Real Ideas for Republicans, Right now (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I disagree on this point. I think it seems that way right now because the incredibly poor/untested qualities of the Presidential candidates these last 5 years left the window open a crack for someone like Sanders to gain support. There aren't AOCs getting into seats all over the place, and she isn't the face of the party (no matter how much some people would like to think she is). The Democrat fringe has been loud and strange for decades now, but that fringe hasn't driven it into extreme territory now any more than it has since the 60's. We have broader megaphones now than we did back then, but I don't think uptake of the messages have become more prevalent across the board. State ownership of the entirety of the means of production is not only not happening any time soon, it's not even a real consideration as part of the Democratic platform. Similarly with other extreme liberal/socialist views.

Even though I wish you were correct, I disagree with you because in the Democratic Party the real struggle isn’t between candidates, it’s between ideas. Progressive ideas, like Green New Deal, are going to win out because the moderates aren’t providing enough attractive alternatives. 
 

So what we’re going to get in young new candidates is somebody who sounds and speaks moderate and doesn’t say anything crazy, but who proposes Bernie’s agenda. 

 

[Gr00vus]

Even though I wish you were correct, I disagree with you because in the Democratic Party the real struggle isn’t between candidates, it’s between ideas. Progressive ideas, like Green New Deal, are going to win out because the moderates aren’t providing enough attractive alternatives. 
 

So what we’re going to get in young new candidates is somebody who sounds and speaks moderate and doesn’t say anything crazy, but who proposes Bernie’s agenda. 

It won't be the Green New Deal as stated by AOC. But some of its ideas will make their way through, and that's a good thing. We need commitment to some of those core ideas, while filtering out the bad ones. We should never discourage struggle between ideas, as long as we also encourage rational analysis of the benefits and failings of those ideas. Over time the moderates will adopt the ideas that ultimately make sense and reject the others - that's how it's been historically in this country a vast majority of the time.

The reason driven conservatives, the natural check on the liberal dreamers, haven't died off, they've just been left somewhat homeless. That's not a permanent condition.

 

[dkp993]

This is of course true, but it doesn't fit the "both sides" narrative.  In fairness, I think most folks who shift from right to left have their train stop at "both sides" station for awhile; it's convenient and self serving, and the coffee is good.  Eventually many move on, complete the trip to reality and understand the false equivalency of the "both sides" narrative.

As a card carrying “both side” narrator I can attest to the coffee being good.  I can also attest to just because one side may be “worse” or more heavy handed in there extreme agenda it does not mean the other side is free of massive flaws, lies and extremism.  If you can’t see that it’s a both sides problem your as partisan as your counterparts.   

 

[parrot]

 We live in an era now where money doesn't matter, the left is burning cities as some kind of gambit, and the money printer goes brrr. So bring me your big ideas that have cross-cultural appeal. I want ideas that we can beat Nancy Pelosi and Woke Capital with

I'll start:

THE NEW AMERICAN HOMESTEAD PROGRAM

My fellow Americans, the COVID-19 Crisis has exposed the critical weakness of our agricultural supply chains.  Never again should Americans have to worry about accessing a steady supply of healthy and nutritious foods.

My friends, in time when vast numbers are unemployed, we know many of our people would love a chance to get involved directly in agriculture, and frankly we need more people involved.  Our farmers are aging, and our farms are too concentrated.

Therefore, I am asking the Department of Agriculture to immediately implement the New American Homestead Program, an opportunity for thousands of Americans to get involved in farming directly.

Under this program, an eligible family will be able to access up to $1 million dollars in federal assistance to purchase a farm of not more than 200 acres.  Half of the money can go to the land and buildings, 25% to capital goods and improvements, and 25% must be held for operating reserves.  The farm must be organic, and be employed in diversified small hold agriculture.  One of our greatest unsung heroes, Joel Salatin, has agreed to head up an advisory division to help these new farmers learn good ecologically sound husbandry of their lands and livestock.

