Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kayin]

Pure partisanship is nasty, but our system of government basically necessitates it. Until we move to a system where a spectrum of positions can get representation, you pretty much have to choose the side you think is closest to your own ideals and go for it, or throw your hands up in disgust.

For some reason this makes me think of Survivor.

[Bal]

The political game is resembling TF2 more than I would like.

[Transportation]

Partisanship isn't really that bad considering parliamentary governments get away with ignoring the other side all the time.

The only thing to worry about is if the GOP is dumb enough to be permanently marginalized.  If the Republican dominance between the American Civil War and the Great Depression is anything to go by, it'll just mean the Democratic party will become hilariously corrupt. More so as business interests migrate to where the power is.

Pure partisanship is nasty, but our system of government basically necessitates it. Until we move to a system where a spectrum of positions can get representation, you pretty much have to choose the side you think is closest to your own ideals and go for it, or throw your hands up in disgust.

The First Past the Post system precludes this from happening. Even in parliamentary government that use it, such as the UK or Canada, only have two really viable parties.

Really, even in proportional representation where third parties have much more influence, there are usually two dominant blocs. More voting power > ideological freedom of its members, usually.

Also proportional representation's benefit of stronger third parties is also its weakness. The splitting of "extreme" elements removes any moderating force. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but a separate Religious Right party would gain a few more crazy points and would still be courted for their valuable votes.

[TA]

I think there's enough spread in the Democratic party that it won't really become as inbred as that - absent a strong opposition party, we'll be seeing your Clintons arguing against your Kucinichs.  There isn't a single overwhelming purpose that would override dissent.

I think business interests will be less willing to attach themselves to another powerful party the way they have to Republicans, when that powerful party has such a strong "regulate and tax the fuck out of big business" contingent.  More likely we'd find a libertarian party getting propped up and subsuming the older GOP.

[Mongrel]

There isn't a single overwhelming purpose that would override dissent.

Greed.

[Royal☭]

So apparently, on February 19th, CNBC correspondent Rick Santelli made himself famous for an apparently spontaneous rant against Obama's mortgage plan, calling for people around the country to join him in having Chicago Tea Parties, events to protest the stimulus plan and government spending.

Now it appears that the entire thing is part of an elaborate Republican PR campaign.  It starts with the website ChicagoTeaParty.com having been registered back in August of 2008, then describes a Machaivellian organization of "random" facebook and twitter groups to push a supposed populist message that really only benefits the wealthiest Americans.

[Brentai]

It's very likely that this is terribly much keeping in the spirit of the original Boston Tea Party.

[Bongo Bill]

Okay, so it's not really grassroots. It's all part of some shadowy master plan. Does that mean that the participants are wrong to believe in their cause? A common idea in conservatism is that just because something is good for big business doesn't mean that it's bad for everybody else. Is this revelation supposed to undermine the credibility of the message, or just the organization?

[Doom]

This is the part in the movie when you boo the Uptight College Dean or Corrupt Local Police Chief.

If the message of Conservatism has gotten so weak that it needs to be almost completely manufactured...

[Catloaf]

And to think, if a liberal group did this it would be front page news on every fucking paper.

[Royal☭]

More to the point, this isn't uncommon.  This shit has been going on since the 80s.  And I do think it's a big deal to point this shit out and expose it at every turn.  Ignorance and populist anger are played upon to push agendas counter to the self-interests of the people who are lured by them.

[Bongo Bill]

But, that's the thing: I would suggest that the entire point of these protests is that these people already believed that they and big business have the same interests on this issue.

[Detonator]

But, that's the thing: I would suggest that the entire point of these protests is that these people already believed that they and big business have the same interests on this issue.

The point here isn't about the message itself.  It's about the manufactured and deceptive nature of the spreading of the message.  This topic is not about arguing against conservatism itself, but discussing the poor choices of those leading the conservative movement.  This is something you have lamented about before, Bill.  I would think if you wanted conservatism to take a greater hold in this country, you would be similarly angry about how lame the leadership is being.

[Mongrel]

At the root, these kinds of things represent a small number of opinionated people trying to get a larger number of people to agree with them, with the root of the argument being a lie:  that their minority opinion is actually a majority opinion.

You folks can work out for yourselves whther or not that's a bad thing.

[Bongo Bill]

I personally don't have much problem with private interests appealing to populist sensibilities (as long as they are private)... whether it's harmful to the movement really depends on whether the people who are at all susceptible to recruitment feel the same way. I'm not sure that corporate involvement bothers conservatives the way it does liberals.

Of course, stealth corporate involvement is a different matter, raising questions of integrity. In the present political climate, nothing could be more valuable to conservatism than to display an esteem for integrity. So they dropped the ball in that respect.

[Thad]

I'm not sure that corporate involvement bothers conservatives the way it does liberals.

Of course, stealth corporate involvement is a different matter, raising questions of integrity.

Erm, I don't speak for all liberals or anything, but I think the distinction in your latter sentence IS the problem.  I don't think most liberals are inherently opposed to corporations; the problem is that corporations, without supervision, tend to become corrupt and dishonest.

[Kazz]

the problem is that corporations, without supervision, tend to become corrupt and dishonest.

The same can be said of individuals, I think.  The real problem is that corporations are hard to police... especially when said police have no interest in policing.

[Thad]

Sure, but individuals have more complex motivations than simply "please the stockholders".  Corporations are, by their nature, amoral.

[Arc]

playboy.com

Felt ancient upon reading this article last night. Reading The Hefner Gazette the for the article(s)? Just start mailing the social security checks to me now. My AARP card needs lamented.

And to think, if a liberal group did this it would be front page news on every fucking paper.

We had to invade ACORN. We couldn't afford for the the smoking gun to be a socialist cloud.

[Arc]

There is no figure that contrasts to President Obama more than Rush Limpdick. Their ideologies, histories, and even appearance are as far apart from one another as could be imagined. With the meteoric fall of Bobby Jindal following his disastrous counter-point speech, Micheal Steele has anointed Rush as King of Screwedville.


Just as planned.