sturg33
I
But it is. It's why the 2020 dem field wont call him out on it. Bc they agree with the strategy
2020 Field
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
But it is. It's why the 2020 dem field wont call him out on it. Bc they agree with the strategy
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
racialization
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I agree it defies the left-right dichotomy but it is a big departure from GOP orthodoxy.
Is stopping open borders radical?
Your argument truly is that if we don't allow everyone that wants to be in this country then we are racists?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
did I say that? I don't think so
What specifically did you say was racialization then from my post?
sturg33
I
The common narrative is that the GOP has shifted just as much to the radical right as the Dems have to the left.
I completely reject this narrative, and your inability to provide more than 1 flimsy example of the narrative being true is precisely my point.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I didn't. It's my word.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I guess we have different conceptions of what constitutes "radical right."
For me something like birtherism is a not so subtle appeal to certain racist attitudes. Back to the good old days of John Birch and all that. And I would consider that a move to the far right. An attempt to appeal to people out there and bring them into the coalition.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Sorry I didn't check in yesterday. I think one has to take the long view and I realize you guys are younger so you haven't lived through it. Many books have been written about the movement of the Republican party further to the right and I won't be writing a tome here, but I'll start by saying Post-WWII there was an American consensus built by what has been termed the "Greatest" or "Hero" generation. There were a lot of reasons for that consensus. Clearly part of it dealt with providing opportunities for economic expansion which included government outlays for purposes related to that goal. Think GI bill and Interstate Highway system. The consensus during the Eisenhower era didn't really include women or minorities expressly, but there was movement on civil rights in the 1950s in which the progress of the 1960s was built. The key here is that Eisenhower did not roll back programs associated with The New Deal and that did raise the ire of the more conservative wing of the Republican party.
The American consensus pretty much held until Reagan. Obviously Johnson' Great Society (and simultaneous investments in the Vietnam War) really jacked up the deficit, but Nixon actually built on The Great Society with a number of programs aimed at revitalizing urban centers. Nixon's descent to ignominy clearly energized the more conservative elements of the party, which culminated in Reagan's election in 1980. Part of Reagan's ascent was fueled by a proliferation of conservative think tanks--ALEC, CPAC, Heritage Foundation--and the advent of a "the market is always right" way of thinking.
Reagan broke a lot of the consensus. He dismantled a lot of individual programs and lumped them into block grants that went to the states, often turning those aid programs into slush funds for state legislatures. His tax cuts added to the deficit, but he increased Social Security taxes aiming to keep that program solvent. Bush 41 and Dole were nominees that tipped back toward the old consensus, but the election of Bush 43 moved the party to where it is now. I'll admit it's difficult to know which party started chasing moderates out first (and the chasing often dealt more with social issues than budget/policy issues more closely associated with government), but--and I have witnessed this personally--both parties started shedding moderates post-2000.
I would say since 2000, the Democrats (at least up until recently) simply wanted government to work. There was the ACA--largely for good--but other than that, there weren't any what I would term signature programs coming from the left since 2000. Part of that was the constriction caused by the economic downturn of 2008 and the Democratic response to that was largely establishmentarian in that Geithner and company convinced Obama that was the way to go. The stimulus package had a lot of crap in it (I would have preferred the package would have done more on infrastructure and direct aid to states for very narrow purposes like they did with special education funding), but the package was decried on the left for not being big enough as much as it was on the right for being too big.
The response to the stimulus package pretty much sums up where we are today. Republicans have framed it as "Makers v. Takers" and Democrats have framed it as "Snidely Whiplash v. Dudley Do-Right." The division only gets more stark by all the pronouncements coming from both the left and right through their various media outlets.
Anyway, I've digressed badly. As far as policy measures go, I think the conservatives have moved away from progressive taxation as dogma. There is an argument over how high taxes should be, but little attention is paid to how they are levied and the right has moved toward more regressive means of collecting revenue regardless of the amount collected. I'm not saying this is an argument that shouldn't take place, but moving away from progressive taxation is clearly a move toward the right. Most of the responses on health care talk about "market-based" reform and I don't think the Republicans know what that means, but it sounds good. Entitlement reform is another policy (not racial) dog whistle that plays to the Randian Maker/Taker dichotomy. I'm not saying that entitlements shouldn't be looked at (I supported Simpson/Bowles--another consensus document rejected by both ends of the spectrum), but looking at the budgets Paul Ryan put together, I don't think he was talking that much about reform.
A lot of these things don't happen because Congress has been dysfunctional for the past two decades and one house or the other stonewalls debate. Some of that is good and some of it is bad, but the lack of interplay between the Executive and Legislative branches has given the Executive almost carte blanche authority to do things through Executive Orders (another unfortunate outcome of recent vintage).
In closing and I'll admit I haven't given an adequate answer, I put most of the problem at the feet of the second-tier "slanted" media and commentary emanating from a lot of self-appointed grand poobahs. It is almost impossible to be a moderate these days. All the attention goes toward either the Squad on the left or the nutty offspring of Michelle Bachman on the right. That drives the selection of candidates in a lot of places and the candidate who adheres to the gospel according to (fill in the blank) ends up being the candidate.
As for the Democratic debates, I see it as similar to the Republican debates of 2012. I have worked with former Governor Pawlenty here in Minnesota. Nice guy. Took a bit of a right turn when moving from the Legislature to the Governor's mansion here (part of that has been attributed to Potomac Fever), but he worked hard during his two terms and while being a conservative, he realized that he was running a whole state and not everyone in it was a conservative. He tried a comeback in 2018 and lost in the primary to, you guessed it, someone viewed as being more purely conservative. Pawlenty had the same problem in 2012 that Klobuchar is having in 2020 in that it is difficult to be a pragmatic "get things done" public official instead of spouting off bromides that would have put you in the dustbin of history in the 1960s. So we get Herman Cains "9-9-9 Plan" in 2016 from the Republicans and every Democrat on the stage promising sperm-to-worms security for every sentient (and some non-sentient) beings in America. I agree with you it's nuts, but the sudden spasm of the push toward socialism (which is not be to confused with Pol Pot) is a reaction to the current state of affairs in the same way Reagan was a reaction to the consensus in the 1970s. We'll see how it plays out.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Something like birtherism is not policy per se. But it is a fairly notable shift to have someone in the Oval Office who was a major promoter of this idea. There are always kooky ideas deep down in the muck. And they need to stay there. It is worthy of note when you have someone who is a purveyor of that stuff in the White House.
Whether that is a shift to the radical right depends on your definition of what the radical right is.
This general conspiratorial tendency is not always racial. The anti-vax movement is a manifestation of it. Although in this case there are plenty of folks on the left keeping the right wing kooks company.
Last edited:
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Clearly, on some things yes. But I believe that comes from being (or at least feeling) that you are on the outside looking in. The thing I find odd at a level is how the Obama legacy is being treated by those on the left. I supported Obama because he seemed to meld the progressive with a need for compromise and consensus-building. I realize many others here would disagree with my depiction and that's fine. What I hear coming from the Democratic debates--and I find it very unfortunate--is a "take no prisoners" attitude. Part of that is an attack on Trump's demeanor as much as his policies. Whatever Trump believes (and I have a hard time figuring that out most days), he is confrontational and the Democrats seem to have taken the bait on that and have made that front-and-center in their message. Maybe that works, but I've always found "not him" to be a losing campaign strategy. I think the Democratic shift has happened most markedly since 2016 with Sanders' candidacy, which was then amped up by the 2018 mid-terms. I think it's important to look back to the debate on the ACA and the decision not to include the public option that was in the House version of the legislation. The more progressive members of the House that wanted that provision are the ones most likely to be taking it one step further and calling for Medicare for All.
That plays to a point in my earlier post. The chasm between the two phases of candidate selection at all levels has become wider. To get in the game, you have to please the activists, but to ultimately win, you have to race back towards the middle to not scare the vast sea of voters that are not activists. We see it at all levels and in both parties. Ocasio-Cortez beats Crowley. Brat beats Cantor. Depending on whether there is a wave election (and in my view, wave elections are bad because they show an increasing tendency toward nationalizing political debate), people often win or lose to the latest trend. As far as the debates go, I agree with you and sturg33 that the price tag on a lot of these proposals is utterly ridiculous, but these candidates are reading their polls and spouting what will get them to the next level.
On social issues, both sides appear to have gone to their corners with no interest in finding a middle ground. On some issues, middle ground can be very elusive. On other issues, it should be easier by the talking heads won't give an inch.
PS--I agree with nsacpi's distinction between mood and action. I would add however that both sides have come to believe in a vast conspiracy of one sort of the other--Deep State or Evil Banker Star Chamber--that defines their worldview. And unfortunately, the can find their kin on the internet to reinforce their beliefs. Birtherism comes right out of the American tradition of suspecting "the other," while 9/11 Inside-Jobbers are in their "America is an imperialistic power bent on bringing the rest of the world to its knees and using 9/11 as leverage to accomplish that" mindset.
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I'll tell you a story that might explain why Obama's legacy is viewed in a certain way on the left. Back in 2008 I was living in Berkeley. I had quite a few friends who were far left. And when Obama emerged as a candidate, they were very excited. A number of them went to work for his campaign.
This enthusiasm left me worried. I remember discussing this in whispered tones with my one Republican friend in Berkeley. We agreed that if the lefties were so excited about Obama that he couldn't be any good. I was quite happy to vote for McCain anyhow. After Obama got elected, I watched as the folks on the left felt this sense of abandonment. Obama turned out not at all what they expected. He governed on the center left. His policies were incremental. He was cautious.
I suspect that many of the same people disappointed by Obama are excited about Warren. If she is elected I think they will be similarly disappointed (although she is to the left of Obama). They will be disappointed because they project their dreams upon people who don't necessarily share those dreams. But also because they have an unrealistic conception of how our political system works. How it is resistant to radical change.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Well said. I think Obama was viewed as the possibility to break the Dems out of the hold of the Clinton/DLC centrism and have someone more ideologically driven. Add to that Obama's "otherness" and the distinction was made even more stark. In some sense, I always believe Obama held a set of principles more than a set of policies. Folks can agree or disagree with the principles, but I always thought he held back on elucidating exact policy proposals and letting things take shape. I think the ACA is a clear example of this. It was more "I want better health care and it's up to Congress to figure out what that looks like" as opposed to "my way or the highway." Don't get me wrong. The individual mandate was clearly his, but I thought he really horse-traded to get it done in respect to the details.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
It is worth keeping in mind Obama and Boehner were willing to explore a grand compromise that among other things would have curtailed the growth of entitlement spending. Those two had a mature conception of what politics could accomplish and were realistic about the need to work through their differences. Unfortunately, we don't have that many adults in the room anymore.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
Right. Boehner got dumped by his rump caucus that wanted no compromise. I think both sides have hardened (and over what I sometimes puzzle) and the recent leftward lurch of the activist portion of the Democratic Party doesn't bode well for a solution in the short term.
