A Problem of Shrinkage

[Lemur]

Anybody who wants to debate creationism is encouraged to start another thread. I'm still interested to hear opinions about (a) whether we are in danger of becoming a one-party state, and (b) if not, why not.

[Don Corleone]

In danger of becoming a one party state? I think we're there. Most Americans look to the government to solve all of their problems for them. Few if any show any sort of self-confidence to address their own problems themselves. R or D, we have consistently ceded freedom and liberty, in the hopes that whoever was in office would "Just make all the bad stuff go away". We're sheep, and we've gotten what we deserve.

If your question is whether the Democrats are approaching a permanent majority? Again, with the way the media editorializes on politics, and presents current events in ways that would make Pravda blush, the answer is a resounding yes. What's more, I don't see much hope for the fiscally conservative wing of the Democratic party, the Blue Dog Democrats.

Or haven't you heard about Accountability Now and Campaign for America's Future, two groups who are dedicated to targeting Democrats in primaries that "aren't liberal enough". Looks like your big tent is getting a little snug there too.

[Lemur]

In danger of becoming a one party state? I think we're there. Most Americans look to the government to solve all of their problems for them. Few if any show any sort of self-confidence to address their own problems themselves.

I think this is overly pessimistic. Just looking around me, the vast majority of people I know work for a living. The only person I know on public assistance is a state-certified paranoid schitzophrenic who has to take medicine or the voices start again. And in his case, I don't see why the minimal support he gets is a bad thing. Would we rather he were on the streets, unmedicated, defecating in his hand and screaming about demons?

Anyway, if you're going to argue that the vast majority of Americans are welfare-suckling statists who can't make their own way, it would be helpful if you provided some sort of backup.

[Don Corleone]

Anyway, if you're going to argue that the vast majority of Americans are welfare-suckling statists who can't make their own way, it would be helpful if you provided some sort of backup.

For starters, let's look at the public demand for:

-the stimulus package
-subsidized home ownership
-universal healthcare
-government renogotiating debt contracts (mortgages, credit cards, etcetera)

In other words, the public is looking for socialism. Pleading for it. Demanding it. We don't say we are, we claim to all be "hard-working, do-it-ourselfers". But when push comes to shove, what's our answer? Beg the government to solve our problems for us.

Hell, just look at gas going over $2.50/gallon. What's the average reaction in the street? A whiny: The government ought to do something about this...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I wish we had just listened to George Washington and not had political parties in the first place.

[Spino]

I wish we had just listened to George Washington and not had political parties in the first place.

It's a nice thought but it doesn't jibe well with human nature. Human beings are naturally very hierarchical, tribal animals. We have a marked tendency to draw lines where none exist. Such is the lot of primates.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why don't you just become like Canadians? They have that cheesy notion that that anyone can just buckle up and make an honest living, while at the same time being sort of socialist.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I wish we had just listened to George Washington and not had political parties in the first place.

You like one party-system ? Go to Russia then!! We may have different parties, but only Putin's United Russia holds any power. jk. But they are pretty powerful.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You like one party-system ? Go to Russia then!! We may have different parties, but only Putin's United Russia holds any power. jk. But they are pretty powerful.

What? I said I didn't want any parties whatsoever.

[Lemur]

For what it's worth, I'm clearly not the only person thinking about this.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows the depth of the party's problems. Just 21 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans. That's the lowest since the fall of 1983, when just 19 percent identified themselves as Republicans. Party identification does fluctuate with events. But as a snapshot indicator, the latest figures highlight the impact of Obama's opening months on the Republican Party. From a high-water mark of 35 percent in the fall of 2003, Republicans have slid steadily to their present state of affairs. It's just not as cool to be a Republican as it once was.

