Is the Republican party just Anti-Obama no matter any bipartisanship?

[sukeban]

@kvn

 

While I agree with you that the Democrats aren't doing a phenomenal job, I once again caution against believing in the "false equivalency" that both parties are equally to blame for Washington dysfunction. They are not. Think back to all the other times that we have had divided government in this country (most of our history) and show me a time when one party has been so utterly unconstructive and obstructionist in their positions. I dare say that you probably couldn't find an instance comparable to the intransigence of the GOP from 2010 (really 2008, but they didn't have sufficient numbers to do much real damage) to the present. You see this type of madness in parliamentary systems--systems where representation is based off of proportion of the vote received and where snap elections are able to be called to break gridlock--and it is completely alien to the United States.

 

There are lots of reasons (some obvious, some not) that go into this, but it is an objective fact that no party has so abused the filibuster or presided over such a titanic legislative failure (112th Congress) as has the modern GOP. Looking at political metrics such as DW-NOMINATE (partisanship measured by Roll-Call votes), the GOP has been lurching ever-further to the extreme right of the political spectrum since the 1980s:

 

http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1.3.13-DW-Nominate-112th-Congress.jpg

 

These charts are based upon votes on economic issues (there's another set of data for "cross-cutting issues"--what we usually think of as the culture wars). You can see, since 1980 the GOP has been careening off the rails in terms of fighting for thoroughly debunked economic policies favoring the extremely wealthy. Democrats aren't exactly centrist, but there is a HUGE difference between their relative scores there, with the GOP House being 75% percent more partisan (.4 versus .7) on economic matters than Democrats in the House. Republicans in the Senate have historically been more moderate (with Democrats experiencing a lurch to the left in the 1940s), but have since matched--and exceeded--the partisanship of the Democrats, such as they are now about 25% more partisan. As our Founders expected, there is good reason to expect more partisanship out of the House (smaller districts with more extreme residents), but it looks as though--looking at the trend line--Republicans in the Senate aim to catch up to their House brethren in partisanship (meanwhile Democrats are standing pat at around -.38, as they have been for decades now).

 

Again, this is based on actual votes in Congress--so there should be no quibbling with these numbers. Republicans ARE the more extreme party these days--and have been since the 1980s. Unlike the 1980s, however, the rest of the country (measured by presidential outcomes) does not have their back. Vis-a-vis the rest of the country, the GOP is "going rogue," attempting to placate and pander to an ever-shrinking base of voters while the majority of the rest of the country wonders what the heck they are doing. Democrats are not saints, but they are--based upon their actual voting record--sitting at an average of -.4. Republicans are sitting at an average of .65. When it comes to "returning to the center," Republicans have a far greater distance to walk. One would hope they would start walking sooner rather than later.

Edited February 21, 2013 by sukeban

[HeyYou]

Just portraying the vote though, doesn't give the full picture...... Granted, these are all economic based votes? Still and all, seeing just what POLICIES both sides were after would help bring a little more meaning to the numbers. I could see the republicans voting "No" on measures that would expand various entitlement programs, that's just in their nature. Given the health-care drama of obama's first term, seeing the repubbies move more to the right wouldn't really be that much of a surprise.

 

Yeah, the republicans seem to love their 'trickle-down' economics.... even though it has been demonstrated many times that those policies simply do NOT work. Makes you wonder why they would continue to press them. :)

[sukeban]

@HeyYou

 

I get what you mean re: scoring of votes, but roll call votes are a matter of public record and the methodology and scoring of the NOMINATE statisticians are available their website. There is also the matter that, for the House, bills do not come up for a vote unless the Republicans (Boehner) want them to, so Democrats cannot "spam" them with bills that they will veto just to get them on the record. Republicans are Committee Chairs and form the majority on all House subcommittees, so nothing passes out of them (clearing the way for a roll call vote) unless it has Republican approval. In this way, the argument that NOMINATE is not an accurate measure of the House, I think, falls down, as these are votes on bills--and policies--that Republicans inherently support (otherwise, as in the case of an Assault Weapons Ban, they would not come up for a vote at all).

