Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why I Admire the Democratic Party
I will stipulate that the policies of the Democrat Party are both fiscally irresponsible and socially destructive. I will stipulate that Democrats lie to advance their destructive and irresponsible policies. I will stipulate that Democrat politicians are by and large corrupt, irresponsible, and often display a disturbing hostility toward Constitutional rights.
Having said that, there are things one cannot help but admire, even envy, about the Democrat Party versus the Republican Party.
1. Democrat Leaders Don’t Attack Their Own Members.
In the Republican Party, merely wanting fiscal responsibility is enough to get you labeled a “whacko bird” or one of “the crazies” by the party’s own leadership. There is no Democrat equivalent to Congressman Peter King or Senators Lindsey McCain and John Graham, advancing themselves by constantly attacking parts of their own coalition. And it’s not as though the Democrat Party doesn’t have crazy people attached to it: Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Code Pink, Fortney “Pete” Stark, #BlackLivesMatter, and Baghdad Jim McDermott, to name a few. But when have you heard them attacked by other members of their party, much less the leadership? The Democrats follow the Republicans 11th Commandment better than Republicans do.
2. Once Elected, Democrats Deliver for the People Who Elected Them.
The Democrat Party has one basic value proposition: “Vote for us and we’ll take money away from other people and buy you things with it.” It’s what their voters want, and when elected, they deliver. What do Republicans promise their voters? “We’re going to cut spending and get the Government off your backs.” Yet, spending is never cut, and the bureaucracy continuously grows. In fact, there has not been a major piece of conservative legislation passed since the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. In fact, it often appears that the GOP leadership spends the bulk of its time in office trying to figure out how to sell out the people who elected them and make deals with the Democrats. And on that note…
3. Democrats Always Win “Bipartisan Compromises”
Hypothetically, liberal Democrats always want to increase spending, and conservative Republicans always want to cut it. So how is it that every “compromise” ends up increasing spending, just not as much as Democrats want? Instead of decreasing, just not by as much as conservatives would like? The much-hated sequester didn’t really cut spending, just the rate of growth. Baseline budgeting is suggested year after year, but never comes anywhere near being implemented.
And consider the grand “Bipartisan Compromise” of the Gang of Eight Immigration Bill. Democrats pretty much got everything they wanted; a path to citizenship for a constituency that votes 70-80 percent Democrat and higher levels of future immigration for that constituency. What did conservatives get? A bunch of border security promises and some fines for illegal immigrants, all subject to the waivers and whims of the Democrat president.
4. Democrats Never Give Up On Their Policies, Even When They’re Unpopular
When Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the Congress in 2007, they didn’t just wring their hands and say, “Gee, we would really like to push the agenda our constituents elected us for, but we just don’t have the votes.” No, they went to work advancing the left’s agenda. Even if they didn’t get the payoff right away, they began laying the groundwork. Democrats pushed for state run health care for years before winning Obamacare. Democrats pushed gay marriage for years, even when it was unpopular. Even when they didn’t openly support it, they didn’t try and alienate those who did. Democrats still support partial birth abortion and gun control, even though they are massively unpopular. They aren’t easily cowed into abandoning their priorities by harsh word or a legislative setback.
5. Democrats Don’t Act Like They Are Embarrassed by Their Own Base.
One reason it’s so demoralizing to be part of the conservative base is that even when you win an election, you still feel like you’re losing the agenda. The Tea Party helped deliver the Congress to Republicans in 2010 and 2014, and what thanks do they get? The party leadership seems embarrassed by them and only too happy to deride them as “radical extremists” just as the Democrat Party and the media do. The Democrat coalition, on the other hand, includes environmental extremists, radical feminists, reconquistas, socialist revolutionaries, and a menagerie of fringe leftists. Whatever Democrats may think privately about their fringe, you never hear them trashing any constituency openly.
It is a shame that the Democrat Party, with policies so destructive, actually manages itself in a way that guarantees the advancement of those policies. The Republicans either have no grasp of how the game is played, or have no real interest in advancing a more conservative set of policies. Maybe both.
Published in Politics
I think you’re glossing over the significant regulations that have been put in place on a state level to curb the more egregious abortion practices. And the fight over PP isn’t over yet, if conservatives can hold fire just long enough to get a Republican president then victory on that issue is easily within reach. You couldn’t say that even 5 – 10 years ago.
We should lose most elections. They outspend us, every time (direct union expenditures, as opposed to contributions, generally aren’t counted, and they outweigh contributions). There are way more registered Democrats than Republicans. Many liberals have degrees like Women’s Studies and African American Studies that are useful for one thing and one thing only; winning elections for feminists and race baiters. Liberals dominate academia and the media.
But we don’t. We have the House. We have the Senate. We have most governor’s mansions. We have most legislatures. We’ve won 7/12 of the last half century’s Presidential elections. We won in 2014 and 2010 because we fought. In 2010 we fought loudly. In 2014 we fought more subtly. In both, though, we fought hard and we won, maintaining a fair degree of cohesion in part because we had pretty darn capable leadership. In 2012, the internal assaults on that cohesion were too great to cope with. It looked like they were going to get worse in 2013, when thankfully the Shutdown broke the fever and we haven’t really fornicated the pooch since then; some on the Levin right will complain about Mississippi, but that doesn’t seem to have left too much harm; there were plenty of races in which hardcore insurgent conservatives did win that cycle and the Republic can survive with a very slightly less conservative jerk representing us from Mississippi.
Only time will tell if this is going to be a year like 2012 and 2013 or a year like 2010 and 2014, but we should always remember that the match is pretty well balanced.
Also, we’ve defunded it in plenty of states.
a: Heller does not say that. To quote from the opinion. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
b: Although the Court has not demanded it, we’ve gone from a handful of states being shall issue in the 1980s to all but forty four out of fifty states being either shall issue or unrestricted, and the map is constantly moving in our direction.
JoE: maybe I’ve got this bit wrong…
Also, quoted from the decision which you so graciously linked
I read these clauses as summing up to mean not abolition of process for ccw licensing, but as making it difficult to keep may-issue.
It looks like shall-issue is the law of the land, to me; State restriction on mental illness withstanding.
CCW means carrying it outside the home.
So how did Iraq turn out, in the end?
They got their way. Yet another GOP failure.
No. The Republican position at the time was that there would be a pullout at some point after peace was established. Peace was established and it was only after that that the forces were pulled out.
Neither side campaigned in 2006 on the basis of staying longer than five years; there was some speculation, but it wasn’t a big deal. Who knew what Iraq would be like in 2011? The Democrats wanted the pullout to be immediate,though, before 2008. They lost. They didn’t just lose because they wanted to end the status quo and the status quo remained. They lost because they themselves were persuaded to vote to increase the numbers of soldiers out there.
Is that because they have no shame? Not really something we should aspire to.
If conservatives have won the argument on taxes, it hasn’t mattered too much, because the left has managed to simply deficit spend about as much as they want. And with Obamacare soon they’ll another big pot money to keep the welfare state gravy train rolling along a little while longer- no matter what the public thinks of it. A conservative victory on taxes would be a balanced budget, year after year.
Free trade- this was the desired policy of the democrat-run Confederate States of America, so I always wonder why this is supposed to be a “conservative” principle. Plus since swarms of democrats are in favor, including Bill Clinton and now-departed congressman John Dingell, I even doubt this should be counted as a GOP win. Plus, we do not have free trade in prescription drugs or guns.
Gun rights and abortion- states run by conservatives have gun rights and some limits on abortion. States run by democrats essentially don’t. We’re an election or a supreme justice away from the end of that. Gay marriage is the law of the land everywhere. Success on gun rights would be forcing places like NY and California to end their restrictions, in the same manner as Alabama has been forced to accept gay marriage.
GOP success is local, unless the left agrees, or perhaps temporary. The left is forever, without endless effort.
Not good enough.
This is an example of one of the many problems of the GOP.
Often people can’t even recognize that the GOP has failed.
Success wasn’t sending a few extra troops for a while. It- in the context of the situation of 2006- was the creation of a stable successful Iraq that lasted, with US troops or without.
I recall Harry Reid claiming the war was lost when it wasn’t, so I will say that the leftist goal was US defeat.
They achieved it. Yes, occasionally, the GOP can force them to vote one way or the other, because the left occasionally exposes itself as too odious to be tolerated. But they don’t give up- and the GOP never seems to figure that out.
Do you feel the same way about states rights and limited government? The Civil War was not entirely one of conservatives v. liberals.
A minority of Democrats are on our side, and a minority of ours are on theirs. The same is true for just about every issue. That does not mean that there are not victories and losses.
I think you’re confusing the meaning of free trade with regard to drugs. It’s true that we don’t have unified regulatory systems with the rest of the world, but if you have drugs made to certified US standards and have been maintained in certifiably sufficient conditions (temperature controlled for drugs that need that, humidity controlled when that is important, and so on), and they’re your drugs (you haven’t stolen the recipe from someone else) you can import them without tariffs from America’s FTA partners and with only low tariffs from WTO members.
From the now vacated decision in peruta v San Diego. It’s not binding, but, it’s inline with some of my thoughts on the consequences of the Heller decision.
That was achieved. I lived in a stable, successful, Iraq.
I don’t think that this is fair. Reid was amoral, apathetic about the lives involved, rather than opposed to their welfare. Paul is the same on similar issues. When Cruz reduces support for conservative politicians by attacking the party indiscriminately, it’s not because he wants liberal victories, it’s just that the importance of anything that isn’t personal political success is drowned out by the importance of anything relevant by that criteria.
Iraq defeated its opponent in that war. Al Qaeda was kicked out. Iraq was more peaceful than some American cities. Then Assad started killing unprecedented numbers of Syrians and peace was destroyed and ISIS invaded Iraq. That’s a separate war. Ultimately, though, Iraq will win that war, too. Most of Iraq is performing pretty well. Areas under ISIS or militia control are going to suffer for a long time after the violence is over, but they’ll get peace. Whether Clinton or a Republican wins, everyone running with a plausible chance (ie, not Paul or Sanders) is better than Obama on this issue, and is good enough.
