Conservativism - the path forward

[HS_Coach_C]

7 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I think the election process failed all of us on both sides of the political debate

Unfortunately popularity has become the #1 requirement to be president, not knowledge, leadership skill, honesty, patriotism, ethics, respect for the Constitution and laws of our country, etc.

[TGHusker]

7 minutes ago, HS_Coach_C said:

Unfortunately popularity has become the #1 requirement to be president, not knowledge, leadership skill, honesty, patriotism, ethics, respect for the Constitution and laws of our country, etc.

YES, and too often one of the parties (typically repubs) push 'the next in line'.  This last go a-round the Dems did wt Hillary - it was "her turn". 

I could think of some pretty good people both Dems and Repubs who would have made excellent presidents but were by past because of party machinery was at work or because they were not the 'flavor of the month' in the voter's popularity poll.   Actually, I could probably think of more Dems from the 70's through the 90s that would have been better than Carter, Clinton, Nixon and GHW Bush as president.   By the 2000s both parties had fallen off to the extremes.  To name a few - while I don't agree with all of their political positions, I think from a character perspective and leadership perspective they would have been good leaders:

HHH  Hubert H Humphrey  - did my huge college history paper on him.  He was the poster child of the 'crying liberal'.  He had a great heart but got saddled wt LBJ's Vietnam record.  Still probably my 2nd favorite politician (based on who he was as a person) of all time behind Reagan. 

former NY Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan  

Maine Sen Ed Muskie  - speaking of crying - his campaign got derailed because he showed emotion.  20 years later, Bill Clinton got elected partially because of the display of his emotions ( I feel your pain. ) vs the woodeness of GHWB. 

Washington Senator Scoop Jackson. 

 

On the republican side, I think Romney could have been a good president.  Since Reagan, however, I've not been impressed by the those who became president (GHWB, GWB, or Trump) or by the nominees, other than Romney, who didn't become president  - Dole, McCain.   I think Kasich could have done well if elected.  Too many others were a flash in the pan.  I had hope for Paul Ryan when he first came on the scene but he's proven he's not up to the task as he has shown as Speaker.  The same is true of the 'triplets' of Senators Rubio, Paul and Cruz.  They each have had their time in the spotlight but I don't think they will make prime time - esp Cruz - too much of a divider.  Rubio and Paul may still rebrand themselves after the last try for the WH. 

 

 

[Moiraine]

I have a much bigger problem with the ones that continue to support him even now.

 

I'm evangelical myself which makes the whole thing even more unfathomable to me.

 

I can't really reply to a huge wall of text now since I'm on my phone.

 

I do think it's a given when people talk about % of a group and voting, they're talking out of total voters and not the whole population. I also think non-voters likely align well with voters within the same demographics.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Moiraine

[HS_Coach_C]

19 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

I have a much bigger problem with the ones that continue to support him even now.

 

I'm evangelical myself which makes the whole thing even more unfathomable to me.

 

I can't really reply to a huge wall of text now since I'm on my phone.

 

I do think it's a given when people talk about % of a group and voting, they're talking out of total voters and not the whole population. I also think non-voters likely align well with voters within the same demographics.

Maybe, but there were plenty of voters that didn't want either candidate so they just stayed home.  Sure, that happens every election, but if they actually supported Trump they would have voted for him. 

 

I'm just saying that "87% of evangelicals voted for Trump" sounds like 9 out of 10 Christians loved Trump.

 

In reality, I think it's closer to 20% loved him, 30% could tolerate the thought of him better than Hillary, and 50% think our country is going down the drain.

[Making Chimichangas]

@TGHusker, I didn't make any blanket statement.  I did NOT say all religious people are nutjobs...

 

I said get rid of the nutjobs.  It is entirely possible to be religious, have faith, etc, and NOT be a nutjob extremist like Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, etc.  Those are the type of absurd clowns the Republican party needs to kick to the curb.

[funhusker]

3 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

@TGHusker, I didn't make any blanket statement.  I did NOT say all religious people are nutjobs...

 

I said get rid of the nutjobs.  It is entirely possible to be religious, have faith, etc, and NOT be a nutjob extremist like Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, etc.  Those are the type of absurd clowns the Republican party needs to kick to the curb.

That's how I read it 

[Making Chimichangas]

5 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Going to answer for myself.

 

It's the ones who think "religious freedom" means they should have the freedom to deny the rights of others.

 

It's the ones who think gay people should not be protected by anti-discrimination laws, but Christians should.

 

It's the ones who think gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, but don't say anything about adulterers or divorcees or any other sin-committers.

 

It's the ones who would vote for and continue to support the antithesis of a Christian (aka Donald Trump) because he says during his election year that he's become a Christian during said year.

 

There are many more examples of what a religious nutjob is to me.

 

This ^^^ is so well stated.  I could not have said it better.  

[Landlord]

Does The Gospel Coalition have a similar article of excuses/twists of rhetoric to explain the rise in support of Roy Moore by white Evangelicals in Alabama after the allegations came out?

[Making Chimichangas]

7 minutes ago, funhusker said:

That's how I read it 

 

Thank you.  Yeah you read it exactly as I meant it.  

 

 

[TGHusker]

12 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

@TGHusker, I didn't make any blanket statement.  I did NOT say all religious people are nutjobs...

 

I said get rid of the nutjobs.  It is entirely possible to be religious, have faith, etc, and NOT be a nutjob extremist like Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, etc.  Those are the type of absurd clowns the Republican party needs to kick to the curb.

Got It - I mentioned to @Moiraine in my post above that I misread you.  Please forgive the overreach.

[Making Chimichangas]

6 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Got It - I mentioned to @Moiraine in my post above that I misread you.  Please forgive the overreach.

 

No worries.  It is all good outside the hood.

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[TGHusker]

This is a provocative/thought provoking article basically says that the way forward for conservatives (never Trumper NTR types) is to vote Democratic.  Why you ask

Because they believe the only way to reform the Repub party is to crush it at the polls.  They state that the party has now fully become the Trump party as evidence of the lack of leadership to withstand all things Trump.  Conservatism was only a thin veneer used by the party to pull in votes - party leaders who never fully believed. And there aren't enough NTRs to reform the party.   The author states that the party in its present form, as a Trump tool, is a threat to democracy.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/24/17269600/trump-republicans-vote-democrats

 

Here are some quotes from the long article (but worth the read).  Do you agree - it the party an existential threat to Democracy? Can it only be reformed by being crushed?

Can or should a person like me - vote for a Bernie Sander's type Democratic nominee - totally opposite of  life long held political values?   Is it time to experience 'political pain' (cutting off a toe) in order to keep save the leg - Democracy.

 

 

Quote

 

I would like to propose an answer. And though I acknowledge the substantial social and psychological challenges it would entail, it seems to me, on a moral level at least, pretty obvious. To wit: NTRs should vote Democrat.

Perhaps in races where notably reformist Republicans are running, willing to repudiate Trumpism, they should vote GOP. But for the most part, they should vote D.

I’ll lay out the case below, but the reasoning is not that complicated: There are, for all intents and purposes, two parties contending in the American system. If you believe one of them is an existential threat to that system ... you should vote for the other one. Because one of them is going to win.

 

 

Quote

The first thing to understand is that lots of popular conceptions of Trump — that he’s an anomaly, an aberration, an outsider who’s hijacked and split the party — are just wrong. Taylor cites this recent paper from political scientist Larry Bartels, which shows in great detail that, for all intents and purposes, there is no anti-Trump faction of the GOP. The party is united behind Trump, which is why Congress has provided no meaningful check on his power or corruption.

 

Quote

 

Similarly, popular conceptions of the GOP — that it is driven primarily by conservative economic principles like small government, low taxes, and deregulation — are also wrong. It turns out those things were the preoccupations of a thin and unrepresentative conservative elite, primarily in DC. The Tea Party uprising and its culmination in Trump were driven by white resentment and white backlash. (Here’s another new study supporting that thesis.) The ethnonationalist populism Trump represents is the dominant strain of conservatism in America today.

That is the ugly place where NTRs must begin: They have lost the party. They command no divisions within it. What used to be called “principled conservatism” — that’s the anomaly.

Here’s Taylor:

Let’s remember what’s at stake. The Republican Party is slowly becoming comfortable with the authoritarian, blood and soil politics of Marine Le Pen’s National Front. A competitive, proto-fascist party (let’s not mince words) in a two-party system would be an existential threat to American democracy.

 

 

[NM11046]

3 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Do you agree - it the party an existential threat to Democracy? Can it only be reformed by being crushed?

Can or should a person like me - vote for a Bernie Sander's type Democratic nominee - totally opposite of  life long held political values?   Is it time to experience 'political pain' (cutting off a toe) in order to keep save the leg - Democracy.

 

 

I need to read the entire article later, but in a nutshell (and I'm biased on the waay left leaning side).  Yes.  I guess I'm not sure why people are so loyal to the letter behind the name.  Vote policies, vote past behavior, vote character.  If a republican had all those things aligned (mostly) to mine character would be a deciding factor for me.  Not sure why it's so tough for R's to do.  The most concise answer is that they think party above country.  I think that catchphrase is overused currently (or McConnel's just been in the news a bit too much lately) but it's true.

 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

This is a provocative/thought provoking article basically says that the way forward for conservatives (never Trumper NTR types) is to vote Democratic.  Why you ask

Because they believe the only way to reform the Repub party is to crush it at the polls.  They state that the party has now fully become the Trump party as evidence of the lack of leadership to withstand all things Trump.  Conservatism was only a thin veneer used by the party to pull in votes - party leaders who never fully believed. And there aren't enough NTRs to reform the party.   The author states that the party in its present form, as a Trump tool, is a threat to democracy.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/24/17269600/trump-republicans-vote-democrats

 

Here are some quotes from the long article (but worth the read).  Do you agree - it the party an existential threat to Democracy? Can it only be reformed by being crushed?

Can or should a person like me - vote for a Bernie Sander's type Democratic nominee - totally opposite of  life long held political values?   Is it time to experience 'political pain' (cutting off a toe) in order to keep save the leg - Democracy.

Good article.

 

I'm a Bernie supporter, so I'm probably not the best to answer. But one other thing to consider is that the President isn't a king, so Bernie won't be able to do too much without Congress, and it'll only be for 4 or 8 years, not forever. So I think on balance it makes sense, especially since Bernie is also non-establishment, so there's a really strong chance he'll be opposed on various policies from within his own party. And even if Bernie accomplished everything he's promoting policy-wise, it'd just be a return to the FDR/Truman years. Is that really so bad?

 

But another question to as yourself, is whether Bernie is more opposite of your life long held political values or is it really Trump and the Republican politicians?

 

(EDIT: And Bernie is sort of the extreme. You could also vote in the Dem primaries to try to get a Dem candidate closer to your own political views. Selfishly, I of course hope that doesn't happen, but that's democracy with a lower case 'd'.)