US Democrats get 60th Senator

[Meshugger]

Aristes and GD: thank you very much. I now have some reading to do

 

Still a bit perplexed about the situation though; employers here usually doesn't even ask which union a employee happen to belong to, it is usually something taken for granted that they are already registered as a member of one. I countries, different way-of-working, i guess.

[Meshugger]

Ok, i understand the situation a bit more. As i see it, businesses in the US do not take for granted that their workers are part of a union, rather something that is created in the very workingplace later.

 

Also, 'unionizing' in the US, compared to Europe seems to be a completely different process.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, unions are much weaker in the US than in Europe. The only place they've been gaining is among government employees, of course that may all be about to change so they can do for our economy what they've done for GM.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Perhaps the GOP really will fade as a viable political force after 2010. I'm curious, does anyone here think that is a good thing?

30% of the country is conservative, someone's got to represent them. Having said that Republicans are completely routed and almost irrelevant right now. Their come back depends on the Democrats completely mucking everything up, which I can't root for either because it'll be disastrous for the country. Anyway, this looks like 1976 all over again, which is interesting because that's when I got here.

[Meshugger]

Yes, unions are much weaker in the US than in Europe. The only place they've been gaining is among government employees, of course that may all be about to change so they can do for our economy what they've done for GM.

 

I wasn't commentating about power, it was about the process of unionizing itself.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I know, but when you say that it's taken for granted everyone's in a union, while in US unionized workers are a small minority, union power is the issue. Btw, since we discussed this yesterday, here's a good article on the new labor law outlook (well, it's good because it agrees with me that the chances are now much better) : http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21847.html

[Humodour]

Perhaps the GOP really will fade as a viable political force after 2010. I'm curious, does anyone here think that is a good thing?

 

I think it's a good thing, so long as it is replaced by a party of socially progressive (or at least centrist) moderate economic conservatives. In other words: a modern neoliberal party with the dynamicism to effectively challenge the Demcratic party and keep things balanced. Then again, that's kind of what the Democrat party has become, so I dunno where such a party would fit. Either way, some force needs to evolve to challenge the Dems. Nobody wants stagnation or corruption (which many terms unopposed would breed).

 

I know, but when you say that it's taken for granted everyone's in a union, while in US unionized workers are a small minority, union power is the issue.

 

They are in most other countries. The unionisation process in America is really skewed against unions. I don't agree with removing secret ballots but the process certainly needs fixing. I don't really understand why the unions figured it'd be easier to remove secret ballots than actually fix the legislation, however.

[Pop]

On a more serious note this move is entirely self serving on Spectre's part and any attempt to use it as a referendum on the GOP would be a mistake. This is a classic case of a career politician seeing which way the wind is blowing and tacking in the direction that best seves their own interests.

Why can't this is both a career move by Specter and an indicator of the GOP atmospheric conditions at the same time? Specter felt he had to cover his ass because the Club For Growth muscled him out. It's interesting to me, as someone currently studying the effect of interest group activity on party politics.

 

Besides, what's interesting w/r/t the GOP has less to do with the Specter's defection and more to do with the party's reaction to that defection. I mean ideally you'd think they'd see Specter's defection as a problem, as they are now nominally less powerful than they were before, when they had little power. But it's interesting because they don't take it as a loss. They say he's always been a "leftist" and harping about how much better the party is without him and blah blah blah. They're circling their ideological wagons, tightening the Grand Ole Party sphincter. Point is, the Club For Growth's successful crowding out of Specter gives serious credence to the idea that the GOP is now locked in the iron grips of party activists.

 

I mean you see this sort of **** all the time in the House (most of the hysterical party bigwigs - Gingrich, Pelosi, et al - were House cats), but the Senate (and the Presidency) are supposed to be politically tempering institutions - the increased electoral competition and the chummy atmosphere tilt candidates toward the middle away from the fringes. That party activists are able to depose moderates with ideologues in the Senate (not quite sure if Toomey can fly in PA, but the conventional wisdom says he can't) ought to be of some alarm to republicans, I think. Obama's got this moderate image about him and it works for him. I don't think the GOP can fight that with rabble-rousing. The "socialist" epithets have already started landing with thuds.

 

If the rightward end of the party (and that's pretty far right) ends up being the GOP gatekeepers, and it looks like that's what's happening now, then at the very least you can bet on further backlash against the party from independents. Soon enough you guys will have your very own McGovern, crashing and burning on the national stage. Even Bobby Jindal was made a laughingstock.