 

In the Senate, there is perhaps more capacity for Reid to bring up bills for a vote just to get Republicans on record, BUT he also has to worry about Democratic Senators from red states that would be put at potentially equal peril. Mary Landrieu (LA), Mark Prior (AR), Mark Begich (AK), Max Baucus (MT), Tim Johnson (SD), Joe Manchin (WV), and others are not particularly eager to go out on a liberal limb for Reid unless it is absolutely necessary. Reid, wanting to preserve his Speakership, does not want to needlessly expose them either, so I think this is another cut against the "vote spam" argument. In fact, this is a unique feature of the Democratic party, that they actually have significant numbers of members that are potentially willing to buck the majority of their party, demonstrating that Democrats have constituencies in their camp that are far more heterogeneous than those voting for Republicans. I tend to think "what good is a majority if you're not willing to use it" but I can understand and respect the pressures placed on conservative Democrats (and, with nothing having hope of passing the House, it would be foolish to take a dangerous vote on something that stands no chance of passing).

 

I'd also quarrel with the normative potential of saying that "Republicans are against something because it's in their nature." No quarrel with with how you used it (because it's true), but because I think it is dangerous for voters to give our representatives a pass like that, which is what I believe such statements implicitly are doing. That is like the Cold War game theoretical exercise of visualizing the launching of nukes as a game of Chicken, and the realization that both sides came to that if they could say that their response was "automatic" that it would force the burden of "swerving" onto the enemy. The enemy knew that the one side had tied themselves to the steering wheel and would not swerve, so it was left to them to compromise in order to avert disaster. THIS is precisely what the GOP is doing these days, tying their hands to the steering wheel and forcing the Democrats (who are still rational actors and don't want to die) to swerve first. It is an effective way of winning the game of Chicken, but, as we can see, it is an absolutely irresponsible and malicious way to attempt to govern a nation.

 

As for the GOP advocating thoroughly debunked and played out economic (and foreign policy, etc.) initiatives we are in full agreement. Indeed, looking at where the majority of Republican bread is buttered, we can all snarkily "wonder why" this is so bwaha.

[Beriallord]

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Democrats are doing such a phenomenal job at running this country, how could anyone legitimately question them? Why not just lock the Republicans in jail as political prisoners? :biggrin:

 

Oh come on now lets not get crazy and saying inflammatory things to provoke a crazy response , no one ever said the Democrats were doing a phenomenal job .lol

Was intended to be sarcasm :biggrin: .

 

Anyway I hope those evil Republicans completely stonewall anything the Democrats try and pass. The ones who voted for Republicans are the ones who want partisan gridlock. So the threats about them losing seats if they don't compromise, uh? No? Its actually the other way around. If they compromise ANY on lets say gun control? Then its likely they could lose a primary to a challenger.

So you think the sequester spending cuts are a good idea for the Republicans to stonewall just to create partisan gridlock for no apparent reason when both parties right now think the sequester is a bad idea? If both political parties think sequester spending cuts are a bad idea now, why doesn't the republican majority speaker of the house bring it up for a vote to repeal?

 

Are guns are more important than the well being of the countries economy? Doing nothing about the sequester spending cuts would be a job destroying tragedy not only to private job creators but also ultimately endup shutting down parts of the government. Good luck buying guns if you work for a company that lays you off because they lost billions in government buisness.

 

For the record Deomcrates have a higher national approval rating than the republicans right now. Democrates are around 49% and Republicans at around 27%

 

And i would have to say the democrates are doing a phenomenal job on capital hill despite the partisan gridlock. looking back to the end to the 112th congress every corner the Republicans have tried to stop important legislation the republican party has blinked. lol

They need to agree on a responsible budget that makes the debt counter go in reverse. Whatever it takes. I'm open to cuts all the way across the board including to the military.

