Republican unity: an oxymoron
In his column today in the NY Post, Michael Goodwin discusses some contradictory communications from Trump about the failed health care bill. Goodwin also mentions that calls for bipartisanship are doomed (agreed), and suggests that what Trump really needs to do now is unite the GOP:
The only way forward is for Trump to unite the Republican Party.
If he can do that, Dems will be forced to engage in substantive negotiations because the alternative is exclusive Republican rule on every piece of legislation. In effect, GOP unity could force Dems to the table for at least a semblance of bipartisanship that would be good for the country.
But if Trump can’t unite his party, if its circular firing squad is permanent, major parts of his agenda could be DOA. And Dems will be giddy at the funeral.
But “Republican unity” is an oxymoron. It’s not just recently that it’s gone down the tubes; as far as I can recall, it hasn’t existed in my lifetime. Rockefeller Republicans vs. Goldwater Republicans were an earlier manifestation, and a bitter one. Reagan challenged incumbent president Gerald Ford in 1976. And it’s been going on ever since.
Now, perhaps it’s reached a fever pitch at the moment, but I actually don’t see it as worse now than then. Perhaps it’s more important, but not worse. One of the reasons it may be more important right now is that Republicans need to roll back many aspects of the Obama administration, and they have the numbers to do it if they could only unite on their goals and a way to achieve them. For the first time in a long time Republicans have relatively solid control of the executive branch and legislative branches and are poised to nominate one (and perhaps more, in time) SCOTUS justice of a conservative stripe.
So it may be that their lack of unity is highlighted right now. But, as much as I fault Trump for many things (including what I see as not really even trying to get to some sort of actual consensus on the bill, but rather rushing it and strong-arming it), I don’t think that unity was ever in the cards. The rift in the GOP is very real, bitter, and old.
Unfortunately.
Both major parties had a lack of unity until very recently. The GOP tried to balance it’s Hamiltonian federal instincts with its newer libertarian wing ever since the Whigs collapsed. The greatest conservative presidents in modern times(Coolidge, Reagan) started out as progressives.
The democrats used to have a strong agricultural base in the south but post-civil war strains lasted until recently. The progressives have won which shows in Obama and also the declining number of state offices held by Democrats.
The draw of giving gifts as programs or grants to the public is natural to the progressives and traditional for the GOP. The public still believes something for nothing is feasible (or perhaps by using ‘waste and fraud’ funds).
Neglecting any wing of the GOP to forge a compromise is short sighted. Trump doesn’t really understand politics which is unusual for a real estate developer.
“One of the reasons it may be more important right now is that Republicans need to roll back many aspects of the Obama administration, and they have the numbers to do it if they could only unite on their goals and a way to achieve them.” [Neo]
As Dennis Praeger points out (link below) Republicans can not allow the better (or the best) to be the enemy of the good. This conservative opportunity to undercut a century old Gramscian influence will not be around for long.
https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2017/03/28/purists-kill-whatever-they-believe-in-n2305024
“For the first time in a long time Republicans have relatively solid control of the executive branch and legislative branches”
This is a bit of an understatement. The Republicans have held the presidency and control of both houses of Congress for 6 of the last 84 years.
Trump doesn’t have a legislative agenda. His whole agenda is the deconstruction of the Federal government. As CEO he has primary control of the agencies. As to funding he has his veto pen. The “budget”, when we used to have one, comprises 12 separate appropriation bills. He can focus his veto power on one or two at a time. He intends to defeat in detail.
I agree the Republican Party has never been monolithic. That’s the consequence of being able to think for yourself. This means it’s hard to be united. Unlike, the Democrats who will throw their principles under the bus to win. Think Feminists supporting Bill Clinton.
Of course, I’m not sure how well the Democrats will do in the long term.
Today’s GOP seems to fracture into three pieces instead of two: GOPe, old-style conservatives, and the new Trump supporters who don’t map well onto the other, older two.
That makes it a more complex game. I don’t know if it means moving towards unity is necessarily harder.
The weird part is that Trump doesn’t really belong to any of those three factions. Likewise, I don’t know if that’s better or worse for Trump to lead the GOP.
The lack of Republican unity is not new, but we do have a new configuration for that lack of unity.
My impression is Trump supporters don’t know their man as well as they believe.