The Republicans have many demographic challenges as they plot their comeback. Obama has attracted strong support from young voters and Latinos -- two keys to the future for both parties and once part of the GOP's calculation for sustaining themselves in power. Suburban voters have moved toward the Democrats. Specter can see that problem acutely in the suburbs around his home in Philadelphia home. Obama is also holding a solid advantage among independents, the proxy measure for the center or swing portion of the electorate.

Reihan Salam, co-author of "Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save America," said this week that the danger for Republicans is to believe they now represent a vast, silent majority that is waiting to reassert itself. A louder voice from a smaller cadre of supporters is not the answer, he warned. That will just prevent Republicans from reassessing their old agenda, developing new ideas and once again learning to reach out broadly. [...]

Sixty percent of the country trusts Obama to make the right decisions for the country's future -- but just 21 percent trust Republicans in Congress.

Despite their solid opposition to the president's economic and budgetary policies, Republicans in Congress have seen this trust quotient decline eight points since January. A CBS News-New York Times poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe Republicans have opposed those policies for political reasons, rather than because GOP lawmakers genuinely believe the policies are bad for the economy.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

I have removed the off-topic and frankly snarky tangent on creationism. Please ensure it does not try to adapt to the new environment otherwise I shall be forced to make you extinct.

[Xiahou]

Anybody who wants to debate creationism is encouraged to start another thread. I'm still interested to hear opinions about (a) whether we are in danger of becoming a one-party state, and (b) if not, why not.

Personally, I'm all for letting Democrats have absolute control. The sooner they get to screw things up, the sooner people can get disgusted with them and the sooner we can be rid of them. I'd rather have people like Specter or Snowe in office as Democrats than Republicans.

Being "moderate" and not having any driving principles behind them is what got the GOP thrown out of power. They came to power with the Contract with America and were helped by the complacency of the Democrats at the time. However, with disappointing speed, members of the GOP quickly abandoned their principles and became more interested in pandering and feathering their own nests than in following up on the principles that got them the majority in the first place. An unfortunate side-effect of the "contract" was that the most principled members of the GOP left office by self-limiting their terms in office as they all supposedly agreed to (see Pat Toomey).

In 1998, Toomey ran for the 15th District seat being vacated by incumbent Paul McHale against state Senator and future Allentown Mayor Roy C. Afflerbach. Toomey successfully flipped the seat from the Democratic McHale and won by an unexpectedly wide ten-point margin. He may have been helped by Governor Tom Ridge's landslide reelection victory.

Toomey was reelected two more times by relatively comfortable margins. While the 15th has historically been a Democratic district, it has a fairly strong tinge of social conservatism.

Toomey did not run for reelection to his House seat in 2004, fulfilling a pledge that he had signed in 1998 to only serve three terms.[3]

As I bemoaned during the Bush years, people like the RSC- the true Republican conservatives, were dismissed and even mocked by the party establishment, jokingly referring to them as the "minority" party since, according to them, that's what the party would become if their principles were put into legislation. Well, the RSC clearly didn't get it's way- and guess what happened?

I fully expect that after a number of years, the pendulum will again swing the other way and the GOP will be back in power again on a platform of limited government.... sadly, it's also just as likely that they'll quickly betray those principles again too. History repeats itself....

[Spino]

Personally, I'm all for letting Democrats have absolute control. The sooner they get to screw things up, the sooner people can get disgusted with them and the sooner we can be rid of them. I'd rather have people like Specter or Snowe in office as Democrats than Republicans.

Ugh. The problem with this approach is once you pass a bill or create a government program, department or entity it's incredibly hard to get rid of it unless you can achieve a similarly solid majority... and possess the political will to take a legislative axe to the offending branches. The Dems with a non-filibusterable majority are going to be downright scary, in many cases far worse than what we saw during the last 8 years. Better buckle up... and buy a damn good buttplug...

I fully expect that after a number of years, the pendulum will again swing the other way and the GOP will be back in power again on a platform of limited government.... sadly, it's also just as likely that they'll quickly betray those principles again too. History repeats itself....

Agreed.