Republicans: crybabies or patriots?

[Hyena Dandy]

I think Fox has used the term "Slimdown"

[ThePhoneGoddess]

...my gut instinct is that the republicans are basically the bad guys in all of this healthcare versus budget malarkey.

Rapscallion

It's not all Republicans being the bad guys, it is specifically the Tea Party Republicans that are causing all this. The Republican Party is in full civil war mode; they have been since Obama was reelected, but until now they've been trying to hide it. There are 3 main factions vying for control:

1) Establishment Republicans. Example: John Boehner. These guys are pretty moderate, the ones most likely to compromise. Most are established politicians who've been around Washington for years and know how the game is played. Unfortunately, they are most likely to be in cahoots with big business and lobbyists.
2) Libertarian Republicans. Example: Rand Paul. These guys' political beliefs can be described as fiscally conservative, socially mind-your-own-business. They tend to be outliers; during the last presidential election, they were pretty much shut out of the Republican convention because they wouldn't toe the line on social issues. Since then, many have been defecting to the Libertarian party.
3) Tea Party Republicans. Example: Ted Cruz. These are the ones causing the problems. While the other 2 groups share the tea-partiers antipathy toward Obama and the healthcare act, they lack the tea-partiers default position amid all the demographic, political and cultural change going on: That default position is abject terror.

Focus groups have revealed the difference between these people and the other Republicans. While other conservatives see someone who doesn't agree with them as a political opponent, the tea-partiers see someone who doesn't agree with them as evil. In other words, they are reactionaries.

I have tea party members in my extended family, and I have spoken to them about these things, to try and understand their point of view. They way they see Washington is fundamentally different than the rest of us do. Their Washington looks nothing like the capital many others see. To them, there is no gridlock. There is only a 'socialist' steamroller before which the Republican Party is feeble and afraid.

The establishment and libertarian Republicans are staunch fiscal conservatives, but many of them have embraced things like growing minority empowerment and gay rights. On the other hand, the tea-partiers and the evangelicals along with them tend to act like they are in the midst of a world war. Their world view is that they are losing to a Democratic party whose goal is to expand government programs that mainly benefit minorities.

These Americans tend to live in very white, rural areas where few minorities are ever encountered, and everyone is Christian, whether devoutly or nominally. These people were not ready for a mixed-race president. They weren't ready for gay marriage. They weren't ready for the waves of immigration the last 20 years that have brought many non-white people into the country. They weren't ready for the brutal effects of globalization on the working class. They feel the culture is running away from them (and for the most part, they are right.) They send people to Washington to try and stop all of this, to 'take back America', but their representatives aren't stopping any of it.

To them, this is panic time, it is their last chance to stop the evil before it takes over the country and fundamentally changes America to something they don't recognize. They are so frightened that they are fighting the other wings of their party, and they have no intention of compromising on anything. You don't compromise with evil.

It is a sad state of affairs. I hope this explains a little about what is going on right now.

[lordlundar]

It's not all Republicans being the bad guys, it is specifically the Tea Party Republicans that are causing all this.

I disagree. When the vote came up to shut down the government, there was one, and only one republican who decided that no, shutting down the government is NOT the best course of action and voted no.

If it was the Tea Party, and only the Tea Party responsible for this then the vote would not have passed. Moderate Republicans in congress would have taken the same path as that lone republican.

[Andara Bledin]

Technically, it's Boehner. If he let a clean CR hit the floor, it would most likely be passed.

But the GOP has this "either you're with us or you're the enemy" mentality within the party that has to follow whatever has been put forth to the public, and I'm not sure how batshit insane that rhetoric has to get before they'll seriously break ranks.

[Nekojin]

Good post, TPG, but I have one quibble here.

2) Libertarian Republicans. Example: Rand Paul. These guys' political beliefs can be described as fiscally conservative, socially mind-your-own-business. They tend to be outliers; during the last presidential election, they were pretty much shut out of the Republican convention because they wouldn't toe the line on social issues. Since then, many have been defecting to the Libertarian party.

