It wasn’t Eric Cantor’s positions, it was his lack of involvement. He didn’t pay enough attention to his district.
“Non crazy” Republicans are closer to the Tea Party than they are to any Democrat. There really aren’t any moderate Republicans, just as there really aren’t any (or very few) conservative Democrats. But that said, no, “both sides are guilty” is inaccurate, as pointed out here and here. The Wonkblog piece has charts, and referencing one of those:
As you can see, in the most recent Congress nearly 90 percent of Republican House members are not politically moderate. By contrast, 90 percent of Democratic members are moderates. It’s quite difficult to square a chart like this with a claim that Democrats are abandoning the center faster than Republicans. As the chart shows, there are plenty of centrist Democrats left in the House – but hardly any centrist Republicans.
Now, without the Tea Party the government will remain open and we won’t default on the debt, so I guess that’s something.
*
Thanks IL on the insights from the post Civil War period. I have to wonder why, seemingly, extremism can take hold so easily (a cursory review of news from around the globe is replete with examples. It actually rather depressing.)
“Non crazy” Republicans are closer to the Tea Party than they are to any Democrat.
I do not know if this is still true.
I’m a conservative, and probably what I would consider a “non crazy republican” but I find much more in common with the democrats than with the tea party at this point. Perhaps not on many small issues, but on super critical important ones, like “The government should not shut down” and “the US should never default on its debt”.
I can compromise with Democrats. We can come to some middle ground, and things can work.
But I cannot work with crazy tea party guys who have literally no grasp of reality, or any notion of the repercussions of their actions. They are like lunatics. You can’t negotiate with lunatics.
Most of your positions are pretty reasonable, and you’re also open to data which you use to shape your opinions. I’d reckon that makes you an outlier in today’s GOP. Anywhere but maybe the northeast you’d have real problems getting elected as a Republican.
Sure, but you aren’t running for any elections in a gerrymandered red district with a wingnut ready to challenge you in the primary either.
There are plenty of rational conservatives. The problem is that very few of them actually govern and any that do are more concerned with reelection than doing the right thing (since, like most politicians the “right thing” is lining your pockets with as much cash and power as you can before the lucrative lobbying position).
Again, I blame the idea of Reagan’s Commandment and the sort of bullshit it basically says to let slide. Party above country is exactly the sort of shit Washington warned everyone about.
Maybe not that simple. In the primaries the crazies are more likely to vote while the non-crazies will sit it out, especially when they think the incumbent is safe. Cantor didn’t take it seriously, but it was a turnout issue as much as anything.
The Republican party needs to start using some of its vote suppression tactics on its own crazies in the primaries. How glorious that would be!
Open question for the thread: What do you want to ask the Freedom Caucus?
I’ve got an opportunity to go to a town hall on Friday with my local congresscritter, Justin Amash. I’ve gone to a few of these, and while I don’t always get a chance to speak up, more often than not there’s a chance to ask a question. I actually admire Amash for the way he explains his votes, holds these town hall meetings, and generally operates the office and serves his constituents. If he wasn’t insane economically and intractable politically, like the rest of his caucus, I’d actually be happy that he was my representative.
Last time I asked a question of him, it was “How do we solve congressional gridlock?” And he said, “Change the house leadership.” Check! So, what should I try to ask next?
I really think it’s a structural issue, where the lack of competition results in increasing polarization.
Compare these two electoral maps for example.
And not to derail things too badly, but Jackson’s war against the national bank had two purposes. He was opposed to it on ideological grounds, but the second rational was tactical. Jackson was looking for issues that weren’t regional, where you could find national agreement. He wanted issues that Democrats could run on both in New York State, and down south in Carolina. And again, this had a lot to do with his fears about slavery. Both he and Martin van Buren believed slavery was too dangerous to touch. It was the issue that they couldn’t afford to talk about, for fear of the consequences.
The war resolved the issue of slavery, thankfully, but that wasn’t the only cultural cleavage between the two regions. They had very different world views and starkly different ways of ordering their societies. I think the current party system places an unfortunate stress on those disagreements (which haven’t gone away) - disagreements which explain the mess in Washington. The only solution that I can come up with is to think like Jackson, and to find issues that appeal to voters in the countryside, in the south, but also in places like New England.
Have you ever read the book What’s the Matter with Kansas? Thomas Frank was puzzled why so many red state voters cast ballots, seemingly, against their economic interests. The answer is fairly predictable, social and cultural issues were more important - but I do think there’s an opening there.
Well, it was his job to get voters out. If he had built strong bonds in the district, it wouldn’t have been an issue.
It’s a shame Gov. Brown is probably too old to run. Gandalf (as some of the rags affectionately call him) would be a very intriguing candidate.
I wish Gov. Brown would run too, just so he could use “California Uber Alles” as his campaign song.
“Given that the House will never be comprised of people who all share exactly the same views, do you believe it’s possible to effectively govern if you are unwilling to compromise with those whose views differ from yours? Isn’t politics the art of compromise?”
I’d like to know if the Freedom Caucus folks feel any responsibility for the well-being of Americans who do not agree with them, which is incidentally half the country or more.
“Given that the House will never be comprised of people who all share exactly the same views, do you believe it’s possible to effectively govern if you are unwilling to compromise with those whose views differ from yours? Isn’t politics the art of compromise?”
Yes, ask this.
Also, ask him if he likes to suck dicks one at a time, or if he just stuffs them all in his mouth at the same time like Slimer from Ghostbusters.
You should probably ask that second question last though.
I like Timex’s second question. But if by some chance you don’t wanna ask that one, how about this more Republican-specific variant of Rightbug’s:
“Lately the Freedom Caucus has gotten a lot of bad publicity, with some saying they’re causing a crisis that threatens the very existence of the Republican party. Given that perception, what can you offer your fellow Republicans who don’t belong to your caucus? Why should your fellow GOPers ally themselves with the caucus of perpetual crisis?”
I’m undecided as to whether the most likely answer would be:
a) “We offer no reward but to walk the path of righteousness with the pure and the just as we smite the infidel.”
or
b) “We promise to eat them last.”
The most likely answer is probably “both a and b,” come to think of it.
Since they can do the most damage by allowing the nation to default, I’d love to hear the answer to would you be willing to allow our nation to default on their debt? If the answer is yes, then follow up with you don’t think we should pay the bills that congress has already approved? And allow the nation and perhaps the world economy to crash, which is what would happen if we defaulted?
“Which will happen first – Democrats will emulate Republicans and go off the deep end? Or mainstream media will adjust to the new reality and acknowledge that Republicans are not merely ideologically different from Democrats but engaged in a unique form of politics that undermines the system itself?”
Mann and Ornstein totally dodge the media part of the question, which I guess is understandable if you’re trying to get the mainstream media to cover you. But I think the mainstream media would rather go extinct than give up on the both-sides-do-it cut and paste narrative. It’s easy, it’s got built-in drama, and it makes both the people who write the paychecks and their increasingly aged audiences very, very happy.
Of course the mainstream news media is going extinct. But they’re going to go out the easy way, without any messy new narratives to confuse their twilight years.
(If you’re wondering who Mann and Ornstein are, they are the epitome of respected-inside-the-Beltway policy wonks and have been for over 30 years. If they say things in DC are bad, you can bet that it’s bad.)
Honestly, I don’t see a how any amount of truth telling by “the media” will improve things, because there is no longer a single dominant majority media seen as trustworthy by everyone. The factionalization of the media has hardened and widened the ideological separation between voters, to the point where only the self-selected media matters.
It’s not US politics, or congress, or the parties which are defective. It’s the voting public. Large chunks of the electorate have been carved off, inoculated from “media” truth, and locked into an ideological echo chamber. As long as unlimited money can pour into factional media, and into political campaigns, and as long as lawmakers can gerrymander their districts so that only the most extremist votes matter in elections, American Democracy will remain fundamentally broken.
I
Mann is better Ornstein has turned hackish. His solution is that hey best case Republicans become moderate Democrats blowing thru spending caps, bring back exIm etc. Same logic could be best case Obama has small tax cut and sticks to budget caps and enact keystone.
If your position is that one side should adopt the other side policies to save DC, you are not exactly convincing me.
Well, when one side’s policies are “burn it down. Burn it all down!”…