Skip to main content

View Diary: A guide to the conservative movement in one handy chart (219 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  kos, with all due respect, I think everyone on (10+ / 0-)

    this site have reached a consensus that Republicans are assholes. I think it would be nice to see a bit less of "Republicans suck" posts and more meaningful analyses on the sorry state of the Democratic Party. It's very hard to find better Democrats when all we seem to talk about is Republicans.

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:27:05 AM PST

    •  Everyone on Kos has. (24+ / 0-)

      The voters haven't.

      The Republicans are still THERE, being a toxin.

      The scene on November 6, midnight: Barack Obama holds up newspaper reading "Romney defeats Obama" as he heads to give his second term acceptance speech.

      by alkatt on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:32:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  well, I think the only reason the Repugs are still (11+ / 0-)

        alive is because the Dems are just as incompetent and ineffectual.

        Both of today's political parties are co-dependent--neither can live without the other. For both, their only electoral strategy is "they suck even more than we do !!" Nobody votes FOR either party--everybody votes AGAINST the OTHER party.

        Which is why neither party ever offers anything new, and we never move forward.

        •  IMHO the #1 thing that neither party (7+ / 0-)

          can live without is corporate $$$$.

          But I agree that there is a co-dependent dynamic. Each side plays off the other to avoid doing anything to upset their corporate paymasters.

          "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

          by aggressiveprogressive on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:56:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  that is very true (4+ / 0-)

            Both parties are equally dependent upon the corporate cash flow.  I did a diary on this a few years ago that is still just as relevant today:


            •  Never mind corporate cash..... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jilikins, roadbear, apimomfan2

              I get emails every day from politicians all over the country, all Dems, with subject lines that get your attention about a huge issue....but it's all about solicitation for money!!  Every damn one of them.  I'm spending a lot of time today unsubscribing to those email lists.  Do your damn jobs.....stop asking for money.

              Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven. William Shakespeare

              by lutznancy on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:02:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hirodog, apimomfan2

                Exactly what I have been doing.  I am SO sick of them asking for money when they haven't seen to it that our quality of life-ALL of ours-has improved.  
        the hell do they expect me to have the money to give?

                I will never forget, as long as I live, the day the entire world had hope... 01/20/09

                by jilikins on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:08:05 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's Their Fault They Have a Need? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jilikins, Sue B, Cordyc

                  One of the most important moves Republicans pulled was exacerbating the need for money in order to win office. It was a much smaller matter before Reagan, but now it's huge.

                  Because the need is so large every politician has to spend a huge amount of time raising a huge amount of money. That means that the rich are more important than before, and that our representatives have less time to examine proposed bills, and less time to come up with ideas of their own.

                  And the money spent on campaigns goes, in the main, into the pockets of Republicans, no matter who spends it. Local Fox O&Os rake in hundreds of millions and Rupert gets a windfall. Most other media outlets are also owned by Conservatives.

                  Was Citizens United decided in favor of more election spending by Liberals or Moderates? Naw. It was brought before the court by Conservatives and okayed by Conservative judges. Now campaigns require even more money.

                  Why bitch at Dems sending financial appeals? They won't get elected without money.

                  A Southerner in Yankeeland

                  •  this part is not really true: (0+ / 0-)
                    And the money spent on campaigns goes, in the main, into the pockets of Republicans, no matter who spends it. Local Fox O&Os rake in hundreds of millions and Rupert gets a windfall. Most other media outlets are also owned by Conservatives.
                    An excerpt from my diary on corporate campaign contributions:
                    It does seem to be a common myth among DKosers that the "mainstream media" (and especially the TV Cable industry) are solidly Republican.

                    They are not.

