Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News What's wrong with the Republican party? - Rev's Take

  1. Apr 5, 2005 #1
    What's wrong with the Republican party? - For Serious Folk Only

    Here's a better question. Why are you offended by policymakers intervening to save an innocent life?

    Rev Prez
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 5, 2005 #2
    By your own admission, your key concerns are matching expenditures to revenues (with no apparant concern for either the absolute amount of expenditure or expenditature compared to GDP), government intervention in land and resource use, and government intervention in international commerce. Since your brand of conservatism was one that popped up no earlier than the 1890s and was appropriated by liberal statists by the end of World War II, exactly what makes you a conservative in any meaningful, modern sense of the term? And how did a "staunch conservative" like yourself arrive at an electoral choice wildly out of touch with those of other active duty and reserve officers and enlisted?

    Rev Prez
  4. Apr 5, 2005 #3
    Since the law wasn't struck down, that's a remarkable claim to make.

    Rev Prez
  5. Apr 5, 2005 #4
    In what way? Bush received more votes than either Reagan or Clinton.

    Rev Prez
  6. Apr 5, 2005 #5
    That's an incredibly crude way of putting it. A meaningful definition of Republican conservatism notes the tendency to limit the capacity of the state to determine and influence private interests. That has nothing to do with church-state issues, which in almost all cases deals with solely the internal dynamics of the state. In fact, it almost exclusively refers to the state's intersection with economic interests. A conservative view taken to its extreme logical consequence would eliminate state subsidy of education as far as possible, and then devolve responsibility and control of what remained to as close to the beneficiaries (the parents) as possible. Under such a scheme, the state would say nothing if the parents, through processes of their own, decided to teach Norse mythology as gospel in the curricula.

    The Libertarian point of view is a conservative one compromised by the willingness to let the state assume as much authority as possible to regulate church-state interactions and privacy matters. It is a highly illiberal, anti-freedom position that still invests tremendous domestic authority in the federal executive and judiciary. However, since church-state and privacy issues, in terms of raw dollars, are neglible compared to the economic ones, the two points of view share a great affinity for one another and a common enemy in liberalism.

    Rev Prez
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2005
  7. Apr 5, 2005 #6
    Everybody is intolerant of others views to some extent or another; considering that "fundamentalist" is no more or less an opprobrium than "secularist," I'd say anyone who flings it about as such is just as intolerant as Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell. That said, since we all except the same basic social contract that guides the transfer of power election after election, appealing to tolerance is not a constructive line of discussion.

    There still are, just as their are conservative members of the Democratic party. Republicans have been far more successful at drawing together their coalition than Democrats, who in the 1980s and 90s hemorrhaged Congressmen like an open fire hydrant.

    Hyperbole, one that could've easily been replaced by noting the GOP is less beholden to its statists than the Democrats are beholden to its free marketers. Face it, the center migrated rightward over the past twenty years and for good reason; people don't need or accept wannabe know-it-alls who deny American exceptionalism and value minority advocacy groups, endangered species, and civil servants more than the taxpayers.

    Really? Watch. The US spent the first third of the 19th century with only one significant party, fifty years of the postbellum period in the hands of Republicans, and then sixty years of Democrat congressional rule. The consensus changes all the time; a fact that Democrats continue to deny while Republicans have embraced in order to shape it to their vision.

    No, they don't, but since neoconservative interests are almost entirely focused overseas, this is a non sequitur.

    Neoconservatives are most certainly not defined by their religiosity and are typically more secular than other conservatives. Church doctrine and revivals aren't exactly the biggest concerns of DoD policy wonks.

    Rev Prez
  8. Apr 5, 2005 #7
    I'm not sure what you would call that? If you want to say the law wasn't struck down fine, but by refusing to accept jurisdiction in the case (the very thing the law was designed to do), the Federal courts nullified the law. I'm not sure what's required to in fact 'strike down' a law, but since this was a one-shot law, the court's ruling had that effect.
  9. Apr 5, 2005 #8
    This means Reagan and Clinton were not popular presidents? Here is better reasoning:
    Still after these tactics:
    Some how I think Clinton would have won against Dubya in 2000 if he could have gone for a third term--that's the point.