 

The idea that the GOP will die off is pretty ridiculous. They're certainly experiencing a low ebb at the moment, but Karl Rove was predicting a decades-long GOP reign after Kerry wheezed out. Why should we assume the same of Dems just because the Repubs couldn't get their **** together in two election cycles' time? All the repubs really need is another resurgence of evangelical conservatives, and there will be another. 2008 wasn't the first time people said the Christian Right died.

 

Is the GOP's current weakness good? As a socialist in the strictest sense of the word I'd say yes, but that's me. Dems are (supposedly) in the clear to give whatever they like the good college try, as Franken seems likely to be seated at some point. There won't be any more goddamn abstinence education, thank God for that at least.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Pop

[Enoch]

The GOP's current weakness is good for the GOP. As Pop implies, the party leadership has screwed up royally over the past couple decades. The whole idea of the 2-party system is that the parties are "big tent" organizations, trying to draw support from as many areas as possible without having too much internal ideological strife. As the party rose by emphasizing social issues to defeat the holdover (mostly moderate) Democrats in the South (one of the better ways to analyze national politics over much of the post-WW2 period is to look at it as a 3-party structure-- Republicans, Democrats, and Southern Democrats), the socially conservative activists who consequently rose to power within the party became less interested in keeping the "big tent" open and more interested in policing the party's ideological purity.

 

If the party takes this lesson seriously and works on broadening rather than narrowing its appeal (RNC Chair Steele has made some noises in this direction, but they were either laughably awkward or shouted down by the far right), becoming more pragmatic and less ideological, they'll be back in short order.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Besides, what's interesting w/r/t the GOP has less to do with the Specter's defection and more to do with the party's reaction to that defection. I mean ideally you'd think they'd see Specter's defection as a problem, as they are now nominally less powerful than they were before, when they had little power. But it's interesting because they don't take it as a loss. They say he's always been a "leftist" and harping about how much better the party is without him and blah blah blah. They're circling their ideological wagons, tightening the Grand Ole Party sphincter. Point is, the Club For Growth's successful crowding out of Specter gives serious credence to the idea that the GOP is now locked in the iron grips of party activists.

This is the same kind of idiocy that lead some the yammering morons to say that there was no difference between Obama and McCain during the election. That's what makes it difficult for me to cry for them, although I do cry for myself. It'll probably take a few more kicks in the ass before Republicans come to their senses. Nothing wrong with holding on to your principles, so long as you don't form a circular firing line in the process.

[Enoch]

Then again, the counterpoint to what Pop and I are saying is what happened to the Democrats in 2000-- focus on winning the middle, and watch as a minor candidate emerges on the Left (arguing that the Ds and Rs are all the same) to take just enough votes to swing the election to the other side.

[Humodour]

Then again, the counterpoint to what Pop and I are saying is what happened to the Democrats in 2000-- focus on winning the middle, and watch as a minor candidate emerges on the Left (arguing that the Ds and Rs are all the same) to take just enough votes to swing the election to the other side.

 

You of all people think Obama is a lefty? I know it's hip and rad in America to call anybody not a Republican left-wing, but I was hoping you'd be able to avoid that sort of nonsense.

[Pop]

He's a moderate democrat but he's still on the left, and fairly left, if you believe that the GOP's shifting ever rightward distorts the spectrum, as I do. That you'd see that designation as a problem says more about the unfounded connotations of the term "left-wing" than it does about Obama's actual ideology.

[Aristes]

Enoch is talking about the 2000 election, doofus. Since Obama was not a candidate in 2000, nor was he a candidate in 2004, I think he must be talking about Nader. Makes a lot more sense to me, at least.

 

...And the Republican party isn't bad because it has conservative values. At least, no more so than the Democratic party for having liberal values. The problem with the Republican party is that it has too many shifty characters, and it's conservative values are mostly fixated on the bedroom rather than the bank account side. To be fair, the Democrats have shifty characters, but that is not nearly as important to me.

 

Pop's glib, leftist crack about a latter day McGovern is not really all that insightful. After all, the party must either restructure in some sense or wait out for the climate to change. Since most sweeping changes come to be characterized by the guy who leads the charge, I'm sure we'll have some convenient name to put on it. On the other hand, if the Republicans just wait out the current storm, and the Democrats prove to be the party of political profiteering, then we could end up in the status quo again.

 

As a republican, I don't like that. We're throwing out social conservatism as if it's bad. I don't think being socially conservative is bad, per se. If you don't believe abortion is good, then you should advise friends not to take that option. If you don't believe in it, don't do it. If you think homosexuality is bad, don't engage in it. However, my problem with social conservatism as part of a national party platform is twofold. First of all, whether I disagree with something like, say, abortion, I don't agree with making it a matter of national policy. Second of all, and this dovetails into the first point, by making social issues a matter of policy, we're detracting from matters that are far more important to me personally.