On the collapse of the healthcare bill, Trump supporters persisted in believing that Ryan and the GOPe betrayed Trump, whereas Trump blamed the Freedom Caucus.
I don’t claim to know Trump well either. Other than being for himself and winning, Trump seems to be a rather fluid character.
The internet has made a difference today. It is so easy to find blogs that latch onto a position and never provide readers with the opposing POV. Add to that the commenters and trolls who spend their time calling names and parading their ideological purity, and you have a real mess.
Someone needs to tell people that it is better to try to walk in another person’s shoes, understand where they are coming from, and then find the best way to present your own position or at least sow a bit of cognitive dissonance.
Previously, you had to deal face to face with people of different views. Today you just stop reading their blogs.
“The French Turn”
Entryism (also referred to as entrism or enterism, or as infiltration) is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organisation in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. In situations where the organization being “entered” is hostile to entrism, the entrists may engage in a degree of subterfuge and subversion to hide the fact that they are an organisation in their own right.
Since the turn in France, Marxists have used the tactic even if they had different preconceptions of how long the period of entry would last.
Deep entrism/entryism sui generis
too bad no one writes an anti manual for you guys to know why things are the way they are outside of the reasons that the people above told you were the reasons…
🙁
Certainly the “Freedom Caucus” betrayed Trump, Ryan et al. No two ways about it. The perfect is the enemy of the good. It is better to get on base with a single than to swing for the fences and strike out.
“I agree the Republican Party has never been monolithic. That’s the consequence of being able to think for yourself. This means it’s hard to be united. Unlike, the Democrats who will throw their principles under the bus to win.”
I think Matthew has half of it correct; that is the part about being independent thinkers. However, the Dems I know are not so much throwing their principles under the bus, as they all embrace the same principles and make sure they present a completely united front.
I keep thinking about an incident a few years ago at the school where I teach. A faculty member who is a bit of a local leftist celebrity was invited to appear on a local talk show. In a faculty meeting people were chatting and he mentioned how he called the national Democratic office to check with them to make sure he was parroting the correct party line at the time. I was astounded that the level of coordination in messaging by these people was at that level of detail. They are playing a serious and long term game. The GOP not so much.
physicsguy: What you are seeing is real.
Back when I was circle-dancing with the left, I was part of the nuclear freeze movement, allied with the activists taking the left’s side in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, supporting the Sanctuary movement, opposing nuclear power and corporations, supporting public sector unions, supporting blacks, feminists and gays, and always, always voting for Democrats unless there was some particular reason to back the Green Party.
To outsiders it might have looked like a bunch of disparate wacko groups doing their thing, but everyone marched in the same big demonstrations and talked to each other.
The American left is broad, cohesive and organic. It is not committed to America but to its broader vision of humanity in which the only sure thing is the American right is the enemy.
It’s serious stuff.
The Republican establishment or GOPe otherwise known as RINOs is opposed to draining the swamp. It is not interested in any reforms that might reduce their power, influence and status. Regardless of how beneficial they might be for the country.
Everything that conservatives wish to do is seen by the GOPe as a personal negative.
‘Incremental’ reform will never happen, the RINOs will never get around to deeper reform once an incremental approach is adopted.
Thus, the recent Freedom Caucus resistance to RyanCare is not a case of making perfect the enemy of good enough but a refusal to agree to a slower path to single payer health care.
Given Trump’s disinterest in the issue, it may happen anyway but there is a difference between futile resistance and collaborative surrender. Better to die on your feet than agree to live on your knees.
“The American left is broad, cohesive and organic. It is not committed to America but to its broader vision of humanity” huxley
Agreed. A tragic example of what an unknown Jewish carpenter from Galilee was refering to when he said, “There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death.” NIV
“Rockefeller Republicans vs. Goldwater Republicans were an earlier manifestation, . . . .”
Robert Taft Republicans vs. Dwight Eisenhower Republicans, over a decade before that.
Goes back to former Republican president Teddy Roosevelt running as an independent (“Bull Moose” ticket) in 1912 against Republican President Taft and Democrat Woodrow Wilson. That gave us President Wilson, probably the worst president in the twentieth century.
Perhaps the Republicans would have the most success by taking things in small steps, as opposed to the more “comprehensive” approach of the “Ryancare” alternative to Obamacare (the failed repeal and replace).
And that could be better for Congress, as an institution, in the longer run, with shorter, simpler bills that are easier for everyone to debate and understand.