 

If I was to go out and just keep maxing out credit cards and not paying them off, that would be considered irresponsible. I just expect the government to manage its budget responsibly like everyone else. Printing money and giving it to the bankers; what they call "quantitative easing" isn't helping anyone find a single job, and is only driving inflation up and putting the squeeze on the lower to middle class. So now the country is stuck with high unemployment + rising prices on everything. The Democrats claim to be for the lower to middle class, but they are only contributing to the problems that are wrecking the lower and middle class. At least I know the Republicans are for rich people. I still haven't figured out exactly who the Democrats are helping besides lobbyists, bankers and special interests.

 

As far as gun control, limiting magazine sizes, or specific classifications of guns based on ignorant assumptions. I'm vehemently against it, and not willing to compromise on that.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Beriallord

[kvnchrist]

You guys are forgetting one very essential portion of this entire episode. You bring up the past as if the circumstances coming into play here have ever taken place before. We have a time when when the country is going threw one of the longest economic disasters we've had in modern times. In the midst of this a Democratic president with far reaching designs on the shape and form of the country itself, comes to power. He has tried to change the energy polacies of the country. He has ended long entrenched programs that have brought prestige to the U.S. in a time where the country is on its knees.

 

I am not defending any party here, just giving my take on why there is so much drama in Washington. I dare say if Pat Rebertson suddenly became popular and was elected president, the left would be in full defensive mode as well. I would be willing to lay down money, that if he was implementing far right wing legislature that the left would be just as intransigent as the Republicans are today. If instead of healthcare, abortion rights, Welefare, Medicare and Medicare were on the perverbial chopping block you guys wouldn't be standing alone to shut down the legislative system, but you'd still be there.

 

The entire country is going through the most entense soul searching it's been through and you are wondering why the those on the listening end of the stick are clinging on to anything they can. The Republican Party might be fragmented. But they aren't in any way out of the game.

[sukeban]

@kvn

In defense of Pat Robertson, he has some good ideas (like reigning in our foreign policy) and he is honest and upfront about what he believes. Hopefully we'd never see a President Robertson, but I would gladly take your money if you wanted to bet on Democrats being carbon copies of the GOP 2008-2012. As I mentioned before, Democrats have a much wider constituency that they have to please (there actually are conservative Democrats) and some of them would be willing to meet a conservative half-way--if only to placate voters in their states/districts that might actually agree with those proposals. Democrats have not spent the last four years kicking out and primarying those within their party that fail their rigid ideological "litmus test" whereas the GOP has done precisely this.

Governance is a responsibility, a responsibility to do right by the entire nation, and if you fundamentally do not believe in government or are otherwise unwilling to compromise, franky, you do not belong there. The GOP of today has no ideas of its own and can't even accept the positions that it advocated for in the 1990s and 2000s. Its only purpose in political life seems to be to gum up the machinery of state and potentially crash our country into the ground if it does not get its way. What passes for ideas on their end are like political cave paintings, some bogus, quasi-religious faith that giving everything to the amazingly wealthy will somehow improve the lot of the working poor and middle class. Perish the thought of a 9$ minimum wage, for example, or the idea of elimimating tax breaks for corporate jets... why not balance the books by cutting unemployment insurance or the school lunch program! The GOP wants us to believe that we collectively have not lived through the period of time from the 1980s to the present, the period of time in which GOP economic policies have begun to dismantle the middle class and have further impoverished the working poor. By all means, let us return to that.

Anyway, please do check out the above chart and witness the ideological BASE-jump that Republicans have made to the right over the last thirty years. The reforms that the Democrats are proposing now would not have been controversial in 1970s. Nixon established the EPA and expanded the social safety net, Eisenhower invested heavily in infrastructure and sent the National Guard to Little Rock, and Reagan and the elder Bush both raised taxes. Under today's GOP purity requirements, these guys would be booted out and primaried so fast it would make our collective head spin. All of these presidents--even Reagan!--were compromisers. Furthermore, most of these presidents had to deal with at least a Democratic House, but quite often an entirely Democratic Congress. Yet bills passed, lots of bills, progressive bills, regressive bills--all kinds of bills. The filibuster was not abused. Democrats allowed the governing of the country to continue even when they disagreed with the direction that it was taking. Wow. Can you ever imagine that happening again? I can, but I also believe that the only road to a chastened GOP is prolonged stint in the political wilderness where they can carry out their "soul searching" without negatively impacting the rest of the country.