 

It's a screwy world where socialists in the United States are the champions of personal freedom whereas Republicans are the gatekeepers of personal morality. I don't want to stand guard at gates of morality. Morality is a personal decision, and it is the source of infinite and intricate argument. It is particularly ill-suited for the sort of legislate and forget politics necessary to run a large western democracy. Nevertheless, here we are, wondering if the Christian right will once against ingrain into the public that fiscal conservatism goes hand in hand with social repression. Hey, I'm a Christian too, and I want no part of that.

 

You're more likely to be accepted in the Republican party right now if you have strong socially conservative credentials than strong fiscally conservative credentials. I am absolutely convinced that the fiscal conservative argument has suffered greatly because of this. So neither party has an ounce of fiscal discipline. It's not that I wouldn't leave the Republican party. It's that I have no where to go.

 

However, I'm still hopeful. I don't believe that this election, or any other single election, will crush the ideals I personally hold most important. ...And, in true GOP fashion, I'm still hopeful for the future.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The Republican party is made up of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and foreign policy conservatives, often in the same person. If you lose any of these groups, Republicans are through, pure and simple. On the other hand, driving someone who's moderate on any of these issues out of the party is equally suicidal. US has a two party system, thus a boutique party will never gain power, but I suppose they can feel good about their purity.

[Pop]

Pop's glib, leftist crack about a latter day McGovern is not really all that insightful. After all, the party must either restructure in some sense or wait out for the climate to change. Since most sweeping changes come to be characterized by the guy who leads the charge, I'm sure we'll have some convenient name to put on it. On the other hand, if the Republicans just wait out the current storm, and the Democrats prove to be the party of political profiteering, then we could end up in the status quo again.

Not sure what you're getting at here. The point I was illustrating was that if activists not directly involved in electoral politics, like the Club For Growth or the anti-war movement, gain too much clout within their party they will invariably push through candidates that alienate independents and moderates. Happened with McGovern, happened with Dean, would've happened with Ron Paul if that fantasy ever came to fruition. And that is a problem that has to be addressed. I mean look at the seat that Arlen Specter holds - he was right to assert that 200,000 republicans had switched party affiliation last election. And PA has, last I checked, 1.1 million more registered Dems than Repubs.

 

So think about this as though you were a Republican party strategist. You've got a huge disadvantage in constituencies in PA, who skew towards the left. You have two candidates running from your party. One is a dyed-in-the-wool party loyalist who plays to the activists in your party, of which there are few in the state, and one is a moderate, who might, say, be conservative economically but liberal socially (as Arlen Specter is) and thus would appeal to more voters on the left. Which one would you run, if the party put the decision in your hands? If you like you can take this scenario as a Democratic strategist in a southern state.

 

The obvious choice is the moderate simply because he has a better chance of being elected and bolstering the party's presence in Congress. The problem with Specter was not that he was unpopular with voters, he was unpopular with party activists who would decide party primaries. He was fairly conservative on some issues but Toomey and company said he wasn't conservative enough. So the party pretty much decided that they'd rather have ideological purity in the party than a senator from PA. From the standpoint of political science it's difficult to see that as rational.

 

Ironically Specter might end up in the same position with Dems come time for reelection, but the difference in that case would be the dems can conceivably keep his seat after ousting him. The Repubs don't have that luxury. The problem isn't that the GOP wants true believers in office, the problem is that they won't tolerate moderates even when they're beneficial to the party as a whole. The Club for Growth (what an ironic name!) are going after Olympia Snowe next. Their priority apparently is not governance. They're eating themselves.

 

Oddly enough, libertarians might be better accommodated under this Democratic regime on many issues than they were under Bush. I know for a fact that Obama intends to defer to states on drug policy, for instance.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Pop

[Wrath of Dagon]

Of course that's true, as Libertarians tend to be socially liberal. As far as Club for Growth, they're not the same thing as the Republican party, any more than Move On is the Democratic party.

[Pop]

Toomey would not have gotten this far without support from the GOP. And you don't even have to use that example, you can look to Michael Steele and the difficulties he's faced as head of the RNC. He made noise about appealing to moderates and independents, and he was shut down pretty much single-handedly by Rush Limbaugh. Michelle Bachman's also pretty beloved as well, and she seems genuinely frightened of a Stalinist revolution that only the mentally challenged can see.

[Humodour]

Of course that's true, as Libertarians tend to be socially liberal. As far as Club for Growth, they're not the same thing as the Republican party

 

They shouldn't be, but what's happening is they ARE becoming the Republican party, which is where a lot of the problem lies.

[Guard Dog]

Of course that's true, as Libertarians tend to be socially liberal.

 

I disagree with you here. Socially liberal thinkers seek to brand everything as ok. Libertarians simply value maximum personal freedom. For example; Personally I think abortion is morally wrong and abhorrent. However, I also believe that everyone should be free to pursue that option if they see fit. I would never participate in one and would try to dissuade anyone considering one but I would never they to stop them and I certainly would not ask the state to do it on my behalf. I do not believe it is my place as a citizen to impose my personal morality on anyone and far too many people think the state is simply a tool to do just that.

 

The religious right has grievously damaged the GOP because it forgot the America was in its heart a free country. That means free for people to live their lives as they see fit even if that way contradicts Christian values. For the GOP to return to prominence it needs to become the champion of personal liberty just as Obama is setting himself up as the opponent of it. There is such a golden opportunity here for a leader to point out exactly what the Obama administration has done to damage personal freedom in this country in just a scant three months. And they hold great ambitions to seize even more control over this country, its citizens and economy in the years to come.

 

That is going to be Obama's downfall in the end. His administration has already branded people who oppose it's agenda as "right wing extremists" and potential terrorists. There are already new gun control and limits on free speech being proposed. They are actively trying to silence talk radio and even proposals for blocking internet content (like China, Cuba, and North Korea all do). Cap and Trade will cause utility bills to sky rocket and imminent domain is being used to seize more land than ever before in our history. Heck even mention the 10th Amendment or Federalism ans you are either mocked, shouted down, or ignored. All of this could be used to destroy Obama and the left because Americans as a rule desire nothing more than to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. Obama and the left won't have it and the Christian right won't either. For the Republicans to return they have to ditch one to oppose the other.

[Pop]

That would be a pretty bad idea on the part of the Republican Party. I'll have to go back and check but I believe the white evangelical vote for the Repubs was about 15% of the total American population. The organization / indoctrination capabilities of churches are the envy of every other interest group in America. It would be stupid not to use that. Why wouldn't you? There isn't really a sizable counter-movement to speak of - christian liberals tend to be the type to decide that politics is a dirty business and not under the purview of the church. It's a huge consituency that's unbendingly loyal (they're fighting the forces of Satan after all) and they vote as if the fate of humanity depended on it.

 

The ties between the GOP and evangelical christendom go back at least as far as the Bolshevik Revolution. Communism was an atheistic movement and religious authorities felt threatened. And so they've been cozy with conservative politicians for that long, but as a social movement they've sprung up and died down every few decades. The Moral Majority and then the Christian Coalition made the last period of activity much more sustained. But they'll be back. America's religiosity is ingrained into its political culture. Mainstream conservatives won't stop claiming we're a Christian Nation anytime soon.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Pop

[Trenitay]

There are already new gun control and limits on free speech being proposed.

 

Really? I haven't been up to date on Obama for the last few weeks. Could you provide some sort of evidence to support this. Last I heard he said the gun control wasn't a big issue right now.

[Pop]

I assume by limits on free speech he means the Hate Crimes bill that's going through. It's all a part of the radical homosexual anarchist agenda.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Of course that's true, as Libertarians tend to be socially liberal.

 

I disagree with you here. Socially liberal thinkers seek to brand everything as ok. Libertarians simply value maximum personal freedom. For example; Personally I think abortion is morally wrong and abhorrent. However, I also believe that everyone should be free to pursue that option if they see fit. I would never participate in one and would try to dissuade anyone considering one but I would never they to stop them and I certainly would not ask the state to do it on my behalf. I do not believe it is my place as a citizen to impose my personal morality on anyone and far too many people think the state is simply a tool to do just that.

Well, you're right, I intentionally glossed over that distinction.

The religious right has grievously damaged the GOP because it forgot the America was in its heart a free country. That means free for people to live their lives as they see fit even if that way contradicts Christian values. For the GOP to return to prominence it needs to become the champion of personal liberty just as Obama is setting himself up as the opponent of it. There is such a golden opportunity here for a leader to point out exactly what the Obama administration has done to damage personal freedom in this country in just a scant three months. And they hold great ambitions to seize even more control over this country, its citizens and economy in the years to come.

The religious right is a major constituent of the GOP, I guess you could try to find/create enough libertarians to replace them, but I don't see that as viable. As far as not imposing morality, that's a very recent development, certainly when the constitution was written that was accepted as a matter of course.

[Pidesco]

I assume by limits on free speech he means the Hate Crimes bill that's going through. It's all a part of the radical homosexual anarchist agenda.

 

Isn't that just an extension to an already existing law? How does that curtail free speech?

 

 

They are actively trying to silence talk radio and even proposals for blocking internet content

 

Also, if this is happening, it is pretty shocking.