The best part about this program is that the successful participant, at the end of 20 years, will have his loan forgiven.  And a participant who finds the he is not up to the task can offer his farm to the next person in line, no questions asked.  We will be funding 5000 New American Homesteads per year, for the minimal cost of $5 billion, a drop in the bucket of the Federal Budget.  But by this revolutionary means, we aim to seed an entire generation of small family farms who can feed America with the healthy, local foods she once had.  

We believe that this new generation of yeoman farmers, empowered by today's technology, can unleash a wave of ecological farming innovation not seen since the so-called Green Revolution, which we now know wasn't green at all, rather was the beginning of a toxic and oligopolized food system.  So today, we're starting down a new path that is actually an old path.  A healthier, more sustainable path for America.

I heard this whole thing in Howard Humphrey, President of Schooner Tuna's voice.  It was fun.  Thanks.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

What is different between the current GOP and the GOP of the 80's outside of the lack of finesse in messaging? I guess I mean from a policy perspective, obviously the ability to work across the isle is not happening now.

In order to build the tax cutting coalition the GOP courted a bunch of groups into their tent.  Earlier on with groups such as the "silent majority" they were pulling from politically active individuals that were previously democrats.  Then they started pulling in apolitical types.  Those that historically never allowed their politics to corrupt their religious beliefs.  Between these extremes were the blue collar workers.  These workers were politically active in the sense that their union membership bleed into politics a bit, but as unions died and the jobs became scarcer and the negotiations meant giving more and more away these voters became more like the apolitical evangelicalist.  It became a party of "politcalphobes" which basically means a party that will not compromise.   Nor tolerate compromise.  That is why the walk across the isle cannot happen.  It would be intolerable compromise.  And it is rooted in already compromising too much in employment contracts.  Compromising too much on social conservatism.  Compromising too much such that we allow protest.  Already compromised too much such that the world is spiraling out of control.

There can be fears that the litmus test democrats might someday seize control of the democratic party.  We have a few of those in these threads.  But they are frustrated in that the democrats are the weak party of compromise.  That never fight like the republican do.  As long as there are these complaints the "both sides" are controlled by extremists argument is just not true.  The extremism of the GOP is the unwillingness to compromise.  The weakness of the democrats is their desperate attempts to get the GOP to compromise.   

 

[RCon]

Why does the bolded matter?  For sake of argument, let's say I could prove definitively that climate change is an imminent threat (say, within 30 years) and that there are steps we can take to mitigate that threat.  Why would you care whether or to what extent humans contributed to climate change?

Depending on exactly what that extent is (human contribution), and what the cost of those steps are - it may or not be worth it.

I could see wanting to know details of A) how big the threat is, B) how much our steps would mitigate it, and C) how much those steps would cost, and making a cost/benefit judgement on whether the steps are worth taking.  That absolutely makes sense.  I still don't understand why one would care how much humans contributed to the threat in the first place (remember that for sake of argument, we are stipulating that we know unequivocally that the threat exists).

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I could see wanting to know details of A) how big the threat is, B) how much our steps would mitigate it, and C) how much those steps would cost, and making a cost/benefit judgement on whether the steps are worth taking.  That absolutely makes sense.  I still don't understand why one would care how much humans contributed to the threat in the first place.

There is an asteroid coming.  We can't consider these questions until we agree to the degree that humans created the path of the asteroid.

Or forget asteroids.  There is a  pandemic here.  We can't consider those questions because we need to argue how much to blame China.   

 

[whoknew]

What is different between the current GOP and the GOP of the 80's outside of the lack of finesse in messaging? I guess I mean from a policy perspective, obviously the ability to work across the isle is not happening now.

Free trade. Trump dumped that. Completely baffling to me that so-called conservatives would now be against free trade.

 

[joffer]

I could see wanting to know details of A) how big the threat is, B) how much our steps would mitigate it, and C) how much those steps would cost, and making a cost/benefit judgement on whether the steps are worth taking.  That absolutely makes sense.  I still don't understand why one would care how much humans contributed to the threat in the first place (remember that for sake of argument, we are stipulating that we know unequivocally that the threat exists).

i don't understand why, when trying to solve a problem, you wouldn't want to understand the cause of the problem.