Edited February 22, 2013 by sukeban

[kvnchrist]

@ sukeban Lets get past the partisan rhetoric shall we. a good 60% of your last post was that and nothing more.

 

To say the left hasn't did it's share of purging is to ignore what happened to Joe Lieberman.

 

You seem to be stuck on the idea that the legislation that is coming out of Washington is beneficial based on your own political views. Others have different veiws and frankly these graphs say nothing about what was in these bills, just that they were economic. It says nothing about the leaning of the American public and seeing that would tell me more about who was leaning away from the country.

 

Frankly, the idea that someone should not adapt their past positions to modern day situations I think, if you think about it just is not human nature. The country has changed as well as the situation they are dealing with and there is always the unknown element of what the Republicans are dealing with in the back rooms of the congress.

 

As far as the minimum wage, I look at that, this way. If I had a family with kids and paid those kids for the chores they do. What would raising their earnings do to the families money if the family income was in the same trouble as the economy is in? I'm not an educated man, but I think anyone can see warning signs inherent in this.

 

As far as the temperament of the republican party in the past, I think I've already commented on that. Nether of the political parties are the same now as they were then and the situation has also changed radically. As far as present legislation passing in the past I don't think that The affordable care act could at anytime have been passed until it was pushed through as it was. Personally, I think it was past due and we should have been a single payer project, but as I've said, Fear runs rampid, sometimes.

 

As far as the Filibuster is concerned, I think that was a ludicrous thing to have in the congress to begin with. We are a country who votes people to congress to represent them. If they send a majority of one political party than the other, then the lesser of the two is doing something wrong and needs to suck it up until the next election.

[sukeban]

@kvn

 

You say "partisan rhetoric" like it is inherently a bad thing. Like all things, it can be good or bad depending on use. At best, it can serve to boil issues down into basic components that people will remember and be moved by, and, at worst, it will obscure these same issues and confuse the listener, often serving as cover for the peddling of a lie. Calling Democrats "Communists" or calling W. Bush a "Fascist" would fall into this latter category; pointing out that Republicans have abused the filibuster in historic proportions or that they find the idea of raising the minimum wage anathema are, on the other hand, easily verifiable facts. So too is the fact that their "plan" for economic recovery consists primarily of tax cuts for "job creators" coupled with deep cuts to social services (Paul Ryan budget), and that they are opposed to the idea of closing tax loopholes that only those with access to highly paid accountants or making certain types of income have the wherewithal to enjoy. Out of this, a general trend becomes rather clear. Calling that spade--that the Republicans seem preoccupied with protecting the prerogatives of the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class--a spade seems... obvious, to be frank.

 

As for the ideological rigidity of the parties, Lieberman (and, I'll add another: Bart Stupak) are valid counterexamples, but I would need more than just two names if we are seriously attempting to place both parties at a coequal level of partisan purity. Without more names, that's just an example of the "false equivalence" that I'm talking about, the whole obsession with saying "Dems say one thing, Republicans say another" and then treating both viewpoints as being equally legitimate. I remember CNN hosting Orly Taitz and somebody from the Obama campaign on the "Birther" issue. The moderator treated both sides as equally legitimate, when, anyone with a functioning brain would agree, they are not. The false equivalence damages our political discourse by putting crazy, debunked ideas on the same plane with rational, fact-based ideas, and it cheapens our politics and paves the way for bad public policy.

