RINO - what is it and who isn't?

[fskimospy]

I think this was called out in a previous thread. The Republican Party is not becoming "dramatically more conservative over the last 40 years." You are becoming more liberal.

No, this was not called out in any previous thread. In fact, your position that the Republicans have NOT become more conservative is what has been called out. By objective, peer reviewed, empirical analysis of trends in congressional ideology over time the Republican Party is becoming more conservative.

If anyone here would like to have a debate using actual data about the relationships between the ideology of members of congress I'm very open to having it but you're going to need to present actual work on the issue, not your gut feelings. So far nobody has taken me up on it.

What's interesting is that you are most likely projecting here, since you have become more conservative you haven't noticed it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Interesting.

Congress (Tip O'Neill etc) and the President were well known to have negotiated difference in private and not engaging legislative dramatics.

Democrats and Progressive constantly criticize Republicans for doing so today, yet want to now criticize Reagan because he didn't back then. Wonderful.

Fern

*Citation needed*

 

[Ausm]

Reagan had a rare ability to connect directly with the American people. Proposing things with which the public agreed, he pretty much shamed Congress into following his leads, although of course he never got the domestic cuts he was promised.

It is amusing that Zfacts seems to have lost its outrage about "unprecedented peacetime deficits" after Obama's election though. I suppose there're unprecedented peacetime deficits and unprecedented peacetime deficits, and only the magic "D" lets us know if they are good unprecedented peacetime deficits or bad unprecedented peacetime deficits.

I don't recall.

 

[cubby1223]

No, this was not called out in any previous thread. In fact, your position that the Republicans have NOT become more conservative is what has been called out. By objective, peer reviewed, empirical analysis of trends in congressional ideology over time the Republican Party is becoming more conservative.

If anyone here would like to have a debate using actual data about the relationships between the ideology of members of congress I'm very open to having it but you're going to need to present actual work on the issue, not your gut feelings. So far nobody has taken me up on it.

What's interesting is that you are most likely projecting here, since you have become more conservative you haven't noticed it.

The Republican Party was far more conservative in the past than they are now.

The difference is the world on average is shifting to the left at a faster rate than the Republican Party is shifting to the left.



Today there is more government laws, regulations, oversight, over much more of everyday life than in the past. Today there is also much much less religious involvement in everyday life.

I'm sure you can cherry pick Republicans who are the anti-government bible-thumpers for your examples, but they are not the prominent Republicans leading the party.

Yes the wealth gap is expanding at greater rates, I believe that is more due to technological advancements than anything government has done or can do. Technology has also aided the "smart" individuals who can bypass the laws, bypass regulations, etc.

You tell me what exactly I am "missing" in my view. What is more conservative today than 40 years? That would be 1974. There is far less union membership today that 40 years ago. But again, I believe that is more due to technology than to politics. How do you quantify that as a left versus right issue? I quantify it as a reality versus ideal dream issue.

 

[BoberFett]

This is an impressive circle jerk.

That is all.

 

[JulesMaximus]

i'd like to point out that the term rino not only describes a republicans voting record, but their personal behavior too. since republicans claim the moral high road (i'm not saying it's necessarily true in practice, just part of the ideology) a republican who strays in personal matters, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. also fits the definition.

http://www.rinolist.org/

What if they do something as heinous as vote for Obama?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

This is an impressive circle jerk.

That is all.

If a republican doesn't like another republican they're automatically a RINO. Just like if a poster has no defense it's automatically a circle jerk.

 

[cubby1223]

What's interesting is that you are most likely projecting here, since you have become more conservative you haven't noticed it.

All you have to do is put up instead of talking up a big game.

It is a different world today than it was 50 years ago. It is a different world today than 100 years ago. Thanks to the internet you can find and get in contact with random people worldwide in a matter of minutes. Transportation has increased you can get many goods delivered next day, even international transactions & deliveries today take about the same time to complete that domestic transactions took in years past.

The things in the world get divided up into two categories, (1) the things that can be influenced, and (2) the things that cannot be influenced. The things that cannot be influenced I write off, because they don't matter. And I regard others based on what they have the power to influence one way or another, and how they choose to approach those situations.

For example I would absolutely love to be in a labor union protecting my rights and providing me a good wage throughout my entire life. However, I'm not dumb enough to believe that is a reality in the world today watching how much the byproducts of technology have broken down the protections that used to allow labor unions to thrive. If a politician is not pro-union, I don't consider that politician to be a crazy conservative extremist, I consider that politician to be reality-based on that issue, and look at the other issues to decide if this person is the better person for the office. 40 years ago when unions had power and government had great influence on the success or failure of unions, I would have weighed the politician's views on unions more heavily.



The funny thing is, whenever I take those tests out there to see if you're conservative or liberal, I answer honestly and I always score right about dead center.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Sure we can. It's quite simple. The Democrats controlled the house and the senate during Reagan's presidency. Blaming Reagan for the 80's deficit makes about as much sense as praising Clinton for balancing the budget in the 90's.

For 6 of his 8 years as President, Reagan had a Senate that was Republican controlled.

 

[UberNeuman]

This is an impressive circle jerk.

That is all.

Really? There's been an interesting debate going on - care to join, or continue to anger... Anger is easy - supporting your view is not...