I have, until recently, identified as libertarian myself. As such, I make a point of investigating "Libertarian" politicians at the big stage. They all fit into two categories:

1.) Republicans wearing a different coat to make a run at the Presidency when their own party wouldn't field them. Ron Paul fit in this category (sometimes), and so did Bob Barr (the 2008 Libertarian candidate). Both Ron Paul and Bob Barr were Republicans before, and switched to Libertarian in time to be fielded by the Libertarian Party in the Presidential race. Both switched back to Republican once the race was over, although Ron Paul still maintained a membership in the Libertarian Party.
2.) Lassiez-faire economists. Rand Paul fits in here, and his father Ron did too for most of the time. All of Rand's political views are fiscally libertarian (you can't call him fiscally conservative when he pretty much wants to void all governmental regulation of corporations), and either don't give a damn about social issues, or marches in time with the Republican Puritanicals. Rand Paul himself opposes abortion and gay marriage, but is smart enough not to be boxed in on it - when pressed on the issue, he "punts" it by saying that it's "a states' rights issue." He knows it's a losing fight at the federal level.

Edit: I should clarify that there aren't any "Big-L" Libertarians (that is, those who are members of the Libertarian Party) on Capitol Hill. There are only a few (like Rand Paul) who give vague lip service to being libertarian.

There isn't a single Libertarian at the federal level who is actually a social libertarian - every one of them has some issue where they want to stop others from doing something that isn't harming them or anyone else (typically abortion and/or gay marriage, although "religious freedom" falls in here, too, where they want the right to oppress people who aren't their own religion).

[smileyeagle1021]

There isn't a single Libertarian at the federal level who is actually a social libertarian - every one of them has some issue where they want to stop others from doing something that isn't harming them or anyone else (typically abortion and/or gay marriage, although "religious freedom" falls in here, too, where they want the right to oppress people who aren't their own religion).

Oh you misunderstand, they are social libertarians... they believe everyone should have the right to live their lives the same we they do

[Hyena Dandy]

Oh you misunderstand, they are social libertarians... they believe everyone should have the right to live their lives the same we they do

Sounds like my mother. Everyone, gay, straight, white, black, has the right to be a middle-class monogamous democrat. >_<

[Panacea]

I disagree. When the vote came up to shut down the government, there was one, and only one republican who decided that no, shutting down the government is NOT the best course of action and voted no.

If it was the Tea Party, and only the Tea Party responsible for this then the vote would not have passed. Moderate Republicans in congress would have taken the same path as that lone republican.

I disagree. Every time a moderate Republican, heck even a conservative Republican (but not Tea Party) compromises, they face a Tea Party challenge in their next primary. That's why we keep seeing Tea Party types showing up in Congress. Even if the moderate fends off the primary challenger, he faces a tough fight against the Democratic opposition who now know where the weak points are and where the bodies are buried.

The moderates in the House, including Boehner, don't want to deal with that. They're quaking in their boots; caught between a rock and a hard place. Until Boehner grows a pair and decides the good of the country is better than what's good for HIM, then the logjam will remain.

Even then, it won't be easy to get the CR passed because the House version has too many cuts in it for many Democrats. Still Boehner can likely get the votes if he pushes a vote.

Then, next year he'll face a Tea Party challenger. If Boehner fends him off, he'll lose the House Speakership even if the GOP keeps the House.

And he should do it. For the good of the country.

[Hyena Dandy]

The more I think about it, the more I think "Crybabies" is a way too nice term for this. They're asking the President to compromise on the basic functionality of government. I was previously putting it as they're saying that "Working government" is something only Democrats want, but that was way too gentle to them.

They are, essentially, working at cross purposes to the very concept of democracy. You know a democracy works when people who lose accept the lost. In this case, the people who lost, lost. The law was written. The law was passed. The law was signed. The law was even challenged and upheld.

That is how a law works. That is how America works. When you lose, you lose. If you want that changed, fine. Go through the process, and if you can't, it doesn't change. That's what the Constitution is for. You don't say "We're shutting down the government if you don't change this." That's not whining. I've got no moral issue with the Republicans being merely crybabies about it.

My issue is with them saying that the Constitutional process is not good enough for America.

Seriously, fuck those guys.

