Without some kind of evidentiary standard we agree on, we’re at “is not / is too”, unfortunately. Setting up a framework that would get beyond that would require putting a lot of time in. It’s not something I could reasonably ask you to work with me on, but I’m willing to try. At any rate it sounds like we agree on there being two factions, but disagree on the relative sizes of them, and reaching agreement would require definitions we both accept and then counting them up.

They are also, in my opinion, counter-productive.

Depends on the end you consider productive. I do have ideas about how to make the national GOP more like an effective opposition and less like part of the problem. I mention them from time to time when it’s on topic.

I’ve read your change story. If the national GOP did something that it would cost you your self-respect to defend, I’m sure you’d follow your principles. That already happened for me, that’s part of my change story.

I think it’s misleading to generalize about any group that is as split as the GOP is. To take another example, I usually am very careful to separate Democrats into the leftists and the liberals, the activists and the useful idiots, etc. etc.. I believe it is very important to make such distinctions. I know Democrats who are fairly moderate and just do not realize how the party has been taken over by radicals. I also know radical leftists. The two groups all vote for Democrats but they are very very different.

I do sometimes generalize about certain things that are almost universally true of a group, but otherwise I try to stay away from sweeping statements because they don’t reflect reality.

The GOP in particular features a split in which each wing of the party is quite large. It’s not as though it’s 95% one thing and 5% the other. The split is real and it represents two sizable factions.

Your generalizations about the GOP are simply untrue. They are also, in my opinion, counter-productive. I’ve seen sentiments such as yours about the GOP for my entire time blogging, which is now nearly 20 years. I have called many people out on it over the years.

Until then, the ratchet trope is just lazy.

When Social Security goes broke in a way impossible to paper over with accounting entries as they have been, they’re not going to let you keep “private sector” options like 401(k)s. They’ll take them over, and give you in exchange a promise that you’ll still get as much in benefits as you deserve–they decide who’s deserving, of course. The assets of the rich and powerful will be left alone….

The fundamental issue is there’s too many retirees relative to working people and it’s getting worse because people aren’t having enough kids. In the end it won’t matter if all the 401(k)s are taken to plug the gap, but they’ll still do it.

Of course the variation exists, but I’m sure it’s not inadmissible to generalize about the GOP, just as we do routinely with Democrats, Muslims, and the Left. If you consider the huge variety of interests and points of view summarized by those terms, how could it be inadmissible to generalize? I usually qualify it by saying “national GOP”, the kinds of people you find in Congress or those who seek the Presidential nomination. As you get into state, county, local politics the parties look different from how they do at the national level.

There is indeed a wing that functions exactly as you say. And there is a wing that does not and is more dedicated to conservative policy and action.

I can think of a handful of names who are principled, sure, and so can you. We might not think of the same names, however. And I don’t think it would be easy to make the case that principled conservatives are in the driver’s seat of the national GOP right now, or the majority of the national GOP, or have been either much of the last twenty years.

I still see the GOP as a million times better than the Democrats at present.

The pawl might be a million times “better” than the ratchet, but they nonetheless work together to allow motion in only one direction.

Bill West on June 21, 2024 at 10:16 am said:
“AARP is solidly behind Democrats. They call themselves the protectors of Social Security. That drives votes with older voters.”
And their short sighted position on protecting (the existing program for) SS at the expense of the grandchildren of those 50+ members was exactly why I never became an AARP member when I turned 50, several decades ago.

I am always astounded when anyone speaks of today’s GOP as a unit and generalizes about its members. There is a huge variation. There is indeed a wing that functions exactly as you say. And there is a wing that does not and is more dedicated to conservative policy and action.

There is also the usual and inevitable corruption for some, that always comes with politics and power. I still see the GOP as a million times better than the Democrats at present.

The contrast between 1994 and 2010 is instructive. The “Contract with America” Congress got a lot done, as neo points out. But the 2010 House was led by John Boehner, and I’d agree with all your criticisms there. Today’s GOP is not an opposition party. I’m not sure what the right word is, but they’re primarily concerned with using their leverage to extract appropriations and they act as the pawl to the Democrats’ ratchet.

In 2010 Obama was president and had veto power; the Senate was also still controlled by Democrats. In 1994 Clinton, had veto power, and though in 1994 the Republicans got control of the Senate too, they only had 52 seats and some were RINOs. Here’s a list of what the 1994 Congress did.

This is true plus the voters elected GOP majorities in 1994 and 2010. What good did that do them? The uniparty has discouraged GOP voters and I fear that they will not turn out as they did not in 2022. Only Trump has provided hope but the Congress has been disappointing even with GOP majorities.

There is not much good to being 86 years old but not facing the next decade if Trump loses is one.