                    The numbers:

                    Sector: Entertainment Industry as a Whole (TV, Movies, Music, Publishing)

                    1994 Elections (Dems in power)
                    percentage to Dems   71
                    percentage to Repugs   29

                    2004 elections (Repugs in power)
                    percentage to Dems   69
                    percentage to Repugs   30

                    2010 elections (Dems in power)
                    percentage to Dems   75
                    percentage to Repugs   24

                    Sector:  Cable TV/Satellite industry
                    1994 Elections (Dems in power)
                    percentage to Dems   45
                    percentage to Repugs   55

                    2004 elections (Repugs in power)
                    percentage to Dems   56
                    percentage to Repugs   44

                    2010 elections (Dems in power)
                    percentage to Dems   68
                    percentage to Repugs   32

                    Sector:  Commercial Radio/TV stations
                    1994 Elections (Dems in power)
                    percentage to Dems   59
                    percentage to Repugs   41

                    2004 elections (Repugs in power)
                    percentage to Dems   42
                    percentage to Repugs   57

                    2010 elections (Dems in power)
                    percentage to Dems   52
                    percentage to Repugs   48

                    Sector:  Television Production Companies
                    1994 Elections (Dems in power)
                    percentage to Dems   79
                    percentage to Repugs   20

                    2004 elections (Repugs in power)
                    percentage to Dems   82
                    percentage to Repugs   17

                    2010 elections (Dems in power)
                    percentage to Dems   80
                    percentage to Repugs   20

                    The entire media industry, as a whole, bucks the general corporate trend, and, as I pointed out earlier for the Hollywood movie industry, consistently supports Democrats every election.

                    But there are some interesting sub-stories here.

                    In newspaper/book publishing, the largest contributor, News Corp (Rupert Murdoch's company), gave over three times as much as the second-largest contributor, but split its donations almost evenly, with 54% to the Dems and 46% to the Repugs. All the rest of the top ten contributors, however, were fiercely partisan, with seven of them giving at least 70% of their money to Dems (and four of those giving 100% of their money to Dems), and the remaining 2 giving 93-100% of their money to Repugs. Of the top 20 Congressmen to receive money from the newspaper/book publishing industry, 19 were Democrats.

                    In cable/satellite industry, 4 of the top 5 companies all split their donations, with Dems getting between 57 and 67%. Time-Warner, number four on the list, split 57-43 for the Dems. News Corp, Rupert Murdoch's company, ranked 14th on the list, and split its donations 55-45 for the Dems. Yes, that's right--the company that owns Fox News gave over half its political contributions in 2009-2010, to Democrats.

                    Of the top 10 Congressional recipients of cable/satellite industry contributions, 8 are Dems; of the top 20, 13 are Dems.

                    So, while lots of Kossacks like to yell about the "conservative manistream media", the fact remains that where it really matters--in the bank account--the media are solidly Democratic.

                    •  Yeah, But (0+ / 0-)

                      Thanks for the data, though I find them a bit difficult to understand and am disappointed they are unsourced.

                      A few very significant points:

                      It's impossible for me to look at the major media and say they favor Dems. To my eye they clearly favor Repubs. Or, more precisely, they favor advertisers who are Repubs.

                      Many "Liberals" in any glamor industry are people who are strong supporters of things such as gay rights, choice, voting rights, soup kitchens, etc. but on the economic side eagerly support anything that promises to make them money.

                      Almost all the major cable company CDEOs/
                      Founders/Owners are right-wing, either of the Libertarian or Republican variety.

                      Many donations are to specific people on specific committees.

                      and the most important point....

                      I wouldn't say that "where it really matters" is in donations but rather in the jobs they do, which is fronting for corporate Republicanism.

                      There is no longer a "Chinese Wall" between Sales and Programming. Promotions into management are from the Sales side, and Sales are very corporate/Republican oriented.

                      Kossacks are correct in yelling against the corporate Republican media.

                      A Southerner in Yankeeland

                      •  the contributions speak for themselves (0+ / 0-)


                        And I disagree that "the mainstream media" are ideologically motivated.  I think you peg it better when you note: "eagerly support anything that promises to make them money". The media are selling a product that people want to buy.  That product is "political viewpoints", and selling those is no different than selling soap or corn flakes. I don't think people like Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Malkin or Glenn Beck even themselves believe half the things they say--it's just a product that they sell, and they laugh all the way to the bank at the rubes who buy it.  If more people wanted to hear a liberal or progressive viewpoint, I doubt that Fox News would hesitate a second to fire its entire staff and hire Michael Moore instead. It's all about the benjamins.