 

And public policy can be measured and evaluated as to its efficacy; indeed, with the assistance of social science and economic metrics, most aspects of public policy are no longer a mystery. These same tools allow us to measure things such as the "leaning of the American people." Polls from reputable institutions following sound methologies allow us to gauge the mood of the electorate more accurately--and more frequently--than ever before. For example, right now we know that a large plurality of Americans would blame the GOP for the sequester, as they did for the fiscal cliff impasse. We also know that the president's favoribility rating is the highest it's been in three years and that the GOP is busy dwelling in the public relations basement. We also know that over 70% of Americans approve of a hike of the minimum wage to 9$. AND, in the most accurate "poll" of them all, Obama and the Democrats just won the last national election (a mere three months ago) very, very convincingly. What further evidence could you possibly want or need to convince you that Republicans are not on the majority side of this argument.

 

Our politics surely are different now than in the recent past, but that is a straight cop out excuse for legislators not sucking it up and actually governing the country. There might also be an "unknown element" going on in Republican caucus meetings (likely Boehner not being able to corral his Tea Party caucus members), but, from a citizen's perspective, that is not supposed to be our problem. Their job--their only job--is to be a governing partner--to achieve results and improve the lives of citizens... or at least refrain from making them worse--and they are failing miserably at it. The most irrational aspect of this is that the GOP seems willing to martyr itself for nothing; there isn't any heroic electoral prize to be won if they oppose broadly favored legislation or hold up Chuck Hagel's nomination, only derision from the majority of the electorate that has seen them up to these games for the last two years and that has grown exceedingly tired of it. These antics are not netting the GOP any votes--only costing public support and credibility--and it is an absurd way for a party interested in its electoral future, in winning future elections, to behave.

 

Anyway, no jibe intented whatsoever. Reasonable people can disagree on all sorts of things, and debates are always good fun. I've a great antipathy toward the current incarnation of the GOP, but that doesn't necessarily translate into an automatic love of Democrats (rather, viewing them as the lesser of two evils in a troubled political time). TBH, I 100% agree with you on issues like the filibuster and on a single-payer healthcare system (and probably loads more as well).

 

And finally, have to laugh at myself. Definitely read "Pat Buchanan" instead of "Pat Robertson" in your previous post. I can get down with certain aspects of what Buchanan talk(ed) about, but I've no common ground nor love for Pat Robertson.

[kvnchrist]

@kvn

 

You say "partisan rhetoric" like it is inherently a bad thing. Like all things, it can be good or bad depending on use. At best, it can serve to boil issues down into basic components that people will remember and be moved by, and, at worst, it will obscure these same issues and confuse the listener, often serving as cover for the peddling of a lie. Calling Democrats "Communists" or calling W. Bush a "Fascist" would fall into this latter category; pointing out that Republicans have abused the filibuster in historic proportions or that they find the idea of raising the minimum wage anathema are, on the other hand, easily verifiable facts. So too is the fact that their "plan" for economic recovery consists primarily of tax cuts for "job creators" coupled with deep cuts to social services (Paul Ryan budget), and that they are opposed to the idea of closing tax loopholes that only those with access to highly paid accountants or making certain types of income have the wherewithal to enjoy. Out of this, a general trend becomes rather clear. Calling that spade--that the Republicans seem preoccupied with protecting the prerogatives of the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class--a spade seems... obvious, to be frank.

 

As for the ideological rigidity of the parties, Lieberman (and, I'll add another: Bart Stupak) are valid counterexamples, but I would need more than just two names if we are seriously attempting to place both parties at a coequal level of partisan purity. Without more names, that's just an example of the "false equivalence" that I'm talking about, the whole obsession with saying "Dems say one thing, Republicans say another" and then treating both viewpoints as being equally legitimate. I remember CNN hosting Orly Taitz and somebody from the Obama campaign on the "Birther" issue. The moderator treated both sides as equally legitimate, when, anyone with a functioning brain would agree, they are not. The false equivalence damages our political discourse by putting crazy, debunked ideas on the same plane with rational, fact-based ideas, and it cheapens our politics and paves the way for bad public policy.

 

And public policy can be measured and evaluated as to its efficacy; indeed, with the assistance of social science and economic metrics, most aspects of public policy are no longer a mystery. These same tools allow us to measure things such as the "leaning of the American people." Polls from reputable institutions following sound methologies allow us to gauge the mood of the electorate more accurately--and more frequently--than ever before. For example, right now we know that a large plurality of Americans would blame the GOP for the sequester, as they did for the fiscal cliff impasse. We also know that the president's favoribility rating is the highest it's been in three years and that the GOP is busy dwelling in the public relations basement. We also know that over 70% of Americans approve of a hike of the minimum wage to 9$. AND, in the most accurate "poll" of them all, Obama and the Democrats just won the last national election (a mere three months ago) very, very convincingly. What further evidence could you possibly want or need to convince you that Republicans are not on the majority side of this argument.

 

Our politics surely are different now than in the recent past, but that is a straight cop out excuse for legislators not sucking it up and actually governing the country. There might also be an "unknown element" going on in Republican caucus meetings (likely Boehner not being able to corral his Tea Party caucus members), but, from a citizen's perspective, that is not supposed to be our problem. Their job--their only job--is to be a governing partner--to achieve results and improve the lives of citizens... or at least refrain from making them worse--and they are failing miserably at it. The most irrational aspect of this is that the GOP seems willing to martyr itself for nothing; there isn't any heroic electoral prize to be won if they oppose broadly favored legislation or hold up Chuck Hagel's nomination, only derision from the majority of the electorate that has seen them up to these games for the last two years and that has grown exceedingly tired of it. These antics are not netting the GOP any votes--only costing public support and credibility--and it is an absurd way for a party interested in its electoral future, in winning future elections, to behave.

 

Anyway, no jibe intented whatsoever. Reasonable people can disagree on all sorts of things, and debates are always good fun. I've a great antipathy toward the current incarnation of the GOP, but that doesn't necessarily translate into an automatic love of Democrats (rather, viewing them as the lesser of two evils in a troubled political time). TBH, I 100% agree with you on issues like the filibuster and on a single-payer healthcare system (and probably loads more as well).

 

And finally, have to laugh at myself. Definitely read "Pat Buchanan" instead of "Pat Robertson" in your previous post. I can get down with certain aspects of what Buchanan talk(ed) about, but I've no common ground nor love for Pat Robertson.

 

Look man. I grow increasingly tired of reading 1000 word essays that can more easily condensed down into your core argument, which seeming stems from the idea that the Republicans are extreme because they don't side more with Democratic aims. You use of a graph of three democratic voting against a Republican vote in the same time frame seems to be trying to make this point, but this only proves that the Democrats and the Republicans are far apart on the issues and are getting farther apart. This is no surprise to anybody, but you make it out as if the Democratic voting record is the standard for the country and I really don't think you can make that claim. The Republicans do what Republicans do and the Democrats do what the they do.

 

This use of the term false equivalency is just that. A use of a word. It can be valid or just overused to make an unobtainable point. To me the two party system and those swimming in it are equally to blame for the current intransigence, not because what one is doing to the other at this point in time, but what has been happening over the last several years. Neither party will actively allow the other to gain favor with the American people by creating legislation that will actual benefit the public. Both sides send their spin doctors and partisan hacks to lipsinc the party line and the same thing occurs every time. Fear and confusion for the public instead of their betterment by a government in love with itself.

 

You are a Democrat and you are entitled to defend whatever you will, but if it is a quote/unquote cop out for one then it is equaly a cop out for the other to do the same thing when the situation is reversed. As I've said before, If you want to get something done then remove the obstacle not blame it for being an obstacle. Get a Democratic house and move foreword. This has not been done yet and until it is, this will be the situation we all will be dealing with.

 

[HeyYou]

Given that congress as a whole has a single digit approval rating.... whereas, even the IRS is at about 40%.... there is most certainly something wrong in Washington. Is that going to change any time soon? I doubt it. Our government is at the mercy of those that provide campaign funding. THEY are the ones that are directing which way the country goes. Unfortunately, it looks like that direction is: Down the Tubes.....