 

[The Commish]

In this regard, the saving grace for the liberals is our disorganization and lack of centralized control. The Republicans have fallen prey to heavily moneyed interests guiding the direction of the party since the 80's, possibly even earlier. People like the Koch brothers, Ailes, Limbaugh, Gingrich, etc. figured out how to leverage their wealth and power into even more vast wealth and power via manipulating the Republican base in a way that lacks peer on the liberal side. The Republican leadership became masterful in controlling their narratives and bombarding their constituents with them constantly so that they controlled the direction to a degree liberals can't even imagine. In Trump they ran into someone as adept and clever at it as they are, but also with camera facing fame, so he was able to turn their machine to his favor. Opportunist that he is, he recognized he couldn't pander to a solid block of voters in the Democratic camp to the extent they'd support his candidacy the way he could with the Republicans. With the Republicans he found a ready made constituency conditioned to swallow all the lies he could tell in order to give him what he wants. 

The Democrats  don't have anything like that kind of focused machinery to control their constituents. Without it, directing liberals is tougher than herding cats.

This is a pretty good point that I hadn't considered.  I'm not sure if it's enough to derail things completely, but it certainly is a major factor in how slowly they progress.

 

[The Commish]

What is different between the current GOP and the GOP of the 80's outside of the lack of finesse in messaging? I guess I mean from a policy perspective, obviously the ability to work across the isle is not happening now.

Well, for me, it's most noticed at the local level.  So, contrary to popular belief, locally there were really "fiscally conservative" Republicans.  Even if it was just lip service at the federal level, locally, it was a real thing.  That type of GOPer has become a unicorn.  I suppose, federally, you're generally correct.  I was pretty young, but I remember the preaching of fiscal responsibility.  I remember the preaching of being a dramatic force on the world stage and being the peacekeepers and "grown ups in the room".  All those ships have clearly sailed.

Back then, they might not have had policy proposals that you'd agree with, but they had actual alternate proposals from the Dems.  Now?  Yeah, not so much.  Have we seen a single proposal in this thread (which is asking for them) outside the OP?  Can ANY of our resident GOPers come up with a healthcare plan that their current leadership is advocating for?  And no, tearing down the Dem solutions is not a plan.  Can anyone come up with a GOP plan to resolve the actual problems at our borders?  And no, a wall isn't going to fix the problems of backlogs, processing issues and the like.  Can anyone come up with a GOP plan to address the infrastructure problems in this country or the lack of preparedness of the citizenry to compete in the global economy?  All the "free trade" shtick is completely gone (which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing given that is an ideal not really rooted in reality) but I remember that was a cornerstone of the party.

 

[matuski]

I could see wanting to know details of A) how big the threat is, B) how much our steps would mitigate it, and C) how much those steps would cost, and making a cost/benefit judgement on whether the steps are worth taking.  That absolutely makes sense.  I still don't understand why one would care how much humans contributed to the threat in the first place (remember that for sake of argument, we are stipulating that we know unequivocally that the threat exists).

If humans aren't contributing a significant amount, and/or we can only mitigate a small portion of that, and it comes at an astronomical price... I might not get behind it.  Especially if it is driven by politics where I know the cost will always be way higher and the benefit always exaggerated.

 

[RCon]

If humans aren't contributing a significant amount, and/or we can only mitigate a small portion of that, at an astronomical price... I might not get behind it.  Especially if it is driven by politics where I know the cost will always be way higher and the benefit always exaggerated.

I think we're talking past each other here.  My original question (quoted below) wasn't whether you would support taking the steps.  I agree with you, in the hypothetical, I didn't give you enough information to answer that question.

Understood.  However this has been my point all along, there simply is not enough evidence to show that humans are causing climate change that is an imminent threat.   I would be on board with climate change if it was ever proven to be a major concern, so far it has not.

Why does the bolded matter?  For sake of argument, let's say I could prove definitively that climate change is an imminent threat (say, within 30 years) and that there are steps we can take to mitigate that threat.  Why would you care whether or to what extent humans contributed to climate change?

 

[RCon]

i don't understand why, when trying to solve a problem, you wouldn't want to understand the cause of the problem.

Ideally, sure.  I think my overall point (from other thread) is that I think there are mitigation steps liberals can propose to which conservatives would agree, as long as we can skip over the part where conservatives have to admit that humans are a partial or significant cause of climate change.

 

[AAABatteries]

It doesn't really but since that is what we are being told by far left progressives they are lying for political gain which I despise.

There’s not enough  

 

[Manster]

It won't be the Green New Deal as stated by AOC. But some of its ideas will make their way through, and that's a good thing. We need commitment to some of those core ideas, while filtering out the bad ones. We should never discourage struggle between ideas, as long as we also encourage rational analysis of the benefits and failings of those ideas. Over time the moderates will adopt the ideas that ultimately make sense and reject the others - that's how it's been historically in this country a vast majority of the time.

The reason driven conservatives, the natural check on the liberal dreamers, haven't died off, they've just been left somewhat homeless. That's not a permanent condition.

So do you mean to say that the current NeoCon is basically crashing and burning with Trump at the helm? 

Classical liberalism perhaps?  There has already been a Libertarian movement, and these two are closely related.  I like a lot of the core ideas......small government/foreign policy seems like a huge obstacle for this kind of shift though....maybe a gradual shift in that direction anyway?

 

[tommyGunZ]

i don't understand why, when trying to solve a problem, you wouldn't want to understand the cause of the problem.

By refusing to understand the problem (science, facts, reality, etc.), you can plausibly deny that the problem exists, and therefore oppose policies to correct said problem.

Basically, the entire premise of today's GOP.  

 

[Gr00vus]

By refusing to understand the problem (science, facts, reality, etc.), you can plausibly deny that the problem exists, and therefore oppose policies to correct said problem.

Basically, the entire premise of today's GOP.  

Beyond this observation, a point I made in @Rich Conway's thread is that a good part of the solution to the climate change problem involves changes in peoples'/business' behaviors. Without accepting that human behavior does contribute to the problem, its difficult for people to accept the need to change their behavior.

 

[Opie]

Let’s get back to the issue at hand: there are too many conservatives out there who lean towards @Opie’s POV on the issue of climate change, enough to make the existing Republican Party the party of “NO” on this issue: meaning that so long as they have control of the Senate they will simply block all discussion and prevent any meaningful legislation from reaching the floor. They are also the party of “NO” on several other issues, including gun control, taxation, immigration, and, as will shortly be demonstrated in real time, police reform. 
 

So where does this lead us? We’re about to elect another moderate Democrat to the White House. He’s going to try to work with the Republicans to get some things done because he needs some of their support. Just like the last moderate Democrat (Obama), I predict Biden will fail. The Republicans won’t dare move against their unyielding base or the talk radio and Fox personalities who inform it.

And then what I fear will happen is that the American public, exasperated with both the Republicans and the moderate Democrats who tried to work with them, will finally turn to AOC and the radical progressives. And they will impose the Green New Deal and the rest of Bernie’s platform and all that entails. 

You say you know what we believe yet, you make no effort, whatsoever, to find out WHY we believe what we believe.

If the world was going to turn into a fireball....I'd be concernced.

But, seeing as how ZERO predictions have come true (and I've been around long enough where I worried about freezing to death in the next ice age), how every prediction made today is forecast to take place in a hundred years...and most of all....how that 97% of ALL scientists has been shown to be one-half of one percent of SOME scientists.....I'll take it all with a grain of salt.

I know it's a religion to you so I won't even ask you to look for salvation elsewhere.

 

[The Commish]

Ideally, sure.  I think my overall point (from other thread) is that I think there are mitigation steps liberals can propose to which conservatives would agree, as long as we can skip over the part where conservatives have to admit that humans are a partial or significant cause of climate change.

I think I have the perfect example of what you're talking about Rich..maybe?  Here it goes.  In Miami, they are having significant problems with flooding.  It's well documented and an unavoidable fact.  Sea level rise is going to be a huge problem before long.  Newspaper outlets in Miami, Orlando and Tampa have teamed up together to document all the issues across the state and they've all agreed not to mention the term "Climate Change" in any of their writing.  When Miami floods, they talk about "sea level rise" or "flooding".  When we have severe beach erosion because of really bad rip currents, that's what they talk about.  They focus on the physical issue.  Since they've started doing that, things are actually getting done.  People are talking about "what can we do to mitigate the flooding?" rather than arguing about whether it's because of "climate change" or not.  It's also happening with more eco driven issues in the keys as well.  Simply removing that phrase from their discussions has opened things up tremendously.  It sounds really petty and stupid, but it's true.  It appears to be THAT simple to move past.   

 

[joffer]

I think I have the perfect example of what you're talking about Rich..maybe?  Here it goes.  In Miami, they are having significant problems with flooding.  It's well documented and an unavoidable fact.  Sea level rise is going to be a huge problem before long.  Newspaper outlets in Miami, Orlando and Tampa have teamed up together to document all the issues across the state and they've all agreed not to mention the term "Climate Change" in any of their writing.  When Miami floods, they talk about "sea level rise" or "flooding".  When we have severe beach erosion because of really bad rip currents, that's what they talk about.  They focus on the physical issue.  Since they've started doing that, things are actually getting done.  People are talking about "what can we do to mitigate the flooding?" rather than arguing about whether it's because of "climate change" or not.  It's also happening with more eco driven issues in the keys as well.  Simply removing that phrase from their discussions has opened things up tremendously.  It sounds really petty and stupid, but it's true.  It appears to be THAT simple to move past.   

But that's working around the problem, and delaying the inevitable, not addressing the cause.  But your point is taken, as i've been trying to think of an actual example of Rich's idea being successful.  It's not a "perfect" one, but its in the ballpark.

 

[RCon]

But that's working around the problem, and delaying the inevitable, not addressing the cause.  But your point is taken, as i've been trying to think of an actual example of Rich's idea being successful.  It's not a "perfect" one, but its in the ballpark.

If we search for perfect, odds are not good on a fast solution.  Let me put it a different way.  You're not going to get the GOP to go for sweeping climate change policy today, and you don't have the votes to do it without them.  Best bet is to continue working outside of policy to advocate with the public for change, but at the same time, find quick wins that you can get through policy, even if they're small.  Can we get a $5B reward program for solving technology problem X passed?  Let's do it and not call it climate change legislation.

 

[joffer]

If we search for perfect, odds are not good on a fast solution.  Let me put it a different way.  You're not going to get the GOP to go for sweeping climate change policy today, and you don't have the votes to do it without them.  Best bet is to continue working outside of policy to advocate with the public for change, but at the same time, find quick wins that you can get through policy, even if they're small.  Can we get a $5B reward program for solving  technology problem X passed?  Let's do it and not call it climate change legislation.

Well, i'd argue "no" if they know its for climate change, no matter what you call it.

 

[RCon]

Well, i'd argue "no" if they know its for climate change, no matter what you call it.

Call it a "jobs" program and base it in a red state.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I thought the battle over how much humans are contributing is the whole point.  If we can't get people to understand that change their ways, then all we will be doing is damage control after the fact, right?

 

[The Commish]

But that's working around the problem, and delaying the inevitable, not addressing the cause.  But your point is taken, as i've been trying to think of an actual example of Rich's idea being successful.  It's not a "perfect" one, but its in the ballpark.

In my view, we're at a point where we have to address the problem as well as the symptoms as I illustrated above.  We can't turn some of this back, so the damage created we have to manage and deal with.  My overall point is, if one simply avoids tying issues to "climate change" GOPers are much more willing to focus on the issue.  If you continue to frame it as "climate change" they seem incapable/unwilling to focus on anything other than that phrase.  It's really weird to watch.  It's pretty much like trying to feed your 3 year old kid pork and them saying they don't like pork, they like chicken.  You can argue with them over the fact they've eaten pork a billion times and liked it in the past and that they will like it now, or you can just tell them it's chicken, they say ok and eat.