                        And I think we all severely overestimate the influence and power of "the conservative media". They just preach to the choir (and are mostly ineffectual at it).

                  •  Yes, Southerner, I remember the day... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    GingerR, debocracy

                    when we had an "equal time" provision for all media (ok, equal space for written).  That provision was sunsetted out when Reagan refused to renew it, and IMO democracy died that day.

              •  What are they supposed to do? (0+ / 0-)

                As long as we don't get the rules of the game changed, Democrats have to compete for the almighty dollar.   Are you suggesting that they just give up and let the GOP have it all?  So,  because the GOP has bought themselves a new system and rigged the game, Democrats should simply refuse to play?  Nice thought in some alternate universe, but that wont win elections.  Its our job to keep pushing for change in the system and while a lot of Democrats are rolling in campaign contributions, both personal and corporate,  there are many more of them willing to embrace the needed changes than those across the aisle.  You can change things when Democrats are in control or you can support regressive policies and slip back into the 1930's.  Imagine how much you are going to like a GOP controlled House, Senate and Administration given the current crop of GOP politicians.   The rational Statesmen are gone, kicked out or given up, except for a hand full who are close to retiring.  What remains are frightening indeed.  

              •  Money is the Catch 22 of politics. (0+ / 0-)

                If there were any way to get the message out and get out the vote WITHOUT money, politicians would not need to ask for money.  The reason Democrats, and progressive organizations in general, have to ask so much is that too many of those who can AFFORD to give large amounts give the money to Republicans and to theocratic/plutocratic organizations, while the many supporters progressives have CANNOT afford to give enough to counter the conservatives.

                And of course, the conservatives, who can raise funds so easily, do not WANT to change the laws to make money, especially the dark money they live on, less important, because "fairness" is not in their value system; their value is for THEIR side to have all the advantages and to be able to shut out everyone ELSE.

        •  Really true, Lenny Flank, but what I can't under- (0+ / 0-)

 that the Green Party doesn't have more support from Progressives, who seem to cling obsessively to the Dems as if "they suck even more than we do" is a viable platform and a reasonable way to govern.  It is a massive undertaking, and there aren't enough Progressives in total, to actually win a Presidential election by ourselves, but a strong surge of support for the Greens would bring to Progressive values the surge of strength we need to get some important work done by elected Dems with their tails on fire.

          •  Obvious answer (0+ / 0-)

            Because they cannot win national elections or local ones for that matter under the current gerrymandered system.  That doesn't mean they don't have a seat at the table and have a profound influence.  They do and thank goodness for them,  but we are talking about winning elections here, aren't we?  Imagine how much voice the Greens will have in an all Republican controlled Government.  Kiss the gains made so far goodbye.  I give to Green causes, but I vote for Democrats and encourage them to listen to the Greens as much as possible when it comes to policy.  I want progressives to win elections even if some are not quite as progressive as I would hope for.  Pretty sure I'm better off with something rather than nothing.  But then I'm just an old  liberal grandmother, living in a very red state,  who has been playing this game a very long time.    

    •  I will grant that the rationing perpetrated (3+ / 0-)

      by Congress is a bi-partisan enterprise. Indeed, it was Gore who rode the hobby horse of a balanced budget into the White House and then used it to "reinvent" government and get the Pentagon ready to fight two wars at once.

      Republicans say, "I dare you" and Democrats ask, "how high?"

      We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:36:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Republicans suck" posts have value (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, skod, loblolly, Cordyc

      The point is to get people to have an emotionally-charged reaction to Republicans.  A permanent state of anger will keep some people interested in politics when fatigue will make others drop out.  Should someone be disenchanted with Democrats, building a knee-jerk negative emotional reaction to Republicans may make them more likely demonstrate their unhappiness by sitting an election out or voting for some nobody third party rather than the more harmful crossing over to cast a protest vote for a Republican because they just can't bring themselves to do that.  Repetition of the notion of Republicans and conservatives as "The Other" helps build and maintain liberal/Democratic solidarity.  These are some of the reasons why "Republicans suck" is a message that needs to be repeated often.

