Is history repeating itself? Is the GOP following the Whigs?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Challenge away lol.

I'm not really arguing for the ACA. You know I think its a far cry from ideal. I'm just saying that most Americans want affordable healthcare for all like the rest of the first world. The specifics don't matter. The Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to convince people they are serious about healthcare reform, only that they are serious about stopping it.

Marketability issues. The TEA wing would prefer, in their ideal world, Untaxed medical savings accounts and private insurance. They would also want Medicaid reserved for the completely indigent and Medicare done away with in favor of MSAs.

"The ACA is becoming a boondoggle" is a marketable, if not sweepingly popular, stance. The TEA ideal stance would market....poorly.

[HopAlongBunny]

A way forward for the GOP?:

http://aje.me/19GDHUG

A very interesting guy

[Lemur]

Good essay in the Economist on this topic. Choice quote:

[M]any of the so-called policy planks in contemporary hard-right politics are more the product of a need to attack sitting GOP officeholders for supposed moderate treachery than they are the result of any serious or consistent conservative ideology. This is why, for example, when conservative policy wonks at the American Enterprise Institute sit down to come up with an alternative universal health-insurance plan, what they come up with shares enough features with Obamacare that GOP politicians have to reject it out of hand.

The subordination of policy to tactics is a feature of apocalyptic-extremist factional politics. It's a mistake to think that extremist parties are characterised by ideological rigidity; in fact, on any question on which there can be internal competition in such parties, there tends to be a succession of changes in position. Each shift produces apostates who can be purged on the basis of previously holding positions that have now been revealed as incorrect, and this provides opportunities for advancement to lower-ranking members. A party caught up in this dynamic can't take any policy positions on which it might be able to compromise with the opposition, or win new constituencies outside of existing insiders; the compromise would be a death sentence for the members who agree to it, and allegiance to new constituents is suspect in the eyes of existing ones.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Good essay in the Economist on this topic. Choice quote:

[M]any of the so-called policy planks in contemporary hard-right politics are more the product of a need to attack sitting GOP officeholders for supposed moderate treachery than they are the result of any serious or consistent conservative ideology. This is why, for example, when conservative policy wonks at the American Enterprise Institute sit down to come up with an alternative universal health-insurance plan, what they come up with shares enough features with Obamacare that GOP politicians have to reject it out of hand.

The subordination of policy to tactics is a feature of apocalyptic-extremist factional politics. It's a mistake to think that extremist parties are characterised by ideological rigidity; in fact, on any question on which there can be internal competition in such parties, there tends to be a succession of changes in position. Each shift produces apostates who can be purged on the basis of previously holding positions that have now been revealed as incorrect, and this provides opportunities for advancement to lower-ranking members. A party caught up in this dynamic can't take any policy positions on which it might be able to compromise with the opposition, or win new constituencies outside of existing insiders; the compromise would be a death sentence for the members who agree to it, and allegiance to new constituents is suspect in the eyes of existing ones.

Beh, this is a problem with every ideology. Look at Democrats who were in favor of civil unions a few years back. They are viewed as interminable bigots within the same party today, unless they "update" their thinking. I don't care about this and it doesn't make the GOP particularly bad. Something must be done to allow us to build a winning coalition. I would like to see certain plank purges in order to do this. Which planks? I'm not sure, but most likely the strong on national security at the expense of individual rights are in the crosshairs right now. Also, the GOP members who are overtly racist and looking to harm immigrants are being purged as well. It may not seem like this, but xenophobia and economic protectionism are much more natural bedfellows. Let the Democrats have them back

[Xiahou]

@Lemur
Which AEI plan is that?

[Lemur]

Here, let me Google that for you ...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here, let me Google that for you ...

The plan put forward by the second link wants to do away with employer tax incentives, but proposes nothing about giving that incentive to the individuals purchasing the plan. It just talks about taking that money and using it to give it to poor people. That plan isn't going anywhere. What part of "health care/insurance is unafordable for the majority of Americans" are Democrats unable to understand. First, it was "health care is too expensive? let us fix it by making it even more expensive". I'm not against some income support, but the idea that you are going to take away employer tax benefits and then just let consumers eat the cost increase does not lower the cost of care - yet this point fails to be apparent to so many policy people.