Skip to main content

I'm trying to wind down my (some would say excessive) election ranting, but I still have to say a couple things:

To my way of thinking the GOP lost not just because of some demographic miscalculation, or because of an act of god. They lost because their ideas are suspect. Their ideas are not going to be more appealing just because they're coming out of Marco Rubio's mouth.

The GOP is Pro-Birth, but not really Pro-Life.
The GOP is Pro-Military, but not Pro-Soldier.
The GOP is Pro-Dogma, but not Pro-Fact.
The GOP believes in conservation of a way of life, not conservation of the planet we live on.
The GOP believes in beliefs, not in logic.
The GOP is a plutocracy in everyman's clothing. Luckily people looked beneath the garb to see the underlying truth.

In many ways Obama is to the right of Eisenhower, yet they call Obama a socialist, communist, fascist, etc. They have gone over the edge in painting Obama as "other." The GOP has been dragged into the "reality" of the Tea Party, Religious Right, John Birch Society, Ayn Rand, white power, and other extremist fringe elements. Xenophobia, racism, and fear seem to be the driving forces. They view themselves as a righteous, persecuted minority. At least the "minority" part is fact-based.

I'm not anti-conservative. A "loyal opposition" is crucial. The parties exist in dynamic tension. The problem is that the GOP has been loyal to their party first, the country second, resulting in terrible governance. Politics is the art of the compromise, and Tea Party ideologues won't compromise. The current GOP suffers from a demographic shortfall (not making angry white guys fast enough), and from being beholden to too many disparate ideologies in their base. The big tent doesn't cover enough of America, so some of the ideas will have to change in order for the GOP to gain any relevance. They've driven most of the thinkers out of the party, leaving what, exactly? They deserve to keep failing until they can re-invent themselves. I'm all for a third party to absorb the crazies, so that the GOP can get back to being a party that is interested in governing a diverse country instead of defending an ideology at all costs.


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It is a perpetual struggle for vs against freedoms (0+ / 0-)

    as Chris Matthews has said, profoundly.   Over the long run, the movement for more rights has tended to win out over the attempt to limit rights.

    What would it mean to be anti-conservative, really?  To be against conserving the best parts of our past?  Probably not, because liberals and progressives treasure the best things from the past as much as "conservatives" do.

    The word "conservative" has become almost meaningless, and it is not the same thing as "right-wing."

    Liberals and progessives want to conserve the environment, which is why we are "conservationists."  We want to conserve a lot of traditional values, too, such as love for humanity, care, compassion, community, and the traditions of the arts and sciences.

    It is not clear whether the right wing and tea party are worried that we liberals and progressives want to have no Republican opposition at all.  They know we don't want to eliminate the two party system.   I'm not sure that they take us seriously when we say we want to have "sane" conservatives as our opponents - do they even care?

    No - they don't give a rat's @$$ what we think about it, to be frank about it.

    It is interesting to really go deeper and think about what the two political parties would be, if we could set it up in an ideal way.

    First of all, we might avoid the labels liberal and conservative, if we possibly can in the future.   "Liberal" has so many meanings (Donald Trump would be considered an economic "liberal" in most of the world, where "liberal" just means capitalistic).

    If we say that we are liberals, does that mean that we are in favor of letting people do whatever they want, whenever they want?   No, because we know that there needs to be a balance between individual freedoms and the legitimate needs of the community.   We are not "libertines," and we are not "licentious."

    We could make the argument that it is we who are the more conservative, in that we treasure so much in our heritage that is being trashed by the right wing.   We treasure and conserve our humanity, and the right wing is opposed to the very idea of "humanity" itself, because it reminds them of "humanism" and the word "humane."

  •  A New Era? (0+ / 0-)

    It was the first test on the impact of Citizens United.  It was the first time a Presidential candidate lied w/ such impunity, lifted a snippet of his opponents comment & wasted the entire first day of his convention on that lie.

    It was the first time a candidate's wife insulted "you people" & said "we've told you all you need to know".  It was the first time a Presidential candidate refused to release his tax records & got away with it.  

    This election had a lot of firsts.  They were all batted down.  Some people stood in line for up to 9 hours to make sure that batting down happened.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site