If your position is that the ultimate outcome is decisive, then that should be enough to mark a major Democratic defeat.
I’m guessing you’re the sort that when asked if the glass is half full or half empty would dump the water on the floor and then insist that the glass is completely empty and always has been.
Here’s more examples of GOP failure. The Beck decision should have ended the ability of unions to bankroll the democrat party- but I know from first hand experience it did not. If I recall Bush 41 issued an executive to enforce it after he had already lost to Clinton, who immediately repealed it when ho took office. GOP success would be an enforced Beck decision that prevented unions from using their members as piggy-banks to fund the left.
Another GOP success would an end to hate-studies, period. Instead the GOP has nothing to say about it, period. The left yanks on the choke chain, and the party is reduced to stuttering about how much it would cost to waste everyones time with two extra years of high school. Pitiful.
But that’s the GOP- pitiful, endless failure so thorough that the party doesn’t even seem to notice how miserably worthless it has managed to be, over most of my lifetime.
See my comment that I posted just after yours, for more detail;)
But seriously the endless failure has grown wearisome, I must say.
Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Most of Iraq is doing well, except for the parts that aren’t, and they’re screwed.
Success, in my view, would have been Bush 43 loudly telling the world about those WMD that were found, thus making the war a domestic political success, perhaps even leading to enough support for the US to support the Iranians in the overthrow of their murderous government. Perhaps even the Assad regime could been replaced with something better.
Instead, we have displaced people flooding Europe, where they may very well cause the collapse of some European nations into bloody chaos.
This is not success.
I’m glad we agree that free trade was the desired policy of the CSA as well the present US government. But since the government isn’t limited in any real way now the rest of your statement seems meaningless.
Bill Clinton was the president. John Dingell was a senior congressman for many years, who represented a district in Michigan heavily and negatively impacted by free trade. I simply do not accept this idea that the democrats are in practice protectionist or anti-free trade, because otherwise those two gentlemen would not have acted that way.
Oddly, what you describe never seems to bring cheap proscription drugs to the US, even though I continually read of drugs that are (e.g.) $1 per treatment elsewhere, and $1000 per treatment here. It seems that the same wonderfulness that makes it awesome to move US factories overseas would also make it awesome to bring cheap drugs here- but no.
It’s completely different.
Perhaps, but if so that’s the sign of another missed opportunity for the gop, if it was genuine opposition party instead of a pitiful failure/rubber stamp.
BOOM!!!!
Now can anyone name for me a substantive Conservative victory during the years 2001 – 2009?
Tax cuts.
Roberts/ Alito.
Bankruptcy Reform
Partial Birth Abortion Ban and Unborn Victims of Violence Acts.
The Iraq War
Numerous Free Trade Agreements
The destruction of various unions and the general decline in union membership.
The building of the border fence, doubling of border agents, and the establishment of e-verify.
The Real ID act.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act.
The Surge.
The 2005 and 2006 budgets were pretty good, too, and are partly responsible for the current drops in spending (and the ending of their ten year window is why the next few years are so challenging).
James, the troop increases called the “Obama surge” were programmed in during the Bush administration, and were already underway when Washington DC fell to the communists, er, at the inauguration.
Even on His Excellency Colonel Obama’s first day, he did not have the political capital to burn that effort down. He had to work on it for years, announcing in December 2009 that we would
capitulate. His audience was a service academy, but he was speaking to the Taliban.
Konduz just fell to the Taliban. At least when the Russian mafia ran the place, it served as the gateway to Russia. Now ISIS has the south choked off, and the Taliban has closed off the north.
Mission Accomplished!
Only discretionary spending.
It is intellectually inconsistent to credit Republicans for reducing spending when more dollars flow from the treasury.
How did we win the argument on taxes with the most progressive tax code since Jimmy Carter?
Brent, because the vast bulk of conservatives prefer low rates to flat rates, so they like tax cuts for the middle classes. Since I don’t believe that there is a conservative principle at stake, merely personal preference, in how taxes are distributed, but there is a high degree of consistency in conservatives approving of lower rates, this does not seem like a huge problem to me, although I recognise that greater regressivity would have some positive effects.
#82: My references to the surge have been exclusively about Iraq. I agree that Obama’s rhetoric has been deeply harmful, but think the limits on his political capital an achievement.
Are Taxes still at 70% marginal tax rates for top earners?
This is what is so infuriating about this strain of conservatives. Because the result isn’t perfect it means nothing was achieved. Bunk. Its feels like arguing with someone who denies evolution. “Well yeah but what about this missing link…”
Isn’t the simplest explanation that Democrats can only get excited about presidential elections and so we should expect to do poorly in 2016? I mean, maybe less poorly than when Obama was on the ticket, but they came out pretty hard to reelect him despite the magic not being there, and we’d be foolish to assume things haven’t changed. But anyway, our partisan advantage does seem to disappear those elections.
Romney lost the 2012 elections, Obama didn’t do much to win them.