A writer I like had a reply to the Niskanen piece:
His reply covers a lot of the highlights of this thread:
That was pretty great, thanks for sharing.
Posting this here because the Democrat thread is giving me a 502.
Edit: Added some quotes; this is a very good piece by Whitehouse.
Our worst trait as Democrats is our willingness to lose once we’re in a fight. What do I mean? We’re the party that achieved great field position on three key issues—immigration, climate change, and dark money—and all three times we walked away and conceded defeat.
Which brings me to the third fight we declined to engage: In the wake of Citizens United, all that newly-unlimited political money swiftly found its way into dark-money channels. The most prevalent dark-money channels were probably illegal under IRS rules, and simple clarifications of those rules could have eliminated any doubt. Because the political use of these IRS-regulated entities was probably illegal, the dark-money outfits filed forms with the IRS that were often false, or at least materially inconsistent with forms they also filed under oath with state and federal election officials. This was all done in plain view.
Democrats controlled Treasury and the IRS, and also the DOJ, which ordinarily prosecutes false statements. The public hates dark money, and with good reason: it corrodes democracy. The law was on our side. And we had the power to settle any doubt through these agencies. But we did nothing. No rule, no regulation, no clarification; not even investigation of what the explanation was for the inconsistent statements made under sworn oath. A grand jury could have had a field day investigating that.
Not only did we walk away from this fight, we failed at the “teaching moment” this episode provided. We accepted the false Republican narrative that a wicked IRS was being used to hurt conservative groups—nothing else to see here folks, move along. Dark money has been the bane of our democracy ever since.
Messaging leads to a related loser trait: poll-chasing. The messaging wizards look to polling to tell us what the public wants to hear; they feed that to us to feed back to the public. That’s bullshit. Great political parties do not subsist on the receiving end of public opinion, they lead public opinion. When we persist on an issue, and fight on an issue, we will drive up its importance in public polling.
Why do you guys keep saying this?
I mean, Chait explicitly said this. You keep trying to counter him by… Repeating what he said.
I feel like some of you guys are so entrenched in the idea of political combat that the notion of libertarian minded people actually sharing common ground with you is somehow disconcerting.
But it shouldn’t be.
They are folks who don’t have the dogmatic adherence to ideas like “regulations are always bad”.
The other aspect which i feel like folks are going 6 over, is that when you compare Democratic ideas to Republican ones, the difference is so ideologically rooted and vast that "Democratic ideas"means something, once you start thinking deeper about those issues, you’ll likely find that there are various approaches to achieving the things covered under that broad umbrella.
That’s not the disconcerting part. It’s the idea that, to achieve that common ground, we need a different party. It’s self-serving at the very least; the Niskanen guys are used to being big fish in a small pond, and they don’t want to become small fish in a big pond, even if that’s the most straight-forward way to achieve the political aims they share with Dems.
I mean, can anyone point to the time that the Democrats got control of government and used that control to enact the agenda of the most left members of the party? Maybe, just maybe, you could point to FDR, but even then, there were far more radical members of the party with far more radical ideas. There isn’t much to fear from the ‘left wing’ of the party. This is in stark contrast to the GOP, where when they get control, they always chase and try to appease the craziest members of their party.
If the part you’re in supports 90% of your ideas, that’s probably the right party to be in. You don’t need another one unless they’re so entrenched they can’t handle a D in front of their name.
In a world where the two parties are the GOP and the Democrats, then this is exactly what you do.
But if we agree that the GOP has become so terrible that they need to be destroyed, then what, Nesrie? Everyone just be Democrats?
It would be a good start, but that won’t happen. There are actually some people, not a small number, who like the GOP and their policy goals.
Right now. Absolutely.
The idea that there should be a party that 100% agrees with you is partially how the GOP got to where it is.
I mean I’ve said this before, that 30% that’s Trump’s base, they’re not going anywhere. That’s the GOP. So if someone is in the GOP and they’re not part of that 30% not only should they join the Democrats they should consider remaining. Why wouldn’t they? 90% is pretty darn close, that’s an A-. What they waiting for, 99%? The idea that you can even find a single person that agrees with you 99% of time is crazy, so a group of them in a party… that’'s why they keep trying to enforce themselves on others.
No, not right now.
After the GOP is destroyed.
I am not sold this is going to happen. Around 30% of the voting population support this guy. Why do you think that’s going to just vanish.
And if you agree with someone 90% of the time, why do you care anyway? Just join the people who mostly agree with and add your voice.
If it doesn’t happen, then it’s a moot point.
But if it’s reduced to only 30%, it’s not electorally viable. That party will disintegrate. Just like the Whigs did.
A party which cannot compete electorally, isn’t going to just continue to exist in any real fashion. You can’t have one of the major parties in our system just crawl along with such a tiny amount of the electorate.
It’s ridiculous to think that everyone in the Democratic party agrees with each other 90% of the time.
We understand that’s not reality, right?
Within the Democratic party, it’s not monolithic. There is a spectrum of different ideas.
Our political system can’t have just one party. If the GOP goes away, you’re gonna get a split. That’s what happens.
At this point I don’t see where this discussion is going. We can just move along, as the point of the thread is actually the notion of center-right ideas, as opposed to the crazy extreme that is the GOP right now.
Well I didn’t say that and neither did the person who gave the 90% number nor did the article that they read. Most of the idea in the article though are not minor ideals found in the Democratic party today, discussed, argued over but yes largely supported.
A three way split makes that 30% number not seem so small does it. So this new party which will probably not show up, will either get their third, be completely marginalized or cave and go back to their natural instinct and pander to the deplorables they tried to leave behind.
If those idea discussed in that article are more important than trying to not identify as a Democrat, the most logical decision today is to join the Democratic party and probably stay there for years.
See I don’t think that is the important thing to this group though. They’re not shedding the GOP tendency to claim policies are important but at the same time drop them like rocks to grab power and identity.
So he’s planning to primary Trump in 2020 I guess.
This guy seems to be taking the first step, realizing that making a devil’s bargain to get President Trump was a terrible idea. He hasn’t yet gotten to the realization that robbing the poor to enrich the wealthy and shutting out refugees is just as bad, but…baby steps.
I know a lot of folks who feel this same way. It makes no sense to me…I’ve long since decided abortion isn’t an issue that affects my vote…but it’s a pervasive attitude in the Christian community. Seems to me the best we can hope for with this crowd is that they get disillusioned enough to stay home from the polls, or vote for a fringe third party (effectively the same thing).
There are non-white people who would describe themselves as pro-life but don’t vote for the openly racist and don’t care about non-white lives GOP. These people make it sound like they don’t have a choice, but they do have one, and they made it. They just don’t care about the other lives enough to admit they made that choice.
GOP – not Democratic – House Rep introduces a bill of censure on Iowa Rep Steve King after the latter asked “When did white supremacy become a bad word?”
Censure is really only a slap on the wrist, but should send someone a message that they’re risking expulsion if they keep it up. That it’s from inside the party is telling.
Yes, the Republicans made King a freaking committee chair in the last congress. Even so, this is good to see.
They’re just mad that he said the quiet part loud again. You’re allowed to be a racist in the Republican Party as long as you don’t make it obvious.
I think Tim Scott makes a pretty good case for being in included in the non-insane GOP club.