\don't be an inconsistent fob...

 

[fskimospy]

All you have to do is put up instead of talking up a big game.

Mean first order DW-NOMINATE scores by party. So, you were saying?

The Republican Party is much more conservative in countless ways than it is today. Tax policy is the most obvious example, but plenty of other government issues are there as well.

President Eisenhower in 1952:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Eisenhower was a large proponent of expanding the federal minimum wage. Eisenhower was a big union supporter. Nixon wanted to implement something very similar to the Affordable Care Act. Nixon increased Social Security payments, created the EPA and OSHA and more.

Do you think the modern Republican Party is closer to the views of that 'tiny splinter group' today or closer to Eisenhower and Nixon's views?

I hope that puts to bed the impossibly silly idea that Republicans have not become dramatically more conservative in recent years. You have not only objective, empirical analysis telling you this, but just a cursory look at the trajectory of Republican ideology should tell you the same.

Unless you have some empirical research of your own, kindly admit this.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

...and liberals have become much more liberal as well.

 

[fskimospy]

...and liberals have become much more liberal as well.

Both parties have polarized, but democrats have become more liberal at approximately half the rate that republicans have become more conservative.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Both parties have polarized, but democrats have become more liberal at approximately half the rate that republicans have become more conservative.

I see that. However, I wish the graph showed a breakout for the Tea Party similar to what they did for Southern Democrats.

 

[thraashman]

...and liberals have become much more liberal as well.

Except for the facts that don't support that statement. Hell, even look at chart eskimospy posted, which I myself have posted something similar to before. Democrats are right around as liberal as they were from the beginning. There was a brief shift right in the 30's and a slow correction back to the historical norm. And even with the correction Dems/liberals are still MUCH closer to center than Republicans.

Here, I'll quote my own post from a thread last year that used a similar graph to what eskimospy has posted.

Well it's not "random data points". It's using the DW-Nominate scores, an explanation of which can be found here http://www.voteview.com/dwnominate.asp. I admit, it's not the most simple thing to understand. And the two different graphs I've linked both show polarization, but show that the Republicans have polarized more and faster and that the Dems briefly did a hard shift close to center before normalizing to left again. It also shows that the Republican shift right is much more stark in the House than in the Senate. I'll link them both again so you can see.


Senate (article explaining http://voteview.com/blog/?p=892)
You can see that the Senate dems hard shift from center to more liberal happened after WW2 and since the 70's the shift left has been gradual, and that the Reps shift was gradual until the last 90's and they've shifted faster since then and are further right than the Dems are left. (Dems -0.39 and Reps 0.53)

House (article explaining http://voteview.com/blog/?p=887) In the house the graph is more stark. You can see how the Dems went from -0.2 in the 50's to about -0.4 now, a gradual shift left over about 60 years. But the Republicans have gone from 0.2 in the mid 70's to about 0.7 now, making them almost twice as conservative as the dems are liberal. (Dems -0.4, Reps 0.71)

Just because you don't like what something shows or don't understand it doesn't mean you can discount it. Yes, both parties have moved from center. The Republicans though have moved further from center and the shift has been very stark in recent years.

 

[dank69]

Jesus was a RINO, what with all his liberal views on punishment of evil-doers.

 

[thraashman]

I see that. However, I wish the graph showed a breakout for the Tea Party similar to what they did for Southern Democrats.

The problem is that the Tea Party is too new to show an historical data about. They basically didn't exist until 2008. But the history shows the GOP was hard shifting right even before them. I don't know if there's enough Tea Party members to hard shift the party as a whole much more. They're still a minority within the party itself.

 

[fskimospy]

I see that. However, I wish the graph showed a breakout for the Tea Party similar to what they did for Southern Democrats.

I agree that would be interesting, although assigning someone to the tea party would be a bit fuzzier. Still, you can even just use the years before the tea party and the trend is similar.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Except for the facts that don't support that statement.

The facts do indeed support my statement if you're looking at recent history (last 50 years). Please stop with your spin...it just makes you appear less than objective.

 

[thraashman]

The facts do indeed support my statement if you're looking at recent history (last 50 years). Please stop with your spin...it just makes you appear less than objective.

So I use the full history to show that the Democrats are back to their historical norms, and it's spin, you explicitly look at only a subset of information and it's facts? Or are you just full of shit? Hint, it's the latter.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

So I use the full history to show that the Democrats are back to their historical norms, and it's spin, you explicitly look at only a subset of information and it's facts? Or are you just full of shit? Hint, it's the latter.

Yeah...let's go all the way back to the good old days of liberalism...pro-slavery, pro-segregation, anti-civil rights, anti-woman sufferage and internment camps to boot. Yeah...let's get real about how the Democrats of today were as "liberal" as the Democrats were in the good ol' days.

 

[Fern]

For 6 of his 8 years as President, Reagan had a Senate that was Republican controlled.

Spending bills, must by Constitutional dictate, originate in the House which was controlled by the Dems. And again, back in those days things were worked out in private between Tip etc and the WH. In discussions of today's rancorous climate people like to always bring that up as a model we should use, yet when it suits their purpose some like to act as though it never existed. Go figure.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Mean first order DW-NOMINATE scores by party. So, you were saying?

The