      •  However, it can lead to laziness... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        If I simply disagree with Republicans because they "Suck", I therefor support Democrats because presumably they "Do not Suck".  Why bother even reading anything else or commenting at all?

        The answer you propose is simple, vote for Democrats because Republicans suck.

        Or, maybe you can demand that Democrats do more than just "suck a little bit less than Republicans" by challenging them when they start to drift (I'm talking to you President Obama and your new dinner buddies).  

        "Sucking less than Republicans" is not enough anymore.

        We need legislators to fight "FOR" us instead of against us and we need them to represent what is best for the general welfare of this country rather than the members of their country clubs.  

        Democrats and Republicans both suck right now and focusing on the minute differations of just how much they each suck is like pointing out how much more humane being electrocuted is rather than being hanged.  You're fucked either way.

        "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

        by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:24:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Democrats won't win unless they have (4+ / 0-)

          A bloc of voters in the coalition who do not operate at an intellectual level higher than "Republicans suck".  I read and comment because I operate at a higher level than that, but I am not so naive as to think that everyone can do it.

          One part of getting legislators to fight for us is to give them a good definition of what "us" means in an "us vs. them" sort of way.  I spend some of my time here arguing that "us" should be defined more in economic terms rather than social and demographic terms.  As such, I think it is more important to be inflammatory over banksters and corporations than it is to fin up outrage over abortion and gay marriage.

          Get more knee-jerk support for Democrats, then start an internal war within the party.  That strikes me as a better strategy for fixing the Democratic Party than threatening to secede if things don't go your way.

          •  I do not disagree with your logic... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But I disagree that it will make things any better.

            I do not like being pushed into a corner where I have to vote for "A" because "B" is so bad.  By offering a block of voters who will vote for a Democrat simply because they hate the opposition, how do the politicians get more voters?  Move to the center.  With the Republicans pushing their party so far to the right, the center moves to where the Republicans started.

            For example, Let's say an election has 100 voters.  30 of them are definitely voting for politician A and 30 are voting for Politician B.  That leaves 40 in the middle to swing.  Do you think Party A is going to listen to what the 30 votes they already have wants? No.  However, Party B not only listens to what  B voters want, they go beyond what they want.  This may seem like a losing strategy because all Party A has to do is convince 21 of those M (middle) voters their way so they find the middle of ground of the M voters.  Here is my attempt at a graphic representation.

            a_a_a_m_m_A_ m_m_b_b_b _B

            ("a"s & "b"s are for sure votes, "m"s are undecided and "A" & "B" are the candidates)

            "A" wins the election but look where the center between the two parties are now. It is in the center of the first "b".  The candidate may be "a" but the policy is "b".  You end up with "b" policies put in place by "a" and "a" gets all of the blame because it they won the election and they implemented the policy.

            How is that a victory?

            "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

            by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 03:22:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think the parties are asymmetrical (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Buckeye Nut Schell

              The Democrats are a center-left party (with arguments over how much center and how much left) while Republicans are a strictly right-wing party.

              So take your 100 voters.  Imagine only 20 of them are definitely voting for liberal politician A and 40 of them are definitely voting for conservative politician B.

              Let's put them on a [0,1] continuum, where 1=liberal and 0=conservative, and 0.5=moderate.  To win, politician A needs 20 liberal votes and 31 moderate votes, for an average of 0.696.  Politician B needs 40 knee-jerk conservatives and 11 moderates, for an average of 0.11.  Increase the number of knee-jerk liberal voters to 30 and the average value of the minimum coalition to elect politician A becomes 0.794.

              Of course, it doesn't matter where the middle between two parties is if you win enough seats.

              •  I like that way you construct your argument... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                apimomfan2, Cordyc

                But we will have to agree to disagree.

                I find the center agreements between the parties so far to the right that I believe they would have been considered too extreme for the conservatives just a generation ago.  Remember who first proposed what is now called  Obamacare and who implemented it first and now it is called extreme left socialism.  George Bush got soundly rejected when he tried to privatize and cut Social Security even from his own party but now Obama is offering the some of the same things and is still seen as a leftwing socialist extremist.

