Republican Party Division....
Results 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1
    Scary Teddy Bear
    Reputation: physasst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,790

    Republican Party Division....

    I've been listening to talk radio, and watching the political pundits on CNN etc. And, I think they are on to something. We are seeing a division within the republican party, with one side being this newer neocon bastardization that was essentially created by Bush and Cheney, and the other being traditional republicanism which is making a strong return. These traditionalists are pretty pissed at the neocons for destroying, and ignoring the parties longstanding platforms. I think it's going to get ugly within the republican party before too long, and McCain isn't trusted by either side of the aisle, cause he's trying to play both sides of the coin....

    Anyone else with similar observations, or am I alone in my pseudointellectual ponderings.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill, 1866

    SIC VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
    http://physasst.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,033
    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    I think it's going to get ugly within the republican party before too long
    Absolutely, and it's about damned time

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: PdxMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,524
    I think there's merit to the idea.... Which group do the House Repubs who voted down the bailout fit into? They were acting all neoconey, but they were dissing W in the process, so I can't tell.

  4. #4
    ___________
    Reputation: bricoleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    13,506

    annoying misuse of "neocon"

    .
    .

    a neocon isn't what you think it is physasst. and mccain is most definitely a neocon.

    recall the 2000 race, he was the neocon candidate.

    sick of people misusing the term neocon. "neoconservative" has a very-specific meaning, which is misused (post-Bush) about 99% of the time.

    google irving kristol, commentary magazine, the podhoeretz's, the kagan's, weekly standard's editorial staff, read about leo strauss and "the chicago school" alan bloom etc,

    neocon ≠ bush conservative
    neocon ≠ new conservatives
    .
    .
    .
    .

    How I wished during those sleepless hours that I belonged to a different nation, or better still, to none at all.....- W.G. Sebald
    .
    .

  5. #5
    Jerkhard Sirdribbledick
    Reputation: DrRoebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    27,032
    It depends what happens on Election Day.

    If McCain loses, they will blame it on the Palin pick and that could very well cause a revolt.

    If McCain wins, they'll rejoice and all these "problems" will go away.
    "He groaned when we hung the rope over the tree but was relieved to see the white pinata."
    -- Gut
    _____________________
    [ CaliFotos ]

  6. #6
    yellow is mellow
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,199
    yeah winning has a way of covering up problems. But I'm not interested in reading Commentary- how is Bush not a neocon? Maybe Obama's the neocon;

    http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/...biden_ddel.htm
    The nail that sticks out gets hammered down

  7. #7
    jaded bitter joy crusher
    Reputation: Fredke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    19,723
    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    We are seeing a division within the republican party, with one side being this newer neocon bastardization that was essentially created by Bush and Cheney, and the other being traditional republicanism which is making a strong return.
    Is traditional, the traditional Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicanism, the traditional Goldwater Republicanism, the traditional Nixon Republicanism, or the traditional Reagan Republicanism? They're all very different.

    Is traditional Republicanism about small government that lets everyone alone or is it about a bigger government with more power to prevent people from behaving "immorally" in their private lives?

    Is traditional Republicanism about reducing government regulation of business, or strengthening regulation of print, broadcast, and internet media to protect Americans from gambling, smut, and homosexuality?
    Fredke commented in your thread. You won't believe what happens next!

  8. #8
    ___________
    Reputation: bricoleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    13,506
    .
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by paper warrior
    yeah winning has a way of covering up problems. But I'm not interested in reading Commentary- how is Bush not a neocon? Maybe Obama's the neocon;

    http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/...biden_ddel.htm

    bush's foreign policy post 9/11 was certainly influenced by many of his neoconservative advisers, but if you listen to his 2000 rnc speech (particularly the "we won't be the policemen of the world") he definitely struck a note to distinguish himself from the neoconservatives.

    at base I would say neoconservatism is a foreign policy view based on two things

    1) hegemonic stability theory

    2) modelski's "long-cycle theory"

    apply both of these to each other and you see the neocon worldview

    there's a lot of straussian views that are also applicable, but they have more to do with political philosophy in general, whereas neoconservatism is primarily concerned with foreign policy and international relations. the original neoconservatives came mainly from the "old left". ideologically they're quite different than george w bush. they're somewhat closer to his father, but he's more of a plain vanilla, old-school internationalist.

    anyways. seems like people like to say "neoconservative" to mean "new conservatives", which is understandable, but still annoying.
    .
    .

  9. #9
    Scary Teddy Bear
    Reputation: physasst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Fredke
    Is traditional, the traditional Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicanism, the traditional Goldwater Republicanism, the traditional Nixon Republicanism, or the traditional Reagan Republicanism? They're all very different.

