ever happen, of course. Because the reactionaries (and some Democrats) will viciously attack anyone who tries. Poor Mitt Romney- if there was someone on the Republican side for whom I could vote, it would be him, because he is reasonable and moderate. (Heck, I like Boehner infinitely more than any of the Republican front-runners.) But those very qualities mean he can't get the nomination (I'm talking his Romneycare thing, which I think was a good idea and could still work with tweaking. But since it's the "basis for Obamacare" no one on the right views it as an accomplishment anymore, only a failure.)
And because we have no give-and-take, only take (on both sides), we get things like Paul Ryan's budget which guts social programs. (How it is Christian to ignore the poor, the sick, the downtrodden, is beyond me...) And the PPACA which is significantly flawed because Pelosi et al were like "Our way or nothing, bucko!" (I blame Pelosi, not Obama, for the crappy bill.) If she had been willing to add some Republican ideas (tort reform) into it, it would be so much better. And if Ryan and his lot were to see that Democrats' concerns for the poor, elderly etc are valid and that some of their ideas have merit, we could have a balanced budget that everyone could live with. The lack of true conversation and compromise means so many amazing solutions are missed.
I'm convinced that only primary reform will do anything to help. WE NEED OPEN PRIMARIES, DESPERATELY. As it is, only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary, and so candidates take insanely far-right positions in order to appeal to them. This is especially true since the more extreme partisans are more likely to vote in primaries anyway. This is why really reactionary and radical people win the primary. If non-affiliated people can vote (independents), then candidates will have to moderate their views in order to garner votes. And moderated views=more ability to compromise. And a more accurate representation of what the American people actually think.
I think, too, that there is this vicious cycle going on that enforces this stubbornness. Like right now- Ryan's budget is too far to the right for me to even consider supporting it, which makes me lobby harder for the Dems. I don't like the Democrat plan any more than I used to, but since I know that if it doesn't pass that travesty of Ryan's will, I am determined to make sure that doesn't happen. The same dynamic probably applies on the right.
Okay, I have another solution- if the Tea Party becomes it's own party, and we get a radical left-wing party that will draw the extreme left- and right-wingers, then you have the more moderate, reasonable Democrats and Republicans left in those parties, and the government is much less volatile. The fringe beliefs will stay just that- fringe, and not be passed off as the mainstream view. So I think we need to have a third AND fourth party in this country.