Sponsors

Open Thread: What Do You Think of the GOP? Email Print

Sound-off! Tell everyone what you most hate about the Republican Party, or write a list of all the things that the GOP has done, or claims to stand for, or does stand for, that you find simply appalling. Or share any redeeming quality or qualities you believe the party possesses (there must be something the GOP is good for, other than serving as a bad example).


KEYWORDS: ,

Sign up for a Complimentary Member Account... Join the community! It's fast. And it'll allow you to take advantage of all this site's great features!

< Abramoff Case Kicks Into High Gear | Exposing Right Wing Madness and Hypocrisy >
 Display:
They pissed me off so much they turned me into an activist. I used to be satisfied reading The Nation, grumbling, writing LTEs, grumbling more, and volunteering occasionally. Now I go around talking about how we have to save the world before it's too late. Not just save the country, though in most ways we've got to do that first. We can't do much about global warming until we kick BushCo out and give their followers a collective dope-slap or two.

I'm trying to figure out how I can change professions, from college lecturer to doing something for a non-profit. Not really sure where to start or what field, or where I would do the most good, (or where I would be most likely to land a job). Union organizer? Environmental work? Civil Rights? Still figuring this out. Right now I only know that I'd rather be doing something to save the world.

by astraea on 11/26/2005 04:17:51 PM EST

...the GOP has polarized the nation. Once upon a time, Americans of differing beliefs and parties could have relatively reasoned discussions about political issues, but not anymore. Right-wing moderates have turned into extremists.

For example, my own parents and brother buy into the Faux News Channel's nightly propaganda, lapping it up like mother's milk. Seeing the effect that disinfo has had on them, I truly understand how good people supported the Nazi Party Germany during the 1930's and 1940's, and it's frightening, horrifying, and disgusting.

At least it made me realize how fragile a democratic government is. The polarization has also made me realize that we're targets in a war of ideological extermination, and given the way history has played out in similar situations, the Radical Right won't just stop at murdering our right to exercise our beliefs, it'll extend its genocide to the "logical" conclusion.

by S M Dixon on 11/26/2005 05:04:45 PM EST

I agree. They've created intense civil strife. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides described civil strife in horrifying terms, which sound very familiar today. Thucydides condemned both sides of the civil strife he was discussing (both democratic and oligarchic parties). Even some of the intense fighting within our Democratic party (witness the battles that erupt on Kos whenever someone suggests Hillary Clinton for president) makes more sense when you consider what Thucydides says about internal party politics during civil strife. Not everything is comparable, but it does make you think.

"To fit in with the change of events, words had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; . . . the ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action.

Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man. . . . Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect.

Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership, since party members were more ready to go to any extreme for any reason whatever.

If an opponent made a reasonable speech, the party in power, so far from giving it a generous reception, took every precaution to see that it had no practical effect.

Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils. To this must be added the violent fanaticism that came into play once the struggle had broken out. Leaders of parties had programs which appeared admirable . . . but in professing to serve the public interest they were seeking to win the prizes for themselves. In their struggles for ascendancy nothing was barred; terrible indeed were the actions to which they committed themselves, and in taking revenge they went farther still. Here they were deterred neither by claims of justice nor the interests of the state; their one standard was the pleasure of their own party at that particular moment. . . . Neither side had any use for conscientious motives; more interest was shown in those who could produce attractive arguments to justify some disgraceful action. As for the citizens who held moderate views, they were destroyed by both the extreme parties, either for not taking part in the struggle or in envy at the possibility that they might survive.

Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each side viewed the other with suspicion. As for ending this state of affairs, no guarantee could be given that would be trusted; . . . everyone had come to the conclusion that it was hopeless to expect a permanent settlement.