    Is traditional Republicanism about small government that lets everyone alone or is it about a bigger government with more power to prevent people from behaving "immorally" in their private lives?

    Is traditional Republicanism about reducing government regulation of business, or strengthening regulation of print, broadcast, and internet media to protect Americans from gambling, smut, and homosexuality?

    That's just it. I think, at least from my limited observations, that there are several factions within the party, and that for the longest time they have all worked together, grumbling in private, but toeing the line.....now we are starting to see the first signs that many of them are no longer willing to do so.

    For me, republicanism equals Teddy Roosevelt, and to a lesser degree Jefferson.

    I am absolutely steadfast against the federal government performing...well, almost anything. I am a strong state's rights proponent.

    Wouldn't it be a great country if the governors had more power and sway then the POTUS.....

    Ah well, one can hope.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill, 1866

    SIC VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
    http://physasst.blogspot.com/

  10. #10
    yellow is mellow
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,199
    Quote Originally Posted by bricoleur
    .
    .




    bush's foreign policy post 9/11 was certainly influenced by many of his neoconservative advisers, but if you listen to his 2000 rnc speech (particularly the "we won't be the policemen of the world") he definitely struck a note to distinguish himself from the neoconservatives.

    at base I would say neoconservatism is a foreign policy view based on two things

    1) hegemonic stability theory

    2) modelski's "long-cycle theory"

    apply both of these to each other and you see the neocon worldview

    there's a lot of straussian views that are also applicable, but they have more to do with political philosophy in general, whereas neoconservatism is primarily concerned with foreign policy and international relations. the original neoconservatives came mainly from the "old left". ideologically they're quite different than george w bush. they're somewhat closer to his father, but he's more of a plain vanilla, old-school internationalist.

    anyways. seems like people like to say "neoconservative" to mean "new conservatives", which is understandable, but still annoying.
    .
    .
    Thank you. Maybe I'll have to more careful about tossing around the word neocon. I don't read Weekly Standard but try to read the WSJ ed page every day. I would ferret out Bret Stephens as the resident neocon there subscribing to the MM definition. John Bolton chimes in every month railing against the outgoing Condi State dept. I would like to see Undersecretary Christopher Hill play a part in the next administration whoever that is.
    Last edited by paper warrior; 10-01-2008 at 09:46 AM.
    The nail that sticks out gets hammered down

  11. #11
    I drank what?
    Reputation: j__h's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,229
    The division isn't surprising though, the Republicans Party isn't one monolithic, evangelical cowtowing, regressive group that some make them out to be.

  12. #12
    Call me a Fred
    Reputation: MikeBiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    16,997
    I'm what used to be called a Rockefeller Republican. Bush Jr. and his cohorts have driven me to vote Democratic.
    Mike

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You may starch my jumper
    Hang it upside your wall
    You know by that, baby
    I need my ashes hauled.

    Sleepy John Estes

    H

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: PdxMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,524
    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    Wouldn't it be a great country if the governors had more power and sway then the POTUS.....
    No, it would be a much less great country. First, many of the most divisive issues seem to relate to setting a minimum threshold of rights across the country. I think that George Wallace having more power than Kennedy or Johnson would have been a bad thing. I think a Federal government, prior to Bush, is much better equipped to stand up for clean water and air nation-wide than can a hodge-podge of state laws, many of which are beholden to localized economic powers. I think an idealized Jeffersonian confederation would leave the US with less strength and influence in the world than the central government of the European Union... something along the lines of a big Canada, but with more in-fighting. I think the US would be MUCH less great if governors had more power than POTUS.

  14. #14
    Unlabeled
    Reputation: Reynolds531's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,720
    I have never understood how the social conservatives (Christian right) and the pro-business wing held together. Those voting against the bailout bill are the social conservatives. The pragmatic business people will probably move more towards Democrats becasue Democrats hold the most power. The social conservatives will be marginalized.

    What's bizarre is that I find myself siding with those social conservatives in resistance to being rushed and bullied into a bailout, and I'm a pinko atheist.
    Lugged Steel Treks

  15. #15
    Scary Teddy Bear
    Reputation: physasst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,790
    Quote Originally Posted by PdxMark
    No, it would be a much less great country. First, many of the most divisive issues seem to relate to setting a minimum threshold of rights across the country. I think that George Wallace having more power than Kennedy or Johnson would have been a bad thing. I think a Federal government, prior to Bush, is much better equipped to stand up for clean water and air nation-wide than can a hodge-podge of state laws, many of which are beholden to localized economic powers. I think an idealized Jeffersonian confederation would leave the US with less strength and influence in the world than the central government of the European Union... something along the lines of a big Canada, but with more in-fighting. I think the US would be MUCH less great if governors had more power than POTUS.

    I disagree, who wants us to have influence and strength in the world? I don't. I'm more of an isolationist. I disagree wholeheartedly.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill, 1866

    SIC VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
    http://physasst.blogspot.com/

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: PdxMark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,524
    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    I disagree, who wants us to have influence and strength in the world? I don't. I'm more of an isolationist. I disagree wholeheartedly.
    We were pretty much on par with the other world powers up to WW2 (ignoring the German build-up). Isolationism, or at least semi-isolationism, was a viable position with various powers offsetting each other. WW2 changed that. During WW2 and the following Cold War our influence and power soared and we offset a couple pretty nasty regimes. Maintaining our pre-WW2 semi-isolationism through WW2 and its aftermath would have been nice, in theory, but I don't see how it remotely fits into the messy details of the second half of the 20th century. I'm all there with you up until 1939. You lose me after that.

  17. #17
    No Crybabies
    Reputation: Fixed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11,683

    always

    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    I've been listening to talk radio, and watching the political pundits on CNN etc. And, I think they are on to something. We are seeing a division within the republican party, with one side being this newer neocon bastardization that was essentially created by Bush and Cheney, and the other being traditional republicanism which is making a strong return. These traditionalists are pretty pissed at the neocons for destroying, and ignoring the parties longstanding platforms. I think it's going to get ugly within the republican party before too long, and McCain isn't trusted by either side of the aisle, cause he's trying to play both sides of the coin....

    Anyone else with similar observations, or am I alone in my pseudointellectual ponderings.
    Both parties have always had their factions. Reagan and Bush I were not exactly on the same page. Clinton/Gore, Kennedy/Johnson, FDR/Truman -- lots of examples.

    There are the big pro business Republicans, and there are the more ideologically pure fiscal/social conservatives, among others.

    Republicans are not unique, though. The Democratic party has many more factions of special interests. Unions, minorities, special classes (e.g., gays), socialists, or classical Southern Democrats, still pissed about the Civil War and Reconstruction.

    I think we find populists on both sides. I think McCain is sort of a populist, more than pure conservative. Bush has not proven to be a conservative. On the other hand, I see Obama as Liberal. Bill Clinton was more populist.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    When my fist clenches, crack it open
    Before I use it and lose my cool
    When I smile, tell me some bad news
    Before I laugh and act like a fool

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: desmo13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    For me, republicanism equals Teddy Roosevelt, and to a lesser degree Jefferson.

    I am absolutely steadfast against the federal government performing...well, almost anything. I am a strong state's rights proponent.

    Wouldn't it be a great country if the governors had more power and sway then the POTUS.....

    Ah well, one can hope.
    Even Jefferson agreed to the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation. States have to yield to Federal Government.

    I too drift off into "states rights" from time to time. But it can't work. Entitlements, permissions (abortion, marriage, legal age of consent etc.) have to be uniform across the states. If we allow such a huge difference, states would be at war with each other. (not armed conflict, but think of the "out of state" fee's charged for abortion and whatnot)

  19. #19
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    49,013

    the Republican Party

    Quote Originally Posted by desmo13
    Even Jefferson agreed to the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation. States have to yield to Federal Government.

    I too drift off into "states rights" from time to time. But it can't work. Entitlements, permissions (abortion, marriage, legal age of consent etc.) have to be uniform across the states. If we allow such a huge difference, states would be at war with each other. (not armed conflict, but think of the "out of state" fee's charged for abortion and whatnot)

    would have been better served if the actual 'Republicans' had all joined the Libertarians

    instead they continue to enable this grotesque fat, bloated baby that looks straight out of Akira
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  20. #20
    Scary Teddy Bear
    Reputation: physasst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,790
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie
    would have been better served if the actual 'Republicans' had all joined the Libertarians

    instead they continue to enable this grotesque fat, bloated baby that looks straight out of Akira

    Plus one friggin gazillion....this newer incarnation of the republican party has left those of us who idolized Goldwater holding nothing.

    Why do you think I switched to Libertarian.....reminds me, I need to donate another couple hundred bucks to the Libertarian funds.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." John Stuart Mill, 1866

    SIC VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM
    http://physasst.blogspot.com/

  21. #21
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    49,013

    if more like you would follow suit

    Quote Originally Posted by physasst
    Plus one friggin gazillion....this newer incarnation of the republican party has left those of us who idolized Goldwater holding nothing.

    Why do you think I switched to Libertarian.....reminds me, I need to donate another couple hundred bucks to the Libertarian funds.
    you could save the party or bury it and become the next major


    instead they say "well it is better than voting D" when history has shown clearly it is not
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.