Is it just me or are US Republicans becoming more ULTRA righ wint???

[R_P_A_S]

I dont know? I wasn't as class conscious, Nor a leftist in the last election of 2004... So I have no clue if it's like this every 4 years or if this year shit just got super duper 'fascist' ULTRA right wing wackos! trying to move into the White House...

what do you guys think?

But at the same time.. I think this is good. It will only frustrate the working class more and send us straight to the path of revolution???

[Dimentio]

In the primaries, Republicans must sound "tough" to attract enough of the nutjobs that seem to be so ordinary in the US for some strange reason.

[Dr Mindbender]

is it possible for the republicans to become anymore right wing without them being outright fascists?
:confused:

[Dimentio]

No.

But their bark is worse than their bite. The reason why they are so right-wing, is because they want to attract a large segment of voters who are that right-wing.

[Dr Mindbender]

No.

But their bark is worse than their bite. The reason why they are so right-wing, is because they want to attract a large segment of voters who are that right-wing.
do you think this could be a response to the rising prominence of Ron Paul (whom i've noticed as attacted a lot of attention from fascist bloggers)

[Dimentio]

Among other things.

[Luís Henrique]

I was reading some liberal blog the other day, and it made an interesting point: Ronald Reagan managed to build a huge right-wing coalition, including big business, the "Christian" right, old-style conservatives, and libertarians (among others, I suppose). It is now broken (Bush broke it), and the various pieces of it are now fighting each other for the control of the GOP; which means they are also fighting for the party's nomination (McCain for the old fashioned moderate conservatives, Romney for the harder conservatives, Huckabee for the "Christian" right, Giuliani for big business, Ron Paul for "libertarians").

This extremely divided situation makes all of them "radicals", spouting the most loud rhetoric they can, in order to attract voters. It doesn't mean that some of them try to appear moderate in their positions, though (especially McCain, who tries to be the most "Democrat" of the contenders, in spite of being the only one who actually supports Bush's Iraq policies).

In fact, all of them try to make inroads towards the more moderate Republican votes (McCain and Giuliani on "social" or "cultural" issues, Ron Paul on foreign affairs, Huckabee on public spending, etc, and all of them, except McCain, on war).

There is, I think, a basic problem with the GOP at this moment. Its rank-and-file, the guys who fly flags and banners, are mostly staunch isolationists; they don't understand and don't care for anything abroad. But the top of the party, of course, are traditional imperialist politicians. Bush made a very clever move (yeah, the guy is way far from being a complete idiot) in using 9/11 to channel the isolationist energy of the Republican rank-and-file into its exact opposite, a hawkish foreign policy. But as a better GOP leader said, you cannot fool all the people all the time, and Bush's move is now backlashing in the form of a grassroots revolt against the top (this is the meaning of Paul's and Huckabee's candidacies), and even the candidates who most clearly represent the party's top (even Romney!) have to change their rhetorics accordingly. That's why all of them speak continuously of "change" in the abstract. They already know that "más de lo mismo" is unacceptable to their voters, and they are, at the moment, all of them, anti-Bushites.

Luís Henrique

[Robespierre2.0]

Is it just me or is water becoming more wet?

[manic expression]

Sometimes it seems that way, but a lot of it is just rhetoric. For example, their Christian facade is mostly just to fool stupid born-again fundamentalists.

Anyway, it'll be hard to match 80's Republicans like the Reagan Administration, which actively defended the apartheid government practically and ideologically. So no, I don't think this is an abberation as much as a continuation. Just my opinion.

[Lenin II]

is it possible for the republicans to become anymore right wing without them being outright fascists?
:confused:
See: Michael Savage and Mitt Romney.

[SouthernBelle82]

I don't think fascists are good for any reason personally. However the republican party has been going in this direction for a long time now I think. I mean heck even to a certain point Lincoln was fascist when he took away heabus.

[SouthernBelle82]

Exactly. I love watching the republicans now because they are the type of voters who want to have a strong leader. A protector etc. so it's funny to see them try to decide who to go to and the nominee's trying to out do each other. It's actually pretty pathetic. And it's interesting because they're trying to out Bush Bush while at the same time trying to seperate themselves from him. It will be interesting to see what happens at their convention where it concerns Bush.


I was reading some liberal blog the other day, and it made an interesting point: Ronald Reagan managed to build a huge right-wing coalition, including big business, the "Christian" right, old-style conservatives, and libertarians (among others, I suppose). It is now broken (Bush broke it), and the various pieces of it are now fighting each other for the control of the GOP; which means they are also fighting for the party's nomination (McCain for the old fashioned moderate conservatives, Romney for the harder conservatives, Huckabee for the "Christian" right, Giuliani for big business, Ron Paul for "libertarians").

This extremely divided situation makes all of them "radicals", spouting the most loud rhetoric they can, in order to attract voters. It doesn't mean that some of them try to appear moderate in their positions, though (especially McCain, who tries to be the most "Democrat" of the contenders, in spite of being the only one who actually supports Bush's Iraq policies).

In fact, all of them try to make inroads towards the more moderate Republican votes (McCain and Giuliani on "social" or "cultural" issues, Ron Paul on foreign affairs, Huckabee on public spending, etc, and all of them, except McCain, on war).

There is, I think, a basic problem with the GOP at this moment. Its rank-and-file, the guys who fly flags and banners, are mostly staunch isolationists; they don't understand and don't care for anything abroad. But the top of the party, of course, are traditional imperialist politicians. Bush made a very clever move (yeah, the guy is way far from being a complete idiot) in using 9/11 to channel the isolationist energy of the Republican rank-and-file into its exact opposite, a hawkish foreign policy. But as a better GOP leader said, you cannot fool all the people all the time, and Bush's move is now backlashing in the form of a grassroots revolt against the top (this is the meaning of Paul's and Huckabee's candidacies), and even the candidates who most clearly represent the party's top (even Romney!) have to change their rhetorics accordingly. That's why all of them speak continuously of "change" in the abstract. They already know that "más de lo mismo" is unacceptable to their voters, and they are, at the moment, all of them, anti-Bushites.

Luís Henrique