    Back to the main topic of the thread – The Republican Party has been hi-jacked by the fundamentalists and “neocons.” Are they a minority, or will their agendas become the platform going forward? I believe there has been miscalculation with regard to a religious agenda, but agree with others that the neocon agenda is another matter. Hopefully fiscal conservatism will prevail if nothing else.
  10. Apr 5, 2005 #9
    That's called a concurrence. To be more precise, the opinion did not address whether or not a law granting one person of the President's choice a de novo hearing on the merits of a civil matter. In fact, beyond a flippant statement neither did Birch's concurrence.

    Rev Prez
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2005
  11. Apr 5, 2005 #10
    This means Bush was more popular than Reagan or Clinton. Do the math.

    "The Democratic Party has been hijacked by Christian-hating, anti-American racists." Now that we've agreed on a level of maturity for our exchange, let's move forward.

    Rev Prez
  12. Apr 5, 2005 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I do not hold that view. My point was simply that a number of GOP leaders argued based on assertions that were straightforwardly, factually wrong.
    That isn't a threat, simply a reminder that this forum has rules of etiquette and an observation that you are taking a hostile and defensive posture. It is not necessary.
  13. Apr 5, 2005 #12
    And it is my point that those who hold your view are wrong and I'm asking why. We can discuss this with or without you.

    Yes, it is. To claim otherwise is the height of disingenuity. We've been through this before, and if necessary we'll go through it again.

    Ya don't say.

    A laughable opinion you've expressed before. Seriously, can't you move forward on the discussion without taking time out to beat this dead horse to its futile end?

    Neither are your threats. I strongly suggest you pay attention to the discussion at hand and stop wasting both your time and mine. Since I started posting here, you've contributed nothing.

    Rev Prez
  14. Apr 5, 2005 #13
    William Jennings Bryan. 'Nuff said.

    Rev Prez
  15. Apr 5, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Dubya is more popular than Reagan? Doubtful. Dubya would have won the 2000 election against Clinton? Who knows. But when you do the math, you need to hold the variables constant, for example higher voter turn-out in one election versus another, and remember that all the variables may not be calculated in the "math."
    Though we have already had this discussion in other threads (such as the thread on separation of church and state) to conclude that people of other faiths or those who are secular are "Godless" or that they, or even atheists are "Christian haters" AND to conclude that all of these people are Democrats...I'd like to see your basis for this...but anti-American racists? That takes the cake.
  16. Apr 5, 2005 #15
    If we compare their vote counts, yes. George W. Bush received 50 and 62 million votes in 2000 and 2004 respectively. Reagan received 43 and 54 million in 1980 and 1984 respectively. Clinton's received 44 and 47 million in 1992 and 1996 respectively.

    Who knows? You've got some data shedding light on the question?

    Why? Popularity has nothing to do with the people who hate you, otherwise we'd be in schools across America right now slamming "popular" kids misappropriating the title. Even so, what does voter turnout add meaningfully to our understanding the question of popularity? Was George W. Bush more divisive than Reagan? Yes? Did he get more votes than Reagan did? Yes. Last time I checked, popularity counted more than divisiveness in high school.

    This fragment is meaningless.

    1. I did not say all atheists or all Democrats are Christian hating, anti-American racists. I said the Democratic Party was hijacked by Christian-hating, anti-American atheists. I most certainly don't believe that most godless people out there have the time, energy or prickishness to put on the village atheist act day in and day out.

    2. It has just as much basis as the claim that the Republican party has been hijacked by people who merit the derisively applied label "fundamentalist" and "neocon." And to be honest, I don't like to personally hang out with a great many liberal or atheist cause heads, so I'm probably just as shocked and offended to hear you describe my peeps as I've described yours.

    3. Eat dem apples.

    Rev Prez
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2005
  17. Apr 5, 2005 #16
    And how wrong is it medically? Really, I'm curious. People seek second opinions all the time, so obviously questioning a diagnosis is not beyond the pale.

    I think you better look over the polling data again and reconsider.

    You still haven't gone out of your way to explain in a quantifiable way what this religious right faction is, what it votes on, and exactly how it "dominates" the Republican party. These are things you'd expect in any half-way decent analysis of say Democratic party politics, and things easy enough to do when we're talking about minority, or union, or age constituencies. Data, data, data, russ.

    If this 2008 drives Schiavo reaction theory had any merit whatsoever, then why aren't the key players in the picture? Exactly how is Tom Delay's seat at risk? We're still about a year and a half from the next midterm election. In short, there's no evidence that midterm electoral politics is playing any significant role whatsoever in this affair; at least not on the Republican side.

    This country has been moving rightward for nearly thirty years. Between the Democratic failure to run consistently successful presidential races since FDR nodded off, the death of the liberal consensus during the Vietnam war, the loss of the South, the cutting of the top marginal rate from 70 to 40 percent, massive deregulation or airline and telecommunications, increased charter and private school attendance, and the increasing drop in the ratio of unionized to free workers, there's no doubt that conservatism is on the ascendent. You'd think that Democrats have more pressing things to worry about than the religious inclination of angry parents who shovel out thousands of dollars a year in property taxes.

    Wow. So did Martin Luther King Jr. get or lose his mandate when the Democrats took back the White House in 1960? I'm curious, russ. Exactly what authority does the Left appeal to in order to deny the American faithful their voice in politics?

    You seem to be under the impression that they are separate issues in the minds of evangelical Americans. Or have you really not encountered someone like General William Boykin in your life?

    That does not follow whatsoever. The unfavorables count when you talk about dislike, not the favorable, and there it has to be pretty high to be terribly significant (because of the party loyalty breakdown). Either way, he has and continues to score better than 50% favorable rating. Since a good portion of the unfavorables are diehard Democrats, why would any Republican care how they feel?

    I won't consider either, since both claims depend entirely on your definition of moderate--one that is meaningless since you apply it to both Clinton and McCain despite the world of difference between them on the vast majority of a left-right issues.

    I'll ask this again on this board, what makes anyone think McCain is a moderate? If its that he talks less like an evangelical than Bush, then the distinct lacks substance. If it's he opposed one tax cut out of a wave of four, then you're doing better but still not cutting the mustard. If it's because he ran against Bush, well that speaks more to the Left's overly emotional preoccupation with symbolism than anything else.

    Rev Prez
  18. Apr 5, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Now we're getting to the variables not calculated in the math...
    A movement to the right, including the increasing role of the religious right, as well as the "neocon" philosophy is well documented and very much debated. If there is "just as much basis in the claim" as the "Democratic Party being hijacked by Christian-hating, anti-American atheists," please source it.
  19. Apr 5, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Bush won with 50.73% of the popular vote in 2004. His best opponent garnered 48.26%. In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote, 47.87% to 48.38%. This gives him a net percentage victory over his best opponent of 1.96%. He has been 2% more popular than his challengers in the two elections he's won.

    Clinton won in 1996, 49.23% to 40.72%. In 1992, he won 43.01% to 37.45%. This gives him a net percentage victory of 14.07%, which is more than 12% higher than Bush's margins. He also defeated an incumbent, something that Bush has never done.

    Reagan, in 84, won 58.77% to 40.56%. In 1980, it was 50.75% to 41.01%. The net margin for him is 27.95%, or 26% higher than Bush's.

    Bush received more total votes because of more voters. By the same token, Hoover received more votes than George Washington. That doesn't make him more popular.
  20. Apr 5, 2005 #19
    It does in any meaningful sense of the term. Otherwise, we'd be forced to acknowledge a guy with 100% favorables from a poll of two people as more popular than one who has the confidence of 50% of 100 million. These fractional arguments don't fly in a meaningful definition of popularity. Its the absolute number that counts. If you want to refer to percentages, we could talk about divisiveness.

    Rev Prez
  21. Apr 5, 2005 #20
    No we're not. I've gone through this argument a long time ago. You can continue it if you'd like with others.

    A movement to the left, including the increasing role of the Christian-hating left, as well as "communist" economics is well documented and very much debated. If there is "just as much basis in the claim" as the "Republican Party being hijacked by fundamentalists and neocons," please source it.

    Rev Prez
  22. Apr 5, 2005 #21
    Ahh, the battle cry of someone who has little to no knowledge of recent history.

    I'll respond to your little angry question(wow reverend you do seem to have your hackles up don't you) with a few for you:

    Which president from1980-88 enacted fair trade legislation to prevent Japan from dumping cars into the US market?

    Which president from 1969-74 signed to most sweeping environmental legislation?

    Which president from 1952-60 managed to maintain a balanced budget and spoke out against the iron triangle?

    Hint, they were all three of them conservative, republican, and recent.

