Conservatives Want Republican Purge Trials

[Rusty Shackleford]

Linky (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704107104574570201068092142.html)


Across the land, grindstones sing as axes are sharpened for the RINOs. For years, conservatives have railed against these moderate "Republicans in Name Only," launching primary campaigns against them, pouring money into their opponents' campaign funds, and excluding them from committee chairmanships. But since 2006 the party's pulse has weakened, and the GOP's leaders have decided that nothing is more healthful in such a situation than hacking off a limb or two.
That, evidently, is the thinking behind the 10-point test for GOP candidates that was proposed last week by a group of Republican national committee members. If a candidate "disagrees" with three or more of the points—said disagreement to be determined by one's "voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire"—then they can forget about financial support from Republican central.


Feel free to discuss, i feel like i am being NewsBot but i thought this was interesting enough to discuss in OI

[RGacky3]

If you look at the actual questions, Ronald Reagen himself would have failed. But personally I love it, the republicans and the right in the United States are committing slow suicide, they are eating themselves.

[IcarusAngel]

It's interesting because the right and even the Libertarians to some degree used to be pretty slick in their propaganda. They certainly had a lot of people falling into their trap that markets = freedom, and even today this still exists to some extent even though Republicans constantly violate supposed 'market principles.'

The Republicans are basically stalinists in their tactics and in their inner-politics. A party is actually supposed to have a uniform message, and since they prop up the candidates, the candidates should follow the message. So while I see what they're saying they're becoming so dogmatic about it they're basically like Miseans or Randians - you're out of the 'collective' if you disagree even slightly with on any given issue.

A Democratic Party in control for some time may at least bring the US up to the standards of most of the other industrialized countries, where you have more freedom of the press (more diverse), better health care, a better longevity rate for the citizens, and so on. That would be a good thing. But I don't doubt that the Republicans may be able to mount a comeback even by 2012 since the Democrats are so good and screwing things up for themselves.

It seems the perfect time for the left to pounce on the lack of a coherent message, and esp. while Libertarians are weakened by the financial crisis and the failure of markets is on everybody's mind.

[Green Dragon]

Well... I mean, you post on a message board where administrators will often restrict people from certain boards because they do not tow the proper "Revleft" line. Gacky is the most obvious one.

There is nothing wrong with members of a political party, or a movement, setting qualifications for membership. It is the whole point of it; to push for something in which likeminded individuals agree.

[Bud Struggle]

If you look at the actual questions, Ronald Reagen himself would have failed. But personally I love it, the republicans and the right in the United States are committing slow suicide, they are eating themselves.

True, but as time moves on things change. Stalin wouldn't be allowed here on RevLeft but on the other hand he's being made a saint by the Orthodox Church.

[RGacky3]

True, but as time moves on things change.

Maybe, but as of now, they are killing themselves.

[Bud Struggle]

Maybe, but as of now, they are killing themselves.

I bet not. The pendulum swings in both directions. Obama will be re-elected in '10 and after that a Conservative again. It's just the way American politics goes.

The same people that brought you Bush and Reagan will bring you the next one.

And who are RGacky1 and RGacky2?

[IcarusAngel]

Obama is not up for reelection in '10. Perhaps you're thinking of the congress?

Many people are turning on Obama. Members of my own family were all for him and now that their lives are actually worse (which can happen to many people even when the economy is recovering, i.e. the Clinton years, but it might be worse with Obama) because of rising medicare costs and health care costs that will go to pay for an inefficient plan they're against him.

It's interesting how when politics affects people directly their opinions can change rapidly (and yes this happens to republicans to).

Of course, everything isn't Obama's fault, a lot of it is just the up and down nature of capitalism, but he gets blamed for it and he may lose. I don't care either way but generally I favor candidates that Libertarians and other right-wingers hate the most. That's my interest in the 'political system.'

[Demogorgon]

The ironic fact is that apart from the creepy Reagan worship and the fact that Reagan would fail the very litmus test they have come up with, what he meant by the "If you agree with me eight out of ten times..." comment was that some disagreements should not be allowed to undermine general agreement. Not that eight times out of ten agreement was the bare minimum allowed.

You know you have a religious figure on your hands when his words are taken as dogma and laughably misinterpreted at the same time. :lol:

[Dimentio]

It seems like both the Republicans and Democrats are running around as blind hens now.

[RGacky3]

I bet not. The pendulum swings in both directions. Obama will be re-elected in '10 and after that a Conservative again. It's just the way American politics goes.

THats true, however this time things are a bit different, the republican party is splitting seriously, you have the hardline, you have the moderate ones, and more and more they are loosing any credability, even if people are dissapointed with democrats I don't know if they'll go back to the republicans. I may be wrong but things are a lot different from say 10 or 20 years ago.

[Robert]

I may be wrong but things are a lot different from say 10 or 20 years ago. You're not wrong. They are different. But they are not so different than they were 45 years ago:

In 1964, he fought and won a bitterly-contested, multi-candidate race for the Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29)'s presidential nomination. His main rival was New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller), whom he defeated in the California primary. His nomination was opposed by liberal Republicans who thought Goldwater's hardline foreign policy stances would bring about a deadly confrontation with the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union). He would eventually lose to President Lyndon Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964) by a large margin. Consequently, the Republican Party suffered a significant setback nationally, losing many seats in both houses of Congress.

The "he" was Barry Goldwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater), who played Sarah Palin to Mitt Romney's Nelson Rockefeller. more or less.

Anyway, what do you really mean when you say "things are a lot different"? That the Republican are in some kind of downward spiral right now from which they'll never recover? That's the way Republicans talked about Democrats during the Reagan years.

On edit: this just occurred to me: I'm always hearing how wonderful Europe is with its 28 parties in every election, how much more Democratic it is. Wouldn't you welcome a splitting of both the Dem and the Repub parties? Let a thousand blowhards bloom or whatever that famous Maosit slogan was?

[Havet]

I'm always hearing how wonderful Europe is with its 28 parties in every election, how much more Democratic it is.

You're hearing it wrong. It's a common symptom of every parliamentary democratic system that two main parties blossom, while the others have no statistical chance of ever getting elected.

[Robert]

Oh. Like in the Bundestag?

http://www.bundestag.de/includes/bausteine/homepage_englisch/20090928_sitzverteilung_17_deutscher_bundestag_log o_475_316_en.jpg

Compare the U.S. House of Representatives:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/111USHouseStructure.svg/250px-111USHouseStructure.svg.png

(Blue is Democratic, Red is Republican. There are two Independents that I know of.)

[Havet]

Oh. Like in the Bundestag?

http://www.bundestag.de/includes/bausteine/homepage_englisch/20090928_sitzverteilung_17_deutscher_bundestag_log o_475_316_en.jpg

Compare the U.S. House of Representatives:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/111USHouseStructure.svg/250px-111USHouseStructure.svg.png

(Blue is Democratic, Red is Republican. There are two Independents that I know of.)

Statistically speaking, i'm willing to bet that the CDU/CSU and the SPD are the only two parties who have been elected throughout times.

There might be an advantage of having more distribution in parliament (when voting bills and legislation and such), but the differences and benefits aren't that many.

[Sasha]

You're hearing it wrong. It's a common symptom of every parliamentary democratic system that two main parties blossom, while the others have no statistical chance of ever getting elected.

thats must be why we the dutch since 1918 always have had coalition goverments of at least 2 but mostly 3 or 4 party's.

(this excluding the WOII occupation ofcourse)

here an overview (in dutch but you'll see that partys come and go) http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse_kabinetten_sinds_de_Tweede_Wereldoorlo g.
the pie in the netherlands has for the last years more or less been.
30% Christian democrats
30% socialist democrat
20% liberalconservative
the rest has been shared by the greens, progresive liberals, communist, christian fundamenatlist, extreme right etc etc

now it seems that next election the big 3 are going to be demolished in favor of xenofobic/extreme right vs progresive liberals, greens, populist socialist dems (ex-maoists) wich means that next election we will propilly end up for the first time in decades with an left of center coalition of tradtional social dems, greens and progresive liberals.

[Havet]

thats must be why we the dutch since 1918 always have had coalition goverments of at least 2 but mostly 3 or 4 party's.

(this excluding the WOII occupation ofcourse)

There are always exceptions.

[Dimentio]

There are always exceptions.

In Europe, most governments are dependent on smaller parties to stand in power. In the USA, its just about politicians and hardly about parties at all.

[Demogorgon]

You're hearing it wrong. It's a common symptom of every parliamentary democratic system that two main parties blossom, while the others have no statistical chance of ever getting elected.
That's completely wrong I am afraid. That is an effect of the FPTP electoral system, not a Parliamentary system. Both parliaments and Presidential congresses elected under FPTP have two dominant parties whereas both types elected under PR have multiple parties. It is normal for between two and four large parties capable of leading coalitions to emerge under PR, but there are a multitude of parties all of whom get a reasonable number of deputies elected.

[Havet]

That's completely wrong I am afraid. That is an effect of the FPTP electoral system, not a Parliamentary system. Both parliaments and Presidential congresses elected under FPTP have two dominant parties whereas both types elected under PR have multiple parties. It is normal for between two and four large parties capable of leading coalitions to emerge under PR, but there are a multitude of parties all of whom get a reasonable number of deputies elected.

I was mostly criticizing the fact that those smaller parties, while indeed having some deputies elected, never exercise full scale governance like the "big boy" parties do.

[Demogorgon]

I was mostly criticizing the fact that those smaller parties, while indeed having some deputies elected, never exercise full scale governance like the "big boy" parties do.
What do you mean? Finland, Switzerland, the Netherlands etc all have more than two parties with "big boy status" along with a multitude of smaller parties that are usually required for coalitions (not in Switzerland where the four "big boys" govern together).

Case in point, the Finnish Parliament (200 seats in total)
Centre Party (Suomen Keskusta) 51
National Coalition Party (Kansallinen Kokoomus) 50
Social Democratic Party of Finland (Suomen Sosialidemokraattinen Puolue) 45
Left Alliance (Vasemmistoliitto) 17
Green League (Vihreä liitto) 15
Christian Democrats (Kristillisdemokraatit) 7
Swedish People's Party (Svenska Folkpartiet) 9
True Finns (Perussuomalaiset) 5
Bourgeois Alliance (Borgerlig Allians, Åland) 1

Not much sign of two big boys who have exclusive acess to electoral success there.

[Havet]

What do you mean? Finland, Switzerland, the Netherlands etc all have more than two parties with "big boy status" along with a multitude of smaller parties that are usually required for coalitions (not in Switzerland where the four "big boys" govern together).

Case in point, the Finnish Parliament (200 seats in total)
Centre Party (Suomen Keskusta) 51
National Coalition Party (Kansallinen Kokoomus) 50
Social Democratic Party of Finland (Suomen Sosialidemokraattinen Puolue) 45
Left Alliance (Vasemmistoliitto) 17
Green League (Vihreä liitto) 15
Christian Democrats (Kristillisdemokraatit) 7
Swedish People's Party (Svenska Folkpartiet) 9
True Finns (Perussuomalaiset) 5
Communist Party of Finland (Suomen Kommunistinen Puolue)
Bourgeois Alliance (Borgerlig Allians, Åland) 1

Not much sign of two big boys who have exclusive acess to electoral success there.

Listen, I can play this game as well. Let's look at portugal (2009) (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elei%C3%A7%C3%B5es_legislativas_portuguesas_de_200 9):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Portuguese_AR_2009-2013.jpg
And here's the United Kingdom (2005) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/2005_election_pie_chart.jpg

So what if it's two big boys or three big boys. The point is that they ARE BIG boys.

[Sasha]

well there is an huge difrence between an 2 party state and one that needs to form coalitions.
no matter what, we can rest asure that our sarah palin (geert wilders) will never get into power short than an coup.
after reagan & bush in the US and thatcher in the UK i must say that i prefer our coalition goverments a lot over that alternative...

[Demogorgon]

The United Kingdom has a FPTP voting system and therefore does not fall under what I am arguing (that PR voting systems do not produce two party systems). You have claimed that under Parliamentary democracy (regardless of electoral system) a two party system must emerge. I have shown that to be wrong. Don't read any more into what I said than that.

[Robert]

You'd better get me out of this, Hay-dude; as it stands, you've got me aligned with the commies, and "we're" winning. Yikes! :lol:

[Dimentio]

I was mostly criticizing the fact that those smaller parties, while indeed having some deputies elected, never exercise full scale governance like the "big boy" parties do.

Well, if the big boy parties don't attend to the heart issues of the smaller parties, they could force through new elections.

Power is not about who is sitting as prime minister or president, but about who could affect the government. In a proportional system, smaller parties tend to get even more influence than their size, since the government usually is in need of 51% of the votes in the parliament.

A small third party could gain support from both major blocs and force through reforms which the two major blocs does not want to touch.

Moreover, proportional systems tend to be kinder to left-wing fringe candidates. There is actually an explanation why countries using a majority system tend to be more right-wing (USA, Britain, Australia) than countries with proportional systems (Sweden, France, Spain, the Netherlands).

When people are voting in majority-based systems, a vote on a small fringe candidate is a de-facto vote on the candidate on the opposite side of the spectrum. Thus, even voters who are very militant and radical tend to vote on the Democrats in the USA and on Labour in Great Britain.

In proportional systems, there isn't the same "kick in the butt" effect of voting on a fringe candidate. Hence, communist and euro-communist parties tend to get about 4-7% of the votes in a typical European country, and from that point they could influence the decision process in a different and more organised way.

In the USA, the parties are very loose as well and it is a matter of candidates. That is actually increasing status quo and meaning that meaningful and even important reforms are usually easier stalled by special interests.

In Europe, you are not voting for a politician you think have a white smile (even though the right-wing parties want to move politics towards that direction) but for a party which is electing candidates. You have less influence over what individual is going to represent you, but more influence over the political agenda.

I want to add that in both Europe and America, politics is essentially worthless as the main power is laying in the hands of corporations and large banks. But the European political system has until now stalled the process of neoliberalism more efficiently than in America due to the fact that the proportional voting system is more democratic and takes into accounting the class interests of the European population.

[Demogorgon]

That's a good post Dimentio, though I want to correct a couple of things. France does not use Proportional Representation for its National Assembly (the only country in Europe apart from Britain and Belarus(!) to fail to do so), though it does do so for its regional assemblies whereas there is quite a lot of PR in Australia because of the Senate Electoral system. To govern a party only needs the support of the House of Representatives meaning small parties cannot bring it down with a vote of no confidence, but to pass legislation it also needs the Senate meaning it has to co-operate with other parties. That way you get some but not all of the features of a PR system.

I want to add that in both Europe and America, politics is essentially worthless as the main power is laying in the hands of corporations and large banks. But the European political system has until now stalled the process of neoliberalism more efficiently than in America due to the fact that the proportional voting system is more democratic and takes into accounting the class interests of the European population.This ties in with something in my own writing. To take a snippet from a work in progress:

Criticisms of the system as undemocratic will often be met with incredulity, with people pointing out that Governments are elected through systems varying in their degrees of fairness, but in some cases at least producing accurate and representative reflections of the people’s wishes. Surely such a system must be democratic? Surely the socialist criticising such a system is bending terminology to her own ends to make it fit the argument?

In truth the socialist is quite right. A problem we have with our contemporary analysis of Government is that we focus too narrowly on what we might call “Constitutional Organs”, that is the official branches of Government designated as such by our legal constitutions or their equivalents. Other sources of authority are seen as separate and not relevant to the question of governance; we are asked to draw a clear line of distinction.

It is an artificial distinction though. The source of any authority that imposes upon an individual a requirement to act in a way other than he or she might wish to hardly matters to the one being so directed. An organ of Government, an employer or even an entity of organised crime can all force us to follow a certain set of rules or carry out a certain form of tasks. In capitalist society there are multiple entities-that we might describe as “centres of power”-all co-existing with one another, both acting as a check on each others power and sometimes acting to enhance the power of one another.

The most obvious of these centres of power are easy to identify: elected politicians, Government bureaucrats, corporate power, the media, and in more corrupt systems organised crime and essentially independent military leaders. Each group has their own field of influence where they exercise said influence either directly or indirectly and are also able to influence one another due to their overlapping areas of concern.

This means that modern capitalist society is in fact a form of coalition between several different powerful groups. Such groups influence and are in turn influenced by each other, limit and in turn are limited by one another. Each group has its own areas where it is most likely to get its way and certain areas where it will be all but impossible to do so, but when it comes to the most fundamental issues facing any society, firm opposition by any major centre of power can generally halt or at least severely slow down any action.

This means that in contemporary Western Capitalism, the public is able to exercise some control through elected politicians. The extent of this control will depend upon how democratic the electoral system is, how much choice there is in terms of whom to vote for, how much politicians can influence the other centres of power and in turn to what extent other centres influence them. This is a limited level of influence indeed of course, but it is there and it provides an important point of connection between the ruling elite and ordinary people and acts as a democratic safety valve meaning the entire system remains within certain limits of acceptability.

This can be seen in the manner that public policy is typically made and in the way that unelected centres of power are forced to abide by certain rules. Governments can make laws regarding the behaviour of other centres. These laws must not harm these centres too much or they will use their own influence to force elected politicians to back down, but at the same time the unelected centres are unable to completely get their own way because the elected politicians have enough power to make at least some impact. The outcome is that policy is not so much a manifestation of what the public wants as a set of policies that do not go so far as to completely outrage it.

In liberal capitalism thus, people do not really have democratic control in the sense that they can decide how society will develop, but they can exert their influence enough that those with power must exercise it within certain bounds. In a system where there is no centre of power answerable to the people, then power will rapidly become a lot more oppressive. For this reason socialists who advocate refusing to participate in the electoral system on the grounds that it is part of the “bourgeoisie structure” or that it is not sufficiently democratic are missing the point. The electoral system is not there to allow the people to direct public policy but rather to act as a check on power as a whole. We should not vote in the expectation that by changing individuals in political office we can make a substantial difference, but because in doing so we impose a limit on the actions of all sources of power and prevent the system from becoming tyrannical.

[Dimentio]

Good post Demogorgon. I might add that the EU could very well become the tool for the creation of a de-facto imperial superpower. Even the Russian Federation is nominally more democratic than EU.