‘The only way forward is for Trump to unite the Republican Party.’
A Democrat uniting the Republican party should scare the daylights out of all of us.
‘As Dennis Praeger points out (link below) Republicans can not allow the better (or the best) to be the enemy of the good.’
That’s merely an excuse for being unprincipled. Kind of like when you’re caught being immoral saying, ‘but nobody’s perfect.’
It is so easy to fault Trump, but he doesn’t write House bills. He may have put on heat for a speedy passage, but that was likely all.
The fault of failure is Ryan’s. He’s been Speaker for two years and has legions at his beck and call. He did not organize the GOP House, and he ignored the Freedom Caucus. He is a poor leader, an equivocator (“well, I dunno if I’ll support Trump”). Gingrich as Speaker makes Ryan look like a shoe-shine boy.
Republicans are independent thinkers and individualistic. Leading them can be like herding cats – difficult and frustrating.
Democrats are those who like to run with the pack. Group think and group action feels right to them. Leading them is more like driving a dog sled. Crack the whip and they all fall in line and pull in the same direction.
Well, it works for me. 🙂
But why are the Dems so united? They rarely – if ever – break ranks. Nebraska’s Ben Nelson was a perfect example. Conservative state but he voted for Obamacare and every single Dem bill.
Frog,
From what I’m reading, Ryan did make changes to the AHCA to accommodate the Freedom Caucus, but they kept coming back for more. Someone needs to tell these people that they don’t represent 99.9% of the population. As for the attacks on Ryan: He never sought the Speaker position. There were no Freedom Caucus people ready to put forth a plan for running the House. And finally, Ryan is a bottom-up thinker. He has worked hard to encourage and empower local groups to solve local problems instead of turning to the Feds. It won’t be easy getting people to assume responsibility for their own towns and communities, but it has to start.
“But why are the Dems so united? They rarely — if ever — break ranks.”
Great question!! Neo, any ideas??
The Freedom Caucus preferred Obamacare to the House Bill. They had the real option of the Ryan-Trump bill and opted for the status quo.
Physicsguy, Democrats are united because they are the party of government, it’s their business. Where would they go and what could they do if they had to work in a competitive environment? It used to be, though may be changed, that Reps made good in business and then went into politics as a “public service”, not so with the Dems. They start with city hall politics and work their way up, never entering the private sector.
The dems are also better at dealing with cognitive dissonance. Trump makes a comment in private about the sexual mores of female gold diggers and gets hammered. Bill Clinton, who’s a sexual predator, gets away with behavior that would land every man on this blog a multi-year prison sentence.
Pay Attention, we are now at the point in weimar where the fascists and the socialists batlted for the peoples minds and freedom was no where in site!!
we are repeating and ignoring the repeat until it happens THEN we will discuss HOW, and never realize, HOW was our not remembering, and not learning what it was, and not informing others what part they play in this sequel
Quinn’s Call to Action for the Men of Antifa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ1eZqenaDw
SAME AntiFascist League Front, with new name Antifa, which is close to Antifada (so there is something in it for all)
Same black outfits
Same solid red flags
Same womens rights as weimar
Same (attempted) economic malaise
Same fight between reds and fascists
Same black masks and using of anarchists
Same communist fist
Same hoaxing to “Make History”
Same Capitalist leading when this went on that led to the socilist after them
Same record citizenship changes before the times
Same rhetoric
Same attempt first by russia, then by germany, then by russia, to use islam against the target
Same tactics and methods from the old books now that we forgot them and wont read them!!
Same Fronts, and Same shills in the press giving false or divisive positions to divide the peoples
Same control of the press, school, and now, Religion (of which they faked religiousity to change it, the germans and others are still sanitizing things that were changed that they didnt know)
Same organizations names (Vpered, Voorworts, Forwards, resurection of commiterm and commiform, etc)
Same pre-prep for war that violates treaties
Same sexual debasement of women as entertainment and liberation
Same form of debasements and reasons
(except now we have nintendo and dont need a vagina for the most fun)
Same (similar to the point legally allowed till later) restrictions on labor of the unprotected classes ability to get state aid, business help, legal aid, get raises, hold jobs, not be replaced by the others. lets put it this way, in germany, the labor laws agianst jews prevented those things, in the US affirmative action does the same thing, and only the difference between the acceptable small acorn and the huge hated tree remains)
Same attempt to catagorize people in records (with the newest being LGBT wanting the census to record them, which would be great for islam if sharia came around, then what would those lists be good for? what would some other regime that ideology describes these people as “ruined folk” would be happy for that list and a list of gun owners?)