    Now, your brand of conservatism is reminiscent of the days of old salem--where a witch could be burned at the whimes of a child and the "court" system in place had no checks and balances. I wonder why the founding fathers wanted to keep matters of religion out of state business, and vice versa....

    Oh, and as for my military service and my vote against Bush--why should I vote for a man who avoided service? I fought in a war. My father did. His father did. What has Bush done to benefit the military? Name something please. That is one reason I didn't for for him--he wears his patriotism on his sleeve.

    Carry on.
  23. Apr 5, 2005 #22


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    There are two ways we can interpret it that would both be meaningful. One way is to do as you do and count the absolute number that approve. By that token, any politician in India would be more popular than any politician in Britain. The other way is to do as I have and determine the proportion of the population that approves. That way, we can meaninfully say that George Washington was more popular than Herbert Hoover. In fact, by your framing of the word "popular," Ralph Nader is more popular than George Washington. Even though he never came anywhere near winning an election, he's received far more votes.

    That's a silly way of looking at it, don't you think? The population of the US increased from about 220,000,000 to 280,000,000 from the time of Reagan's first election until Bush's first election. That's about a 27% change. A little different from the 490,000,000% change in your example.

    By the way, Kerry received the second-most votes of any presidential candidate in history. By your reasoning, that makes Kerry the second most popular candidate ever, right?
  24. Apr 5, 2005 #23
    You assume too much.

    I'm no Reverend. Once again, you assume too much.

    Which president in 2002 enacted steel trade tariffs to prevent foreign dumping of steel in the US market?

    Presumably the same one who instituted price controls in the face of inflation.

    Definitely not the one who pushed through tariffs to prevent the Japanese from dumping cars.

    Reaching back a half century for singular acts hardly qualifies as a recent trend of conservatism.

    Really? What woman has the Republican party burned at the stake?

    I wonder how someone who purportedly served in an institution that keeps religious chaplains on the payroll came to that conclusion.

    I'm not concerned with who you personally vote for, just with the why insofar as you feel compelled to share it with us.

    Define "benefit the military." If we're talking pay, then he's fought for and gotten increased pay for those who serve. If we're talking modernization then we have transformation. If we're talking about some nebulous definition of "benefit" then there is really no reason to continue.

    Which apparantly didn't bother the majority of active duty and reserve servicemen and women--they did vote for him, after all.

    Rev Prez
  25. Apr 5, 2005 #24
    The only way to do that is to count numbers, and be specific and consistent about the domain. In terms of electoral success, Bush is more popular than Reagan and Clinton--he got more votes. At some point historians will poll the country to find out how is reputation fares after some long period of time, but at present, the only meaningful comparison we have are the vote counts.

    Yes. What's wrong with that?

    Which amounts to saying a guy who appeals to 100% of 2 people is more popular than a guy who appeals to 50% of 100 million.

    George Washington is more popular than Herbert Hoover today because more people today say as much. In the end, the absolute number counts.

    Not unless I resort to special pleading.


    Rev Prez
  26. Apr 5, 2005 #25


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I'm using vote counts. The word "approves" should not have been used. All I mean by that is that a vote was cast.

    It amounts to saying that a guy who received 58% of the popular vote for a population of 220,000,000 is more popular than a man who received 50% of the popular vote for a population of 280,000,000. If we take registered voters who actually cast votes to be a good sample of the entire population (the constitution clearly does), that is almost true even in terms of the absolute number of those who favor him, the difference being barely more than 1%.

    Again, by the same token, if we take the samples as representative, then Reagan would have received far, far more votes than Bush if his elections had the same number of voters. Washington would have received almost twice as many votes as Bush.

    I guess that ends this portion of the discussion then. You've defined "popular" in a way that is clearly different from the way in which everyone else here uses it, a way that results in Bush and Kerry being the two most popular candidates in American history. If you don't agree that this definition is different from the one being used by everyone else, consider the original context. Questions were raised as to whether Bush could defeat Clinton or Reagan. According to concensus on the forum, he could not, because he is less popular. According to your definition of popular, if this same argument is applied, then Nader would have defeated Washington. I conclude confidently that the rest of us mean something far different from you when we refer to a president as "popular." As long as you're consistent and explain your alternate definition, however, I suppose that's all right - so long as you stop claiming that Russ was wrong, that is, at least about that one part of his assessment.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook