PDA

View Full Version : The collapse of the Republican party



Max Rockatansky
02-22-2019, 10:32 PM
I've observed the Republican party from it's heyday in the 1960s with Barry "Mr. Conservative" Goldwater until I joined it at 18 in the early 1970s until it began it's slow downfall in the mid-80s when the Christian Coalition was allowed a major seat at the table (note Goldwater's remarks about it in his 1981 Congressional speech). The mid-1990s was a watershed toward it's collapse under Gingrich. The Neo-Cons added a few more nails in the coffin when they took power in 2000. The final collapse was with the election of Trump. I doubt any Republican who as sold their soul to Trump can ever recover. Those that didn't sell their souls are gone; either retiring, refusing to seek reelection or just dead.

This tweet by Lindsey Graham epitomizes both the recognition of the traditional Republican party on Trump and how it no longer exists just two years later:

https://twitter.com/lindseygrahamsc/status/727604522156228608?lang=en
If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.


Graham was correct, but also a sellout of Republican values by selling his soul to be under Trump's grace.

As the French lawyer and philosopher Joseph de Maistre once wrote:
Every nation gets the government it deserves.

America can save itself or continue to wallow in it's current mess. It's up to us, We, the People, to choose our own destiny.

Lummy
02-22-2019, 10:50 PM
This is because RINOs had a game plan identical to democrats for 20 or more years. What democrats have been doing was largely out of Republican playbook, but with a commie, inclusive feel to it. What America loves about Trump is that he is none of that, yet. Putin hates it.

The GOP will not collapse, however. Democrats should, but they are being artificially kept out of prison, which defies the collapse.

Max Rockatansky
02-22-2019, 10:55 PM
This is because RINOs had a game plan identical to democrats for 20 or more years. What democrats have been doing was largely been out of Republican playbook, but with a commie, inclusive feel to it. What America loves about Trump is that he is none of that, yet. Putin hates it.

The GOP will not collapse, however. Democrats should, but they are being artificially kept out of prison, which defies the collapse.
Sorry, but there is no such thing as the "Grand Ol' Party" anymore except those who use its name. There's no way you can compare the values of Barry Goldwater with BushII much less Donald Trump. The mere use of the term "RINO" exemplifies the fact the GOP is dead, murdered by its own members.

Lummy
02-22-2019, 11:03 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

Insofar as word usage arises from the street, you're probably right. GOP is somewhat archaic.

Remember, Trump was a liberal democrat before he changed parties. This is what is so concerning about Democrats repulsion of him now.

I think both parties have abandoned america and are looking to lock their hold on the Politburo of the United States. It's that simple. First one's in oligarchical power win.

Common
02-23-2019, 03:13 AM
First of all, ive watched the pendulum swing right then left than back and back and forth many times over my voting life.

People have said The republican party has collapsed, then its the Democrats have collapsed, now heres the truth.

Both parties do and say what gets them elected, they both cater to what they "BELIEVE" their base wants and the majority of independents. Many times they get it all wrong and pay the price.

Newt Gingrichs contract with America was a success and the GOP took back the house because of it.

The democrats controlled congress for decades even under republican presidents when they were THE PARTY OF THE WORKING AMERICAN. When they went left that changed and the republicans had a golden opportunity to rule like the democrats for many years and they squandered it by being divided and having a far right nutcase division and a moderate group who together couldnt flush a congressional toilet together and they got absolutely nothing done.

You have to give credit where credit is due, the democrat party sticks together far better than the GOP does and thats the reason for their short term success'. The democrat party is going to crash again, america is not socialist and its not far left insane either.

Whenever the right went to right, americans spanked them, whenever democrats go to left americans spank them and they always have.

The wind is blowing once again towards a democrat spanking in the near future, they have gone batshit insane.

The loudest and most hateful of republican trump haters have been purged from congress, not running for re election or losing.

The leaders of the never trumpers like Bill Crystal have LOST their campaign to destroy trump.

Everyone pays attention to the press that reports nothing but tales of WOE about the republican party and trump and do their best to mold americas mind.

Paul Ryan, flake, gowdy, corker to name a few were Never trumpers and shafted trump at every turn, they are all GONE byebye.
Paul Ryan in my humble opinion did more to hurt the GOP than any of them in his career, he was the reverse of Ocasio.

She wants to tax the rich to death, he wanted them to pay no taxs, she wanted to socialize and give everything to everyone for free that isnt rich. He wanted to take it all away from them [social security, medicare, welfare] and give huge tax cuts to corporations and the rich.

They are both examples of the far right an the far left. The republicans are just stupid, that continually push policy that does nothing but turn americans against them and make them lose elections. LIKE TAKING EVERYTHING OFF OF EVERYONE and being for subsidies for big oil, big pharma, and Big Agriculture.

This is simple math, you cant as a Party Democrat or Republican push policy that americans HATE, because you wont get elected and pushing it does no good because you cant get enough elected to change the damn thing anyway.

That was Paul Ryan every budget same thing kill privatize social security to eventually kill it faster, end medicare blah blah, huge tax cut for corporations and the rich and the same BS story that it would benefit the rest of america. He not only never got his wish he got fellow republicans unelected.

The left loves to call trump crazy and every name in the book, but so far hes beaten all of them at their own game and has done it his way.

stjames1_53
02-23-2019, 05:39 AM
Mr. President
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.
B. Franklin

https://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html

hanger4
02-23-2019, 05:55 AM
The report of the Republican Party's demise is greatly exaggerated.

Cthulhu
02-23-2019, 06:42 AM
I can hope both major parties collapse.

It's fun to dream sometimes.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

MMC
02-23-2019, 07:09 AM
LMAO the collapse of the Republican party.


Why Hasn’t the Republican Party Collapsed? We shouldn’t be asking whether the GOP is falling apart. We ought to be wondering why it isn’t.


The truth is that American politics doesn’t offer many points of comparison. The first two parties to vanish, the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democrats, were proto-parties that lacked much of the organization that really makes parties succeed. A later party, the Whigs, which collapsed in the 1850s, was similarly loosely organized, and its members had decidedly mixed feelings about how things like patronage and campaigns should work.



Since the Republicans formed in 1856, the two major parties have bent but not broken. But, as incredulous commentators consider the possibility that 2016 could be the end of the GOP, they are missing the issue about which they should be most incredulous: Our two political parties are still, in some sense, vestiges of the parties they were in the 1850s. Despite changes in coalitions and ideology — to say nothing of revolutions like industrialization, the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, two world wars, and the changing composition of the electorate — the two parties have proved immensely adaptable (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-inevitable-party-9780190220846?cc=us&lang=en&).


Asking whether the GOP is not long for this world is, in a sense, the wrong question. Here’s the right one: Are the parties too resilient for their own good?



The Republican Party, meanwhile, has long been a party of ideology, created in the 1850s with a much more specific guiding principle in mind: stopping the expansion of slavery.Ever since, that difference—one party, a pragmatic alliance; the other, an ideological one—has meant that the Republican Party is more prone to ideological fights blowing up into potential existential crises.


Most of the time, the GOP has withstood these tensions, often emerging with greater electoral strength than before.


As an organization formed in opposition to the expansion of slavery, the Republican Party’s guiding purpose became less clear after the Civil War was won—much as its leadership became less clear after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. The period between the Civil War and the end of Reconstruction represents the first time the Republicans could have disintegrated. They were divided into many different factions (https://www.amazon.com/Doom-Reconstruction-Liberal-Republicans-Reconstructing/dp/0823227103), first over how harshly to treat the former Confederate states, then over whether to reform the system of patronage with a cleaner, more merit-based approach to civil service (https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=W37zSNcybaEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=skowronek+civil+service+reform+&ots=AHu2uz7jke&sig=jlubvL_PtYQG5c3pYCRZDWdC0gI).


During this time, the GOP won a lot of elections, especially for the presidency (though not without some controversy (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_election.html)), so it wasn’t that Republicans weren’t able to function as a political party. But lacking a central purpose, it’s impressive just how adaptable the Republican Party proved itself to be.



The second time the Republican Party might have ceased to exist was after the Great Depression. The name of Republican President Herbert Hoover became synonymous with poverty and want, and the party experienced record-level seat losses in 1930 and 1932. Starting in the 1930s, it was unclear exactly how to act like an opposition party in the face of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s popular New Deal programs and expanding coalition. Though the New Deal was not without its detractors (including the Supreme Court (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/?no-ist), congressional opponents and demagogic radio preacher Father Charles Coughlin (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/peopleevents/pandeAMEX96.html)), the Republican presidential nominee in 1936, Alf Landon, opted not to mount too strong an opposition to the basic ideas behind Roosevelt’s programs. The 1936 Republican National Convention featured clashes between Republicans who rejected the New Deal in principle as unconstitutional, and those, including Landon, who accepted some of its basic premises and sought efficient and effective implementation of new policies. The ideological contours of this fight would inform subsequent fights within the party.


This problem flared up again in the election of 1952. That year, a primary showdown between the conservative supporters of Ohio Senator Robert Taft (his nickname was literally “Mr. Republican”) and the more reform-oriented supporters of General Dwight D. Eisenhower reflected tensions within the GOP over whether to resist the principles behind the new administrative state or to adopt them in a more measured way. Eisenhower’s brand of “modern Republicanism” won out (for a while), and the Republicans retook the White House after losing five straight presidential elections.



Through this election season, the Republican Party in particular has demonstrated that, while it can’t control its nomination process, it has the institutional resources to prevent a full-blown existential crisis for the party at large.


The thing is, maybe sometimes a crisis is what the situation calls for.....snip~


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/political-parties-are-super-resilient-is-that-bad-for-america-214165


There goes that theory about the Collapse of the Republican Party. Despite Leftists that infiltrated the party.


Of course the left leaning and those that think there is some middle ground, always tends to bring the talk about a Republican collapse, of those who are ideological and always were. Hence why it has never happened.

MMC
02-23-2019, 07:14 AM
In a less dramatic fashion, it is also possible that the Democratic Party has outlived its usefulness as an organization, or will in the not-so-distant future. Party divisions informed by economic class lines have not been the historical norm in the United States, which has long impeded the emergence of a serious leftist or workers’ party. Because our system’s current design can sustain only two major parties for any length of time, the formation of such a party would entail coalition-building and compromise—yet the nature of an ideologically-oriented party is that compromise would deflate the base of support and potentially render the entire exercise pointless.....snip~


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/political-parties-are-super-resilient-is-that-bad-for-america-214165


Glenn Greenwald: The Democratic Party has COLLAPSED as a political force in the USA...and here's why …..



Published on Feb 16, 2017
“The Democrats don’t have control of the House or the Senate, the Republicans do. They now have lost two-thirds of governorships, which are also now in the hands of the Republican Party. And they are one state house away from enabling the Republicans to convene a constitutional convention on their own because they will have two-thirds of the states fully within their grasp, and both houses of Congress. So, it’s a party that has collapsed as a national political force in the United States! It’s not just the presidential election!”

“They’re SO OBSESSED with denouncing Donald Trump, calling him all the names they called him during the presidential election, with talking about Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin, and Jill Stein, and everything else.”

“They lost because they favored policies throughout the 1990s such as free trade, such as getting rid of all the restraints on Wall Street, such as having jobs go overseas that the Clintons advocated, and they continue to advocate those same policies and then wonder why people in the rust belt who have no economic future and nothing but economic anxiety are abandoning the party IN DROVES. There’s no attempt to examine that or even talk about it!”.....snip~




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke7UNXoX5oM



Leftists tend to never look at themselves.....hoping the Lame Stream Media will protect their Democrats.

Peter1469
02-23-2019, 07:20 AM
I've observed the Republican party from it's heyday in the 1960s with Barry "Mr. Conservative" Goldwater until I joined it at 18 in the early 1970s until it began it's slow downfall in the mid-80s when the Christian Coalition was allowed a major seat at the table (note Goldwater's remarks about it in his 1981 Congressional speech). The mid-1990s was a watershed toward it's collapse under Gingrich. The Neo-Cons added a few more nails in the coffin when they took power in 2000. The final collapse was with the election of Trump. I doubt any Republican who as sold their soul to Trump can ever recover. Those that didn't sell their souls are gone; either retiring, refusing to seek reelection or just dead.

This tweet by Lindsey Graham epitomizes both the recognition of the traditional Republican party on Trump and how it no longer exists just two years later:

https://twitter.com/lindseygrahamsc/status/727604522156228608?lang=en
If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.


Graham was correct, but also a sellout of Republican values by selling his soul to be under Trump's grace.

As the French lawyer and philosopher Joseph de Maistre once wrote:
Every nation gets the government it deserves.

America can save itself or continue to wallow in it's current mess. It's up to us, We, the People, to choose our own destiny.

Graham is an arch-neocon. He is a disgrace.

I agree the GOP is in trouble. They spend like drunken Dems.

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 09:08 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

Insofar as word usage arises from the street, you're probably right. GOP is somewhat archaic.

Remember, Trump was a liberal democrat before he changed parties. This is what is so concerning about Democrats repulsion of him now.

I think both parties have abandoned america and are looking to lock their hold on the Politburo of the United States. It's that simple. First one's in oligarchical power win.
Can't disagree with much there. The two major parties have become increasingly extremist and partisan the past 30 years which is why their numbers have shrunk while the numbers of Independents like myself have grown.

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 09:10 AM
Graham is an arch-neocon. He is a disgrace.

I agree the GOP is in trouble. They spend like drunken Dems.More than in trouble; the GOP is DEAD. Do you really think the current values of the Republican party can be compared to that of the GOP in 1964? Other than lip-service, that is.

Peter1469
02-23-2019, 09:52 AM
More than in trouble; the GOP is DEAD. Do you really think the current values of the Republican party can be compared to that of the GOP in 1964? Other than lip-service, that is.
No, the GOP is not dead.

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 10:25 AM
No, the GOP is not dead.
Do you really think Goldwater or any Republican of the 1960s would defend Russia's cyberattacks on the US?

MMC
02-23-2019, 10:30 AM
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon when labelling its adherents) is a political movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_movement) born in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) during the 1960s among liberal hawks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_hawk) who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)), and the growing New Left (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left) and counterculture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture_of_the_1960s), in particular the Vietnam protests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Protest_Movement). Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society).


Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) and American national interest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_interest) in international affairs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations), including peace through strength (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_through_strength) (by means of military force), and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_radicalism).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-britannica-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-merriam-webster-2)
Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s as neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-3) Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz), Elliott Abrams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams), Richard Perle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle), and Paul Bremer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer). While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld) listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.


Historically speaking, the term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Stalinist_left) to the camp of American conservatism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism) during the 1960s and 1970s.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-4) The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentary_(magazine)), edited by Norman Podhoretz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz) and published by the American Jewish Committee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jewish_Committee).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-5)[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-6) They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-7)[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-8)



Neoconservatism was initiated by the repudiation of the Cold War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War) and the "new politics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Politics_(disambiguation))" of the American New Left (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left), which Norman Podhoretz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz) said was too close to the counterculture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture) and too alienated from the majority of the population; Black Power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Power), which accused white liberals and Northern Jews of hypocrisy on integration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight) and of supporting settler colonialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism) in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict); and "anti-anticommunism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communism)", which during the late 1960s included substantial endorsement of Marxist–Leninist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism–Leninism) politics. Many were particularly alarmed by what they claimed were antisemitic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American–Jewish_relations) sentiments from Black Power advocates.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-23) Irving Kristol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol) edited the journal The Public Interest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Public_Interest) (1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, which emphasized ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences.[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-24) Many early neoconservative political figures were disillusioned Democratic politicians and intellectuals, such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan), who served in the Nixon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Nixon) and Ford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford) administrations, and Jeane Kirkpatrick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Kirkpatrick), who served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Ambassador_to_the_United_Nations) in the Reagan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan) administration.


A substantial number of neoconservatives were originally moderate socialists associated with the right-wing of the Socialist Party of America (SP) and its successor, Social Democrats, USA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democrats,_USA) (SDUSA). Max Shachtman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman), a former Trotskyist theorist who developed a strong antipathy towards the New Left, had numerous devotees among SDUSA with strong links to George Meany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Meany)'s AFL-CIO. Following Shachtman and Meany, this faction led the SP to oppose immediate withdrawal from the Vietnam War, and oppose George McGovern in the Democratic primary race and, to some extent, the general election. They also chose to cease their own party-building and concentrated on working within the Democratic Party, eventually influencing it through the Democratic Leadership Council (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council).[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-25) Thus the Socialist Party dissolved in 1972, and SDUSA emerged that year. (Most of the left-wing of the party, led by Michael Harrington, immediately abandoned SDUSA.)[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-26)[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-27) SDUSA leaders associated with neoconservatism include Carl Gershman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gershman), Penn Kemble (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Kemble), Joshua Muravchik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Muravchik) and Bayard Rustin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin)


Many neoconservatives had been Jewish intellectuals in New York City (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Intellectuals) during the 1930s. They were on the political left, but strongly opposed Stalinism and some were Trotskyists. During the Cold War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War) they continued to oppose Stalinism and to endorse democracy. The great majority became liberal Democrats.


In another (2004) article, Michael Lind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lind) also wrote:[37] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-lind-37)
Neoconservatism ... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War] ... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center ... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.....snip~


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism



And leftists have the gall to talk about RINO's. LMAO

Peter1469
02-23-2019, 10:36 AM
Do you really think Goldwater or any Republican of the 1960s would defend Russia's cyberattacks on the US?
(1) Nobody defends Russian cyberattacks on the US.
(2) That has nothing to do with whether the GOP is alive or dead.

Chris
02-23-2019, 10:42 AM
American parties are always factional. Sometimes those factions prevent the party from becoming a major player, like the Socialist Party. Sometimes those factions lead to a split and a new party emerges, like the Democratic-Republican Party split into two parties following the 1824. Sometimes the party remains united despite the factionalism. The GOP has seen libertarian (Goldwater/Reagan), neocon, religious right, establishment (kowtowing to Democrats), and other factions. The DNC is seeing a "socialist"/liberal factional fight. Will these factions lead to splits? Who knows. As Cthulhu says, we can hope.

MMC
02-23-2019, 10:58 AM
American parties are always factional. Sometimes those factions prevent the party from becoming a major player, like the Socialist Party. Sometimes those factions lead to a split and a new party emerges, like the Democratic-Republican Party split into two parties following the 1824. Sometimes the party remains united despite the factionalism. The GOP has seen libertarian (Goldwater/Reagan), neocon, religious right, establishment (kowtowing to Democrats), and other factions. The DNC is seeing a "socialist"/liberal factional fight. Will these factions lead to splits? Who knows. As @Cthulhu (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=872) says, we can hope.


Democrats were on the verge of total collapse.....Repubs had 33 Governships. The Majority of State Assemblies, The House and the Senate.


Then the William Kristol Neo Cons wet their panties over Trump. Got out there talking about vote for Hillary she would be better. Got 40 some House Repubs to not run for re-election. Influenced State Repubs to back off and let Demos gain governorships.


When the Civil War comes and Demos are hung from tree limbs.....Kristol and his Neo Cons should be swinging in the wind with them.

stjames1_53
02-23-2019, 04:02 PM
(1) Nobody defends Russian cyberattacks on the US.
(2) That has nothing to do with whether the GOP is alive or dead.

all he was doing is using his OP, which had nothing to do with Russia, and turn it into a rant all about the Russians.

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 04:20 PM
(1) Nobody defends Russian cyberattacks on the US.
(2) That has nothing to do with whether the GOP is alive or dead.
Disagreed. There are plenty here who have used whataboutism for Russia's cyber-attacks.

Disagreed. The fact "Republicans" are defending Russia, even tacitly, is clear proof the GOP is dead. You claim to be an independent yet every time I speak against Trump, the current Republican party or any far Right issue, you come running in their defense. WTF Pete?

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 04:23 PM
all he was doing is using his OP, which had nothing to do with Russia, and turn it into a rant all about the Russians.
QED Pete.

hanger4
02-23-2019, 04:48 PM
Disagreed. There are plenty here who have used whataboutism for Russia's cyber-attacks. Disagreed. The fact "Republicans" are defending Russia, even tacitly, is clear proof the GOP is dead. You claim to be an independent yet every time I speak against Trump, the current Republican party or any far Right issue, you come running in their defense. WTF Pete?That fact that you claim the GOP is dead because Republicans defend Russia when they don't is just proof that you're brain dead.

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 04:56 PM
That fact that you claim the GOP is dead because Republicans defend Russia when they don't is just proof that you're brain dead.
QED. Thanks!

Peter1469
02-23-2019, 05:01 PM
Disagreed. There are plenty here who have used whataboutism for Russia's cyber-attacks.

Disagreed. The fact "Republicans" are defending Russia, even tacitly, is clear proof the GOP is dead. You claim to be an independent yet every time I speak against Trump, the current Republican party or any far Right issue, you come running in their defense. WTF Pete?

I am not defending anyone. I am stating that your argument is, as typical for you, extremely stupid. Does that help? Yes, or no?

hanger4
02-23-2019, 05:02 PM
QED. Thanks!Only in your fantasies

Captdon
02-23-2019, 05:06 PM
Can't disagree with much there. The two major parties have become increasingly extremist and partisan the past 30 years which is why their numbers have shrunk while the numbers of Independents like myself have grown.

A lot of independents are just embarrassed Republicans or Democrats. Technically, I'm an independent because we don't have party registrations here.

Captdon
02-23-2019, 05:12 PM
Disagreed. There are plenty here who have used whataboutism for Russia's cyber-attacks.

Disagreed. The fact "Republicans" are defending Russia, even tacitly, is clear proof the GOP is dead. You claim to be an independent yet every time I speak against Trump, the current Republican party or any far Right issue, you come running in their defense. WTF Pete?

You claim to be an independent but attack Trump at every opportunity. There's a bad smell to your posts.

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 05:18 PM
You claim to be an independent but attack Trump at every opportunity. There's a bad smell to your posts.
Yes I do. OTOH, I've also called Hillary a corrupt ****. What's your point?

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 05:20 PM
A lot of independents are just embarrassed Republicans or Democrats. Technically, I'm an independent because we don't have party registrations here.
LOL. Your projections are funny.

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 05:21 PM
I am not defending anyone. I am stating that your argument is, as typical for you, extremely stupid. Does that help? Yes, or no?Awww, now you sound both bitter and jealous. Sad!

Two guesses why I didn't make this a "tpf" thread, "counselor".

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 05:24 PM
Only in your fantasies
What fantasy do you think I have about you, "hangar4"? I'm curious.

Peter1469
02-23-2019, 05:33 PM
Awww, now you sound both bitter and jealous. Sad!

Two guesses why I didn't make this a "tpf" thread, "counselor".
One guess- you couldn't use the tPF feature without abusing it.

hanger4
02-23-2019, 05:39 PM
What fantasy do you think I have about you, "hangar4"? I'm curious.I never said you had fantasies about me Bob, you really need to stop making things up.

FindersKeepers
02-23-2019, 05:41 PM
More than in trouble; the GOP is DEAD. Do you really think the current values of the Republican party can be compared to that of the GOP in 1964? Other than lip-service, that is.

Values shift (in both parties) and it's not indicative of a collapse. It's indicative of change. There was a time the Dixiecrats were a force to be reckoned with in the Democratic Party but the party did not collapse.

Perhaps you meant to say you don't like the current values of the GOP -- that would probably be more correct. But, we know the party isn't dead -- after all -- it elected the sitting president.

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 05:46 PM
One guess- you couldn't use the tPF feature without abusing it.
LOL. You know that's a left-handed compliment, don't you "counselor"? I didn't use the tPF feature so I wouldn't abuse it? :)

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 05:48 PM
Values shift (in both parties) and it's not indicative of a collapse. It's indicative of change. There was a time the Dixiecrats were a force to be reckoned with in the Democratic Party but the party did not collapse.
Perhaps you meant to say you don't like the current values of the GOP -- that would probably be more correct. But, we know the party isn't dead -- after all -- it elected the sitting president.
True change doesn't mean collapse, but when a party completely disavows it's values, it's a collapse. Tell me the GOP of the 1960s has the same values as the RNC of 2019....then show me.

donttread
02-23-2019, 05:49 PM
I've observed the Republican party from it's heyday in the 1960s with Barry "Mr. Conservative" Goldwater until I joined it at 18 in the early 1970s until it began it's slow downfall in the mid-80s when the Christian Coalition was allowed a major seat at the table (note Goldwater's remarks about it in his 1981 Congressional speech). The mid-1990s was a watershed toward it's collapse under Gingrich. The Neo-Cons added a few more nails in the coffin when they took power in 2000. The final collapse was with the election of Trump. I doubt any Republican who as sold their soul to Trump can ever recover. Those that didn't sell their souls are gone; either retiring, refusing to seek reelection or just dead.

This tweet by Lindsey Graham epitomizes both the recognition of the traditional Republican party on Trump and how it no longer exists just two years later:

https://twitter.com/lindseygrahamsc/status/727604522156228608?lang=en
If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.


Graham was correct, but also a sellout of Republican values by selling his soul to be under Trump's grace.

As the French lawyer and philosopher Joseph de Maistre once wrote:
Every nation gets the government it deserves.

America can save itself or continue to wallow in it's current mess. It's up to us, We, the People, to choose our own destiny.


The modern repubs are the same as dems in terms of outcomes. Have been for sometime. Maybe it was the mid 80's. I left the repub party in the 80's.

MisterVeritis
02-23-2019, 06:08 PM
What fantasy do you think I have about you, "hangar4"? I'm curious.

I never said you had fantasies about me Bob, you really need to stop making things up.

It is that latent homosexuality popping up yet again. It is the queerest thing.

slackercruster
02-23-2019, 07:16 PM
OP, the reps have tried to evolve to meet the extreme dems and get some votes from an ever increasing progressive voting base in America. But no matter how the reps evolve, they can't out-dem the dems when it comes to leftist ideals.

America does not like conservative agendas any longer. That is the facts. Do you have a recipe for the dems to reconquer CA for the reps?? No, there is no recipe. It is just how CA has developed. That will be how it goes for all of America.

There is a little hope for the reps. When the dems take control and bring back Obamacare fines, the reps may get back in down the road to repeal the fines.

slackercruster
02-23-2019, 07:19 PM
True change doesn't mean collapse, but when a party completely disavows it's values, it's a collapse. Tell me the GOP of the 1960s has the same values as the RNC of 2019....then show me.
You could not elect Reagan or Nixon nowadays. No way.

The reps have tried to keep up with the times and still stay a little conservative.

slackercruster
02-23-2019, 07:20 PM
That fact that you claim the GOP is dead because Republicans defend Russia when they don't is just proof that you're brain dead.
Reps defending Russia or is it Trump defending Russia?

slackercruster
02-23-2019, 07:23 PM
Can't disagree with much there. The two major parties have become increasingly extremist and partisan the past 30 years which is why their numbers have shrunk while the numbers of Independents like myself have grown.
Independents are not good. If one got in, neither party would work with them. Independents are hated by both rep and dem. Maybe if all of D.C. was 85% independent, then OK.

jimmyz
02-23-2019, 07:38 PM
Trump gets my vote as long as he draws breath. Does that sound like a deathnel?

alexa
02-23-2019, 07:41 PM
You claim to be an independent but attack Trump at every opportunity. There's a bad smell to your posts.
Most independents, like most rational Americans, think Trump is an asshat.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

hanger4
02-23-2019, 07:56 PM
Reps defending Russia or is it Trump defending Russia?Neither

Captdon
02-23-2019, 08:00 PM
Yes I do. OTOH, I've also called Hillary a corrupt ****. What's your point?

My point is you don't have one. You just like the look of your writing. You probably talk to yourself too.

Captdon
02-23-2019, 08:07 PM
True change doesn't mean collapse, but when a party completely disavows it's values, it's a collapse. Tell me the GOP of the 1960s has the same values as the RNC of 2019....then show me.

Show us where the Democrats are the same now as then. I was voting then. There's a challenge you can't accept.

Max Rockatansky
02-23-2019, 08:10 PM
My point is you don't have one. You just like the look of your writing. You probably talk to yourself too.
Show us where the Democrats are the same now as then. I was voting then. There's a challenge you can't accept.

Thank you for your fandom, but disagreed. Others can read for themselves. That said, I truly appreciate the fact you think I'm such an important threat that you posted over 20 posts about me in that past 30 minutes, all of which are just nagging. Nothing substantial. Nothing with evidence, just the same bullshit as the quoted post above.

Fascinating!

Captdon
02-23-2019, 08:16 PM
I made statements you couldn't answer. I corrected you on several posts. I laughed at a couple. You know less now than when you started this thread. Your only purpose you serve is to derail you own threads. They need derailed.

stjames1_53
02-24-2019, 03:21 AM
Yes I do. OTOH, I've also called Hillary a corrupt ****. What's your point?

sounds "Oh-so-Russian" of you. Only a Russian would keep attacking America like you do.

Ransom
02-24-2019, 08:16 AM
I've observed the Republican party from it's heyday in the 1960s with Barry "Mr. Conservative" Goldwater until I joined it at 18 in the early 1970s until it began it's slow downfall in the mid-80s when the Christian Coalition was allowed a major seat at the table (note Goldwater's remarks about it in his 1981 Congressional speech). The mid-1990s was a watershed toward it's collapse under Gingrich. The Neo-Cons added a few more nails in the coffin when they took power in 2000. The final collapse was with the election of Trump. I doubt any Republican who as sold their soul to Trump can ever recover. Those that didn't sell their souls are gone; either retiring, refusing to seek reelection or just dead.

This tweet by Lindsey Graham epitomizes both the recognition of the traditional Republican party on Trump and how it no longer exists just two years later:

https://twitter.com/lindseygrahamsc/status/727604522156228608?lang=en
If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.


Graham was correct, but also a sellout of Republican values by selling his soul to be under Trump's grace.

As the French lawyer and philosopher Joseph de Maistre once wrote:
Every nation gets the government it deserves.

America can save itself or continue to wallow in it's current mess. It's up to us, We, the People, to choose our own destiny.

Course, this would make more sense had Trump not been the biggest proponent of Republican platform and values.

I too have followed Republican politics for some time. I never thought I'd see the GOP standing in unison after passing tax cuts, slashing regulations, ending the Obamacare mandate, getting pipelines flowing or opening up energy reserves. He's the first GOP President to address the Right to Life movements. He's absolutely redefined this global trade push by pulling us out of TPP, ending NAFTA, and initiating new bilateral trade initiatives. He's engaged tough sanctions even tariffs to nations that have been abusing us and racking up massive trade deficits. He's wisely pulled out of the INF agreement with Russia. That didn't include China. China's military undergoing just as much if not more technology improvement in missile tech than Russia. And international arms deal must include China, Trump smart to back out. He's meeting with Kim next week, the leader of China next month.

Look to what GOP goals have always been. To assault and crack blue walls. To appeal direct to minority groups, tell them to swill about in victimhood should they wish.....but the GOP has a different vision to offer. To stop listening to the same arguments from the same hustlers, it results in polls such as these.

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/remarkable-poll-shows-trump-gaining-ground-among-groups-supposedly-hates/

MMC
02-24-2019, 08:20 AM
Most independents, like most rational Americans, think Trump is an asshat.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Then there was his SOTU. Wherein the dipshit Democrats and leftists showed why they are dipshits.


https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2019/02/06/5f8f2c19-9977-4b4b-8fe6-83748433e1fe/thumbnail/620x349/25bc40cbb9fd534287523b2931009f01/3-poll-approve-of-speech.jpg#


But more and more Independents are supporting Trump. Which that is not good for Democrats and Leftists. But then that is good for the country.

MMC
02-24-2019, 09:15 AM
Values shift (in both parties) and it's not indicative of a collapse. It's indicative of change. There was a time the Dixiecrats were a force to be reckoned with in the Democratic Party but the party did not collapse.

Perhaps you meant to say you don't like the current values of the GOP -- that would probably be more correct. But, we know the party isn't dead -- after all -- it elected the sitting president.

True. Those that brag that they were a Republican and left the party. Are those that would never fight for their beliefs. Hence the bailing they did. They were once Republican due to a belief. They use the Lame excuse that the Republican party left them. Such is not the truth. The Truth is those that bailed. Wouldn't fight for their beliefs. Despite the change and factions that came along affecting the Republican Party. They would not stand their ground. Hold for the faction. Work for the faction that held to the values of their belief. In essence.....they gave up, and just like leftists that leave the Demo party. They attack and belittle what they once were. Knowing there are those in the Repub party that held their belief and are still there. Still affecting the Repub Party. Still there to be heard. To keep whats Right.....Right.

The Demos and the leftness use those that have bailed on their party. As examples, as patsies.....play to them, befriend them, and make them feel like one of the mob. As the Demos and leftists know.....that if those on the Right stay unified. They will never gain power, ever.


David Frum: The Republican Party Needs Liberal Values ... (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/the-case-for-liberal-republicanism/570790/)

https://www.theatlantic.com (http://www.theatlantic.com)/magazine/archive/2018/11/the-case-for...
The liberal Republicans of the 1960s and ’70s faded into irrelevance because they would not go toe-to-toe for their principles. As Mark Schmitt of New America has written, “They were not …


Note that about the 1960s Republicans.


Since 1960, the Jews and Italians of Canarsie have embellished and modified the meaning of liberalism, associating it with profligacy, spinelessness, malevolence, masochism, elitism, fantasy, anarchy, idealism, softness, irresponsibility, and sanctimoniousness. The term conservative acquired connotations of pragmatism, character, reciprocity, truthfulness, stoicism, manliness, realism, hardness, vengeance, strictness, and responsibility.



In defensive reaction, left-of-center Democrats sought to rebrand themselves as something other than liberal. The label that eventually prevailed was progressive. The Congressional Progressive Caucus now numbers 78; it is the largest bloc on the Democratic side of the House of Representatives. There is no “liberal caucus.


But a curious thing happens when you banish liberalism from your vocabulary (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/liberalism-trump/553754/). You rehabilitate illiberalism.


The extremes agree at a deeper philosophical level as well. Both dismiss the ideal of neutral principles and impersonal processes as illusions, even lies. Both insist that law only masks power, that truth is subordinate to ideology, that politics is war.



The liberal Republicans of the 1960s and ’70s faded into irrelevance because they would not go toe-to-toe for their principles. As Mark Schmitt of New America has written, “They were not ideologues, but the opposite. They put loyalty to party, right or wrong, over their other commitments.” His unfriendly valedictory points to a useful lesson: A political faction need not be huge to exert influence over a party, provided it leverages its power by threatening to leave (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/boycott-the-gop/550907/) when its core priorities are in jeopardy.


In a 2015 debate among Republican presidential hopefuls, Fox News’s Bret Baier asked each candidate whether he or she would pledge to support the ticket regardless of the winner. Only one refused: Donald Trump. After the debate, then–Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus scurried to gain Trump’s signature on a pledge form. Why did no organized group of Republicans serve Trump and his backers a taste of their own medicine? If Trump wins, we leave.In politics, it’s very often the people nearest the exits who claim the most attention.


As increasing numbers of Democrats shift leftward on economic issues, even to the point of identifying as socialists, their party is becoming more statist and more redistributive. Many Americans will reject this approach, and they will need a party to champion their beliefs. At a time when populists muse about nationalizing Google’s data and regulating Facebook as a public utility, liberal Republicans should harken to Theodore Roosevelt’s tradition of restraining monopoly abuse yet upholding free enterprise and private property.


For two political generations, Republicans have proclaimed the purity of their conservatism. But in a democratic society, conservatism and liberalism are not really opposites. They are different facets of the common democratic creed. What conservatives are conserving, after all, is a liberal order. That truth has been easy to overlook in the friction of partisan politics. It must be reaffirmed now, in this hour of liberal peril......snip~


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/the-case-for-liberal-republicanism/570790/


The case for Liberal Republicanism. By the Atlantic. By a liberal Republican/Paleoliberal/NeoCon Socialist.

Cthulhu
02-24-2019, 12:26 PM
Max Rockatansky

As a side note, what is with the strange interest in civil war junk in a few threads?

You're preoccupied in finding out what people think about it trying to figure out where people stand on this topic.

I'm not sure why. Seems like a strange crusade to be on.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Chris
02-24-2019, 12:33 PM
Most independents, like most rational Americans, think Trump is an asshat.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx


Alexa attempts an argument! An assertion followed by data to support it!! Well, in form only for the data do not support your assertion at all. Nice fake argument.

FindersKeepers
02-24-2019, 05:11 PM
True change doesn't mean collapse, but when a party completely disavows it's values, it's a collapse. Tell me the GOP of the 1960s has the same values as the RNC of 2019....then show me.

I disagree with your premise. Shifting values has more to do with a changing society than with any sort of collapse. Collapse means the party is no longer able to elect a candidate -- so we know that's not the correct terminology.

I've seen one of the largest shifts in the Democratic Party, actually. In the 60s and 70s, the Democrats promoted traditional liberalism: anti-war, tolerance of those not like them, and the promotion of peace. But today, they're even more intolerant than the GOP is. Today, Democrats seem bound and determined to silence anyone who doesn't agree with them. If they can't silence them -- they try to shame them. Back in the 60s that was what the evangelicals were doing -- today -- its the Democrats. They've got a thing going on today whereby white males are just about the lowest of the low, and white females aren't far behind. The Democrats (those of the AOC variety), are bound and determined to hang virtually anyone on accusations. Just look at that latest fiasco with that Smollett character. How quickly the democrats turned on whites in general, and whites who supported Trump in particular. They didn't used to be that way.

But, despite their major shift in values, the Democratic Party didn't collapse -- it's just went in a different direction. The same holds true for the Republican Party.

Both, however, are VERY much alive.