Same control of business without owning it thrugh regulations that even today, removed protection of christians, like jews then, from persecution.
they even copied the methods of the spanish inquisition to get lots and lots of persecutions!!!
Like the inquisition, the accuser gets the money if they win, and loses nothing if they lose!!!
[hegel would agree to take one hidebound group that you intend to remove, and use them to cut the diamond of the other one, to make it easy to remove]
[reminds me of Chaplin Modern Times labor march scene but more violent like the labor riots and communist union fights that led to lots of dead in the streets]
Same methodology i tried to teach of how Willi Munsenberg did this and turned hollywood communist till today, and their repeat of Germany (except THIS time, they want the communists to win)
Marx and Engels said the Magyars would go crazy with the Germans and austrians and would wipe out these throw back slavics (the group trotsky invented racism for), and called for a world storm (worldsturm, translated as holocaust), to remove them. Marx asked the jewish question, engels said what had to be done and woudl happen, The austrian and stalin together tried to fulfill it to end capitalism, and remold the world. IN 1849 70 years before hitler got ginned up by the story engels told of the greatness and how only these people would lead the way… it was engels and marx.
NOW, they have to get rid of the society and the peoples who protected them!!!
the white christian/judeo males of the west…
they are the new scapegoats as the set of white male jewish men is a subset of the white males set
Good luck in the war people, its already set up and has to happen
China will NOT give back the land they seized and built bases on, and at some point that will come to a head given that japan is nato.
but think this way. imagine waking up some day in the near future
And, korea invades the south that day
within a week, russia takes the Baltics, the scandanavians like finland and takes back the rest of ukraine
they do it in the winter, so cut all energy to the EU
china stops ALL ships from loading and leaving to bring supplies to the west
what happens that day to the stock market?
what happens that day in terms of the EOs that give whoever is there when they start, supreme power?
[hint hint, think of what we avoided in terms of that with hillary, or bernie, or any leftist instead?]
at the same time, the panama canal is closed to all US traffic due to china hostilities
and thats what can happen in one week with a phone call
can you imagine what that would lead to in 5 months
and can you imagine what that would lead to in terms of snoflakes
wanting it to end and willing to give up to have it?
do note that they will draft women, which will mostly be from one group
and that will be the last coupe de grace of the under replacement democided demographic
all that is happening now, in all these places
new missiles, new ships, new electronics, new rockets, all nuclear hardened
first stricke doctrines changed for russia and china too making it ok to go first
there is so much more than if you put it into a pile you get a huge preponderance
but any point by itself is easy to ignore..
which is why we want to look at things in isolation
its too scary to put it together they may add up to something we dread from near birth and schooling
[except for the antifa, mecha nationalists, the black nationalists, nation of islam, etc]
We didnt start the fire, it was already burning as Billy joel says
but we also decided not to put it out but let our kids be kindling and our posterity sacrificed (again)
oh, joffre is back with ballet in nyc.
“But why are the Dems so united? They rarely — if ever — break ranks.”
Great question!! Neo, any ideas??
November 2nd, 2016
Why the right splintered but the left united
http://neoneocon.com/2016/11/02/why-the-right-splintered-but-the-left-united/
can i answer? i have already told us..
Artfldgrs Says:
November 2nd, 2016 at 8:07 pm
http://neoneocon.com/2016/11/02/why-the-right-splintered-but-the-left-united/#comment-1848738
United front
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_front
Stalin did not like this united front, so it was crushed, but afte WWII and hitler came the POPULAR FRONT
Popular front
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_front
same source link above:
http://neoneocon.com/2016/11/02/why-the-right-splintered-but-the-left-united/#comment-1848738
Their start was in the anti fascist movements of Stalin where people in the west didnt know that they were funding his work, and going to fight for him, and he was manipulating them to fight facism in spain – Artfldgr
and today ANTIFA!!!
The Popular Front policy of the Comintern was introduced in 1934, succeeding its ultra-left “Third Period” during which it condemned non-Communist socialist parties as “social fascist”. The new policy was signalled in a Pravda article of May 1934, which commented favourably on socialist-Communist collaboration. In June 1934, Léon Blum’s Socialist Party signed a pact of united action with the French Communist Party, extended to the Radical Party in October.
and thats it as the other post is a lot longer, lots more detail and relates to other posts.
history is repeating
and we are letting it
as we forgot the history
and we dont want to remember it
never again died with that.
Trump declares war on the Freedom Caucus:
“The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/847435163143454723
Notice he put them before the Dems on his hit list.
We are already seeing many trumpers like Frog on this board targeting the conservatives.
Richard Douglas Porter:
That’s some “logic” you’ve got there.
So, let’s see: whenever a legislator votes against a bill he or she thinks is a bad one (and most people agree that the recent Ryan/Trump bill healthcare bill was a fairly bad one), and hopes to negotiate a much better one, then that means they support the bill it was supposed to replace, the one those same people (Freedom Caucus) are on record for many years as deeply and fervently opposing?
Nonsense.
physicsguy:
(1) Democrats are far more wedded to ends justify means, and less wedded to the specifics of justifying their personal ideology and beliefs.
(2) Many Democrats see progressivism as a movement, almost like a religion. As such, they follow their leaders for what they see as the greater good.
(3) The Democratic Party has been engaged for quite some time in (successfully) purging its more moderate members. So it really IS more united than the GOP.
(4) The Democratic leadership plays hardball, and those who would defect realize that they probably wouldn’t have a very lengthy political future.
Paul in Boston: “Democrats are united because they are the party of government, it’s their business.”
An astute observation.
“(and most people agree that the recent Ryan/Trump bill healthcare bill was a fairly bad one)”- neoneocon
I keep hearing that from people that I assume think it was bad for diametrically opposite reasons.
Why exactly was it a bad bill? I’ve googled “why did freedom caucus think AHCA was bad” and get nothing but process stories.
As far as I can tell, later in the negotiations it did touch on Title 1 and the EHB, which conservatives were adamant about.
It established a $15 billion fund for coverage of items likely to become options in future plans- the Patient and State Stability Fund. It block grants Medicaid, giving states more flexibility in running their program.
It eliminated the individual mandate, the requirement that businesses with over 50 people offer health insurance, and the prosthetics tax.
It reduced the cost to the federal budget.
Now, if nothing less than a return to pre-2010 is acceptable, people should say that.
If it made too many cuts to Obamacare, then those people should say that.
Why is it a bad bill? What should be included that isn’t there, what should be taken out that is?
One view- The Good, the Bad and the Flawed, by a physician
http://www.ydr.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/03/23/ahca-bad-good-flawed-criticism-column/99527680/
A story critical about the essential health benefit changes in the AHCA, but the criticisms are mostly from advocacy people that benefit from expansive health benefits.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/23/essential-health-benefits-drugs-mammograms-mental-health-and-more/99534930/
I realize this post is about Republican Unity. And I agree that it is an oxymoron.
As I’ve said previously, Trump needs to apply his negotiating skills, finding common ground, not just in healthcare but in other important decisions that conservatives benefit (by reducing the scope of the federal government). They should realize that in many areas, Trump is trying to do that, though it remains to be seen whether Republicans can unite in any of his other proposals where he does want to see less government control.
It’s just not in healthcare.
Brian E:
Since I’m not enough of a policy wonk to be able to decipher the details of the bill, I relied on people I trust at least somewhat, anyway) on the topic. One of these is Avik Roy. For his commentary, see this and this.
See also this.
I’m all for working on the bill to get it right, or at least a lot better. THEN if the Freedom Caucus doesn’t like it, I’ll regard them as completely unreasonable.
physicsguy Says:
March 29th, 2017 at 4:17 pm
… However, the Dems I know are not so much throwing their principles under the bus, as they all embrace the same principles and make sure they present a completely united front.
I keep thinking about an incident a few years ago at the school where I teach. A faculty member who is a bit of a local leftist celebrity was invited to appear on a local talk show. In a faculty meeting people were chatting and he mentioned how he called the national Democratic office to check with them to make sure he was parroting the correct party line at the time. I was astounded that the level of coordination in messaging by these people was at that level of detail. They are playing a serious and long term game. The GOP not so much.
***
What frightens me most is that he was totally open about his lock-step submission to the hierarchy (and these people call the religious “brainwashed”!) — presumably, no one called him down for it?
Paul in Boston Says:
March 30th, 2017 at 11:59 am
Physicsguy, Democrats are united because they are the party of government, it’s their business. Where would they go and what could they do if they had to work in a competitive environment? It used to be, though may be changed, that Reps made good in business and then went into politics as a “public service”, not so with the Dems. They start with city hall politics and work their way up, never entering the private sector.
The dems are also better at dealing with cognitive dissonance.
***
I support a Constitutional Amendment with term limits (and retirement ages) for everyone elected, appointed, or hired by any government agency of any kind
It may be cognitive dissonance in the “ranks”, but the elites are totally aware that they are simply following the principle “anything that works for us is right; anything that works for them is wrong.”
“I support a Constitutional Amendment with term limits (and retirement ages) for everyone elected, appointed, or hired by any government agency of any kind”- AesopFan
Better than term limits is a balanced budget amendment.
In 2015, 24 states – 10 short of the 34 necessary for a constitutional convention – have passed resolutions supporting a balanced budget amendment. The number is now 29.
John Kasich is leading the effort with the group Balanced Budget Forever.
I think this would have an even better effect than term limits. If Congress were limited in the amount of money they could spend, it would make politicians less important and less dangerous to taxpayers.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/ohio/articles/2017-03-25/republican-john-kasich-leads-charge-for-balanced-budget-vote
Neoneocon, my frustration isn’t with you or your blog, but with the sorry state of journalism, where all reporting is the horse race, not what the horse race is about.
I’ve followed Avik Roy, but the links you provided were not reflective of the bill as it has morphed.
From your link to the Politico article (not exactly neutral) I found informative articles from Cato and AEI, though Cannon from Cato, like most libertarians is great in theory, but not very practical in the political climate.
https://www.cato.org/blog/cbo-more-lose-coverage-under-obamacare-lite-full-repeal
https://www.aei.org/press/how-to-improve-the-american-health-care-act/
By the way, I use google search at work and at home I’m using edge with bing as the search tool.
Wow, bing searches are so slanted to the left, you would never know a conservative viewpoint existed.
By comparison google is the model of neutrality.
The Left wants Big Know-It-All Government to take care of everything. They want government to “help those who can’t help themselves”. They want to feel part of a big, benevolent Caretaker society. They’re happy to join together to usher their vision of Utopia into reality.
The Right wants just-enough government to keep the citizenry safe and secure, to ensure equal protection under the law, keep the civil peace, and so forth. They don’t want to be pushed, enticed, nudged, coerced or shamed into “desired behaviors”, and they don’t want to push, entice, nudge, etc anyone else, either. Which is why they’re NOT “joiners” and they have no “unity” – except occasionally and incidentally, in pushing back against the relentless encroachments of the Left and the State and the complaisant GOPe.
J.J., above, said that trying to lead Republicans (well, perhaps “moderates, conservatives and independents”) is “like herding cats”. Exactly. They don’t want to lead, they don’t want to follow, they just want to be left alone to go their own way. They don’t organize well. BUT: they do react. (To quote Instapundit, “That’s how you get Trump”.)
Don’t forget. Liberalism is a mental disorder, manifesting itself in the notion of the perfectibility of mankind, believing that progress is the journey to Eden.
What does that make conservatives? Christians and many non-Christian conservatives, recognize that mankind, in its fallen state, is inherently evil and see a limit to what society can achieve.
But it does look like compassionate conservatism, espoused by GW Bush, has become the face of the Republican party.
What’s funny about all this, is when people used to bash that “conservative” Bush, I would argue that conservatives recognized that Bush wasn’t a conservative, but voted for him anyway.
Ironic that he’s responsible for the turn toward big government Conservatism. Remember it was only a few years previous to Bush that the Republicans were actually reducing government spending– or more accurately, reducing the rate of growth.
Liberalism is a mental disorder, manifesting itself in the notion of the perfectibility of mankind, believing that progress is the journey to Eden.
Brian E: I’m half in the bag with that except … I remember being a liberal. Under some circumstances I still call myself a classic liberal.
When reasonable, liberals — like myself — don’t say mankind is perfectible, but improveable. I’d say history bears us out.
The problem IMO is the hard left colonized liberalism with its utopian agenda, which dictated an ends-vs-means allowing all manner of abuses, not unlike Islam and the Catholic Church in their heydays.