                How did we win an election and yet we are still offering to go to the right of George Bush who got us into this mess?  Why is President Obama not even suggesting allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices?  Why isn't he even throwing out there the possibility of raising the cap on social security let alone removing it?  Why are we not demanding a fair price on resources extracted from Federal lands?

                I realize that the Republicans would fight these things tooth and nail but at least we should be making them fight.  We are accepting that they would not let it happen and start fighting for the center while they are fighting for the extreme.  When we finally find middle ground and compromise, we are squarely on their ground and they still make it look like we have forced them into communism.

                "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

                by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:24:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  There is still a difference (0+ / 0-)

        Lets just put to rest the notion that there is no difference in the parties.  That is B-S.  We had better start using those differences to make that very clear, especially to those who would vote against their own best interests because they don't understand the difference.  

    •  We can have both! (11+ / 0-)

      Also, I feel it is important to remember what this chart makes clear: the Republicans aren't all in agreement with each other on a lot of things.

      •  Republican disagreements (0+ / 0-)

        The Tea Party doesn't really get that the Corporate Cons created them and have no intention of letting their tools actually make any decisions.  The Theocons were starting to realize that back in the mid-2000s, but the Corporate Cons were able to distract them back with Islamists and with a primary race between a black man and a woman who they already hated.

      •  I love this chart!! Made me laugh. I need that! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bugsby, Hirodog

        Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven. William Shakespeare

        by lutznancy on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:04:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Definitely useful (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Batya the Toon

        I'm a great believer in charts and graphs. They tell us a lot in less space and fewer words. This chart is particularly good at showing where the fissures are in the right wing world - cracks which can be exploited to progressive advantage.

        •  Potential exploitation is one benefit, yes. (0+ / 0-)

          Keeping ourselves from sounding dumb when we talk about them is another.  I have heard rants about how hypocritical Republicans are because [Theocon position] blatantly contradicts [Libertarian position], as though the same individuals were holding both opinions.

    •  420 forever, with all due respect, we have a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      420 forever

      bipartisan sellout?  (snark)

    •  maybe you are not reading the Daily Kos (20+ / 0-)

      in its entirety, because the community is constantly talking about better Democrats, maybe you heard how important was this community in helping to elect Robin Kelly in Chicago a few weeks ago?

    •  Yeah, kos, please pen a front-pager calling Obama (23+ / 0-)

      ... an asshole or I'll think you're nothing but a suck-up and an ass-kisser.

    •  it's way more insightful than "Republicans suck" (23+ / 0-)

      it's waaay more insightful than "Republicans are assholes".

      Too many people think of Republicons as a monolith, but it is their internal splits that helped us hold the Senate and gain House seats in 2012.

      analyzing the fault lines among Republicons is extremely important and will bear immediate electoral fruit.  if the Blue team learns to exploit the dissension in the Republicon party, we can take back the House in 2014 and hold the White House in 2016.

      it's also a lot better for Blue Team morale, an expansive and forward looking attitude, than getting stuck in analyzing the "sorry state of the Democratic party".

      No matter how sorry Democrats may be these days, at least we are on the right side of history.  So I'd rather concentrate on what is right with us and what is wrong with them.

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:45:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  leadership is wrong (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      420 forever, apimomfan2

      The party leadership continues to undermine Progressives openly. Steve Israel is an insult.

      I am hopeful of our future prospects though.

    •  A guide to the progressive movement? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Yes, I think that that could be equally if not more instructive.

    •  Taxonomy matters (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bugsby, CoyoteMarti

      For almost every column in that table, there's an issue that could be used to pull people to the Democrats.

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 04:20:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (153)
  • Community (73)
  • 2016 (52)
  • Elections (50)
  • Bernie Sanders (45)
  • Environment (38)
  • Climate Change (37)
  • Culture (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (34)
  • Republicans (33)
  • Science (31)
  • Education (30)
  • Media (30)
  • Civil Rights (29)
  • Barack Obama (28)
  • Law (24)
  • Labor (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Congress (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site