[Gravekeeper]

My issue is with them saying that the Constitutional process is not good enough for America.

You mean "Real" America.

This is my fundamental problem with it as well. Obamacare is as American as a law can get. It was passed, challenged and upheld all according to the rules the GOP claims to uphold. Yet they sit there and rant about how unAmerican and unconstitutional it is. They're a petulant 4 year old that thinks he owns the soccer ball and threatens to take it and go home whenever he loses a game.

Its absurd, and I have nothing positive to say about the GOP. They are, as I said, Taliban light. They are trying to bring down the government whenever it doesn't concede to their demands. Then they wander out into the street, take a shit on someone's law and blame it on Obama. While standing over it with their pants down. If you disagree, they'll try to burn your house down until you agree.

In the first 2 years after Obama was elected ( With a Democrat controlled house and senate ) you got:

Healthcare Reform
Wallstreet Reform
The Fair Pay Act
Credit Card Reform
Student Loan Reform
Hate Crime Act
Repealing of DADT
The Stimulus Package ( Complete with middle class tax cuts )
Cash for Clunkers
Expansion of the GI Bill
Expanded national service programs
The START treaty with Russia


After the GOP took the House you got:

Your credit rating downgraded.
Some odd 40 attempts to repeal Obamacare.
Not a single piece of significant legislation.


They were sworn in, in January 2011. By April they threatened to shut down the government. By July they created the first debt ceiling crisis in history and got the credit rating downgraded. By September, they threatened to shut the government down again. By April 2012, they threatened to shut the government down yet again. By December, they were pushing you over the Fiscal Cliff (tm). By January 2013, they were discussing forcing another debt ceiling crisis.

Now, here you are again, with them having shut down the government.

[Kheldarson]

In the first 2 years after Obama was elected ( With a Democrat controlled house and senate ) you got:

*snip*

After the GOP took the House you got:

*snip*

Actually, that's pretty typical of split party politics. When the Presidency and Congress are the same, lots of shit goes through. When the Presidency and Congress are different/opposed, less stuff goes through.

Although this round of split has been one of the worse for getting anything done, I'll grant you that.

[Gravekeeper]

Actually, that's pretty typical of split party politics. When the Presidency and Congress are the same, lots of shit goes through. When the Presidency and Congress are different/opposed, less stuff goes through.

Although this round of split has been one of the worse for getting anything done, I'll grant you that.

This isn't split party politics, its scorched earth. The GOP refuse to govern because fuck the black guy. Its one thing for there to be derision over specific opposing topics between two parties in a split party situation. Its another to shut down absolutely everything, refuse to do your job ( You know, governing ) and hold the country hostage until you get your way.

This isn't an ideological difference, its basically if we can't have it, no one can.

[Kheldarson]

This isn't split party politics, its scorched earth. The GOP refuse to govern because fuck the black guy. Its one thing for there to be derision over specific opposing topics between two parties in a split party situation. Its another to shut down absolutely everything, refuse to do your job ( You know, governing ) and hold the country hostage until you get your way.

This isn't an ideological difference, its basically if we can't have it, no one can.

Not disagreeing, but I'm just saying that the comparison you gave is pretty typical of the two settings the American government has. The main difference is the number of things this particular session has produced, or the lack thereof. Hence the I'll grant you this is the worst case of split politics ever.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

You mean "Real" America.

This is one of the things my tea party relatives don't want to admit. They swear up and down they aren't racist or misogynistic or xenophobic but the implications of the things they say are so obvious. Those other, weird people, the urban non-white non-christian ones, are not 'real' Americans. Those people hate 'real' Americans and they want to destroy 'real' American culture. As absurd as it sounds, they absolutely believe this.

[mikoyan29]

This is one of the things my tea party relatives don't want to admit. They swear up and down they aren't racist or misogynistic or xenophobic but the implications of the things they say are so obvious. Those other, weird people, the urban non-white non-christian ones, are not 'real' Americans. Those people hate 'real' Americans and they want to destroy 'real' American culture. As absurd as it sounds, they absolutely believe this.

I would have more respect for the Tea Party had they formed around the time Bush started to run huge deficits.