by astraea on 11/26/2005 05:47:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry to inject local politics into a national debate, but there was no way New York was going to avoid another politically correct but oh-so-ineffectual Democratic machine politician such as Freddie Ferrar or Mark Green without a Republican alternative who was wealthy enough to buy the election.  And--surprise, surprise--having no strings attached because he could buy just about any small nation on the planet if he chose, Mike Bloomberg has been able to do breathtaking but necessary things such as hiking the property tax 18% in one year to cover the budget shortfall (as well as to propose breathtaking and completely unnecessary things such as the West Side Stadium).  The brilliance and political guts of this move have been inadequately appreciated, it seems to me.  Democratic politicians love to talk social service programs, but obfuscate about how to fund them. Ferrar said he would have met the $4 billion gap in the budget by "tightening our belts." What, half portions at Gracie Mansion? No, that's a code phrase for sorry, but programs will have to be cut.
      It seems as if Dems are so afraid of ruffling some mythical middle-class voter that they themselves are the ones who won't say "tax increase," never mind "creative tax increase." Ferrar decried that tax increase, but it's the most progressive way of raising taxes I can imagine.  If your property was valued at $100,000, you paid an extra $1800. If it was valued at $10 million, the way some New York townhouses such as the mayor's are, your taxes increased $180,000--that's real money, enough to hire 4 teachers, or cops, or firemen.  
    I think Bloomberg's devotion to trying to improve city services, funding 311 (a phone service information program), programs for the homeless, affordable housing, a$7,000 raise for teachers in his first year, major increases in education spending etc has made me more aware of the tax side of things, and how the creation of golden revenue streams can be a plus for the city.  I hated the stadium idea, because I hate traffic and professional sports.  But do I think the $300 million the city would have put into the construction could have been earned back the next year in increased revenue (direct taxes, payroll taxes on new employees, food taxes from fans eating at local restaurants, parking tickets, the 18% tax on parking the City charges)? Yes, or shortly thereafter. Quality of life has to enter into these discussions, but the poor don't live on Manhattan's West Side anymore--it's the upper middle class and the wealthy in Trump Towers.  It's their quality of life (and mine, as someone who uses the West Side Highway) that would have been impacted. There is now apparently some skullduggery about construction on another site that involved decreasing the amount of affordable housing and increasing the high end condos.  When I hear that, I think: Keep luring those high rollers to the city, Mr Mayor. Keep that revenue stream alive 'n kicking so the people I care about can be taken care of with rent subsidies, intensive summer school for those who need it etc etc and affordable housing built on less tax-generating real estate.
   This has been a rambling disquisition, but I'd like to close by saying I was ashamed of the Dem candidate for President last year, someone who has actively done so little for the so-called little people; who has said all the right things but never actually achieved very much or worked very hard for workers and the disadvantaged, it seems.  I think what I like about Mike Bloomberg is that he has taken a word that I always thought of as dirty and GOP-associated--"business"- -and made me understand its value in achieving socialist ideals (though he'd never call them that). Gross mismangement and cronyism wastes as much potential as underfunding of needed programs. My new political gods are those who use the tools of business (Eliot Spitzer and Alan Hevesi as super accounting sleuths; Bloomberg as an efficiency nut) to generate resources for the underserved (Spitzer getting Hess to pay a $340,000 fine for price-gouging which will go to fund heating subsidies for the elderly poor).  They are Dem politicians, but they aren't afraid to roll up their sleeves and go where the money action is, instead of standing atop a pile of rubble decrying the pile of rubble without figuring out a way to attack the problem, which is what sometimes makes me sigh about Dems.  Do I hate the Bush administration and everything it stands for? Absolutely. Will I ever forget that my Democratic Senators Clinton and Schumar voted for the Iraq War and (I believe) the Bush cuts while Link Chaffee, a Republican, voted against them? No. Or that MCCain's voice against US-sponsored torture and Chuck Hagel's concerns about Iraq seem louder than any of our party's Congressional leadership? A Democrat without guts or conscience is as bad as a Republican without guts or conscience.

by MmeVoltaire on 11/26/2005 06:39:19 PM EST

I think the Republicans are extremely close to breaking an implicit contract of government that has survived war, economic disaster, and internal revolution.

by Devilstower on 11/26/2005 11:07:48 PM EST

The modern GOP has embraced the theocratic outlook on life and is determined to codify Christianity into law. More than anything else -- although the slavering at corporations is a big deal for me too -- this right-wing Christian fundamentalist hooey is something I never will forgive them for.

Traditional conservatives I can live with (low taxes, less government regulation, fiscal responsibility, privacy advocates), even if I don't necessarily agree with their views on funding social programs and lessening regulation. At least there's a valid point of discussion with these folks.

But how do you even begin to talk about community responsibility with a group of theocrats who think God has commanded them to put their views into the law of secular nations? There is no rational reasoning going on here, and thus the secular political debate is utterly stymied.

by SusanG on 11/27/2005 11:49:04 AM EST

Exactly right. You can argue over issues, you can't argue about theocracy.

And it's made all the worse, in some ways, by the fact that some in the GOP apparently don't embrace theocracy because they believe in theocracy per se. They embrace it to gain the votes and support of religious conservatives, whom they refer to as the "wackos" in private.

I may disagree with many of those religious conservatives on many issues, but it is disgusting that people in power would systematically treat people like that. It has damaged the standing of the goverment in the eyes of the people. It is impossible to trust leaders who lie and scheme to get the votes or support of people they have no respect for.

On the other hand, in some ways this level of hubris may be one of the good things about the GOP. With any luck, their own behavior will help destroy them.

by astraea on 11/27/2005 12:21:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: