0
wmw999

US Political Party Motion

Recommended Posts

So, we keep hearing assertions that the Democrats and the Republicans have changed; people who belong to one party (or who used to belong to one) always say that the other one has changed beyod recognition. No one ever thinks that the party they identify with is the one that's changed -- it's always the other.

So here's the place for the fine minds of SC to analyze this. And what's changed more, the ideology or the methods?

BTW, including the Southern Democrats/Dixiecrats in the Democratic party isn't really a part of this discussion -- that was a result of the party of Lincoln being unacceptable to the fine upstanding Southerners in the 1870's, and led to tradition. There are lots and lots of trends that can be analyzed over the years, including to and from progressivism, nativism, populism, and the changing defnitions of all those.

And I'll start -- I'm not sure that the actual ideology has changed as much as the defnition of what the goals are, at least in the short run. This isn't unprecedented, but I think it's being amplified by Fox News and its desire to make it easy for people to know who's on their team, or who's with "us" or against "us," with the definition of "us" being malleable.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with BillyVance from another recent thread in that I believe the left has gone further left and the right further right (equal and opposite reaction?). I can't recall politics being quite as divisive and toxic as present day and that's reflected right here in this forum too comparable over several years. I think the topics of 'woke' and climate change have been fundamentally divisive with people landing firmly on either side of the issue with little neutrality. As both of these concepts were initiated from the left, I think the political right has asserted reaction rather than action.

  Globally also; the recent outcome of the Australian federal election saw the (previously) ruling party, while attempting to pander to both left and right sides on climate change issues, ultimately abandoned to some degree by both. The recent French elections; a surge in 'right' support (albeit not a win) at a time when the two main parties had very different ideologies. One might assume that the ruling party had moved too far left for some voter's liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

BTW, including the Southern Democrats/Dixiecrats in the Democratic party isn't really a part of this discussion -- that was a result of the party of Lincoln being unacceptable to the fine upstanding Southerners in the 1870's, and led to tradition.

I'd go further and say that politics before the 1950's or so is now irrelevant since the parties have effectively swapped ideologies.

But to the larger point, I think you can trace much of this back to the 1970's.  In 1978, Newt Gingrich (then just a college professor) gave a speech to a group of college republicans about the problems republicans faced,  "One of the great problems we have in the republican party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty."  He went on to tell them what they would have to do to succeed - “raise hell” and treat politics as a “war for power.”  His goal was to destroy bipartisan politics in America, so that he could then point to the government and say how evil and dysfunctional they were.  Then the electorate would want to dump the democratic majority and bring his party back to power.  His idea "was to build toward a national election where people were so disgusted by Washington and the way it was operating that they would throw the ins out and bring the outs in.”

His goal was to use the media to garner power.  "If you’re not in The Washington Post every day, you might as well not exist" he told a colleague.  His work in Congress was far more destructive than constructive.  If the GOP was working on a bipartisan bill with the democrats, he would scuttle it to avoid giving the democrats a win.  If the GOP was pushing a partisan bill that wasn't partisan _enough_ he'd attack the republicans sponsoring it as weak.  Such efforts, in his view, "represented a culture which had been defeated consistently."

In 1988 he decided to start taking democrats down.  So he targeted the democratic speaker of the house, Jim Wright.  Gingrich tried to gin up some sort of sex scanal involving an underage page.  It failed.  Then he tried to attack him for shady lobbing practices.  That failed.  Finally he found $60,000 that Wright had made selling books, and managed to convince everyone that was a scandal.  Wright resigned.

This set the stage for the GOP for the next 30 years.  Politics in the US went from boring CSPAN-worthy coverage to front page news involving sex scandals, accusations of treason and constant name-calling - and that has persisted to this day,

Initially democrats had no response for this, since they had no desire to drop what they had been doing that had been working.  (Working for both parties, at least up until Nixon.)  But then they started losing.  And losing a lot.  To quote Aaron Sorkin - "You know why people don't like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fuckin' smart, how come they lose so goddam always?"

So democrats started using the same tactics.  And it worked as well, although they weren't as good at it.  With someone like Trump it works fairly well, because he's so immoral and unprincipled that it was easy.  When a former wife accuses him of rape, and 13 other women accuse him of sexual assault, it's not hard to build a case that he is, in fact, something of an evil guy.  But on the harder nuts to crack, they are simply not as good at those sort of attacks that the GOP is.

But they are learning.  And what Gingrich set in motion over 40 years ago is now coming to fruition - a two party system, where the party that can be the most nasty wins.

(Which is one of the reasons I am now an independent.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

March 10,2022 PEW Research

"Both parties have grown more ideologically cohesive. There are now only about two dozen moderate Democrats and Republicans left on Capitol Hill, versus more than 160 in 1971-72."

FT_22.02.22_CongressPolarization_chamber

ft_2022.02.22_congresspolarization_house

I like PEW research because its accurate, independent and through. I don't think its so much about which side is "nastier". As it is the extremes that don't take prisoners and don't compromise.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, metalslug said:

I agree with BillyVance from another recent thread in that I believe the left has gone further left and the right further right (equal and opposite reaction?).

Economically both parties have moved further and further right.

4 hours ago, metalslug said:

I can't recall politics being quite as divisive and toxic as present day and that's reflected right here in this forum too comparable over several years. I think the topics of 'woke' and climate change have been fundamentally divisive with people landing firmly on either side of the issue with little neutrality.

Right, but as we’ve established several times you don’t even know what ‘woke’ means despite being angry about it yourself. Hence the division that you feel over wokeness hasn’t been instigated by woke people, it’s been instigated by the people who’ve told you to be angry over wokeness.

4 hours ago, metalslug said:

The recent French elections; a surge in 'right' support (albeit not a win) at a time when the two main parties had very different ideologies. One might assume that the ruling party had moved too far left for some voter's liking.

You might think that if you wanted to assume something simple instead of bothering to learn anything about French politics. Or populism. Or politics in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jakee said:

Right, but as we’ve established several times you don’t even know what ‘woke’ means despite being angry about it yourself. Hence the division that you feel over wokeness hasn’t been instigated by woke people, it’s been instigated by the people who’ve told you to be angry over wokeness.

..and yet with asinine statements like that you've yet again demonstrated absolutely fsckall knowledge of the subject controversy yourself. Next player, please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jakee said:

....You might think that if you wanted to assume something simple instead of bothering to learn anything about French politics. Or populism. Or politics in general.

Yes. Macron started campaigning almost-as as an afterthought. He was the first president to win re-election in two decades. In addition turnout was almost at historic lows. So the motivated right had every opportunity to turnout win. Macron won with over 58% of the vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 hours ago, metalslug said:

..and yet with asinine statements like that you've yet again demonstrated absolutely fsckall knowledge of the subject controversy yourself. Next player, please...

You can't just say that and have it be true. You have actually demonstrated that you don't know what wokeness and related subjects like CRT are. You have actually admitted that you didn't know what cancel cuture was while simutaneously being angry about it because the right wing media told you to be angry about it. Yet you have still given zero critical thought to any of the other right wing media scare stories, just kept on being angry about them and blaming the left. 

You can blame me for your own wilful ignorance if you want, but it's really yourself you're hurting.

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, metalslug said:

As both of these concepts were initiated from the left, I think the political right has asserted reaction rather than action.

Says the straight, white male...just defending your right to be on top of the wealth, safety and privilege pyramid, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, metalslug said:

As both of these concepts were initiated from the left

Also noticed - the concept of climate change, initiated from the left???

This statement makes as much sense as the concept of gravity being initiated from the Church of England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Also noticed - the concept of climate change, initiated from the left???

This statement makes as much sense as the concept of gravity being initiated from the Church of England.

Yeah - people viewing climate change as a "concept" is revealing as to their IQ.

In addition - the concept of "woke" i'd say was very much initiated from the right. They can't (or won't) define it, but they use it to parcel up all the boogeymen they want their faithful to be scared of. It's this year's "socialist"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

In addition - the concept of "woke" i'd say was very much initiated from the right.

It's their wrap-all word, but the right is basically saying: "Women and minorities shouldn't ask for equal rights, more consideration, or more representation until we decide to give it to them. Asking for them is initiating, we're just reacting."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

It's their wrap-all word, but the right is basically saying: "Women and minorities shouldn't ask for equal rights, more consideration, or more representation until we decide to give it to them. Asking for them is initiating, we're just reacting."

I always understood it as something like:

We are finally realizing (waking up to the fact) how much damage that we (the dominant groups) have done to 'them' (the subjugated groups). 

Obviously, there are a LOT of members of the dominant groups that refuse to recognize this. 
So they turned 'woke' into a pejorative.

I've heard the opinion that they are afraid that if the oppressed minorities gain power, they well threat them as bad as they had previously treated the minorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, Stumpy said:

Yeah - people viewing climate change as a "concept" is revealing as to their IQ.

In addition - the concept of "woke" i'd say was very much initiated from the right. They can't (or won't) define it, but they use it to parcel up all the boogeymen they want their faithful to be scared of. It's this year's "socialist"

The concept did not originate on the right, but it has been very effectively hijacked by culture warriors. It has an interesting history going back to at least the 1930s.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2022 at 10:01 AM, wmw999 said:

So, we keep hearing assertions that the Democrats and the Republicans have changed; people who belong to one party (or who used to belong to one) always say that the other one has changed beyod recognition. No one ever thinks that the party they identify with is the one that's changed -- it's always the other....

Wendy P.

Well the GOP is painting itself in its true colors. "Carl P. Paladino, a Republican running for a House seat in Western New York, praised Adolf Hitler last year for inspiring his followers, describing the fascist dictator as “the kind of leader we need today.”

"he was impressed by how the German leader and head of the Nazi Party “aroused the crowd.“He would get up there screaming these epithets and these people were just, they were hypnotized by him,”. He previously stated that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that being gay was acceptable and suggested that Michelle Obama, the former first lady, should be “let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe.”

Coming soon Paladino as a GOP presidential candidate. With FOX approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Well the GOP is painting itself in its true colors. "Carl P. Paladino, a Republican running for a House seat in Western New York, praised Adolf Hitler last year for inspiring his followers, describing the fascist dictator as “the kind of leader we need today.”

"he was impressed by how the German leader and head of the Nazi Party “aroused the crowd.“He would get up there screaming these epithets and these people were just, they were hypnotized by him,”. He previously stated that children should not be “brainwashed” into thinking that being gay was acceptable and suggested that Michelle Obama, the former first lady, should be “let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe.”

Coming soon Paladino as a GOP presidential candidate. With FOX approval.

Republican Mary Miller: "Hitler was right about one thing . . "

Republican Frank Nicely: "Hitler lived on the streets and practiced his oratory, and his body language, and how to connect with citizens and then went on to lead a life that got him in the history books.”

There's some serious hero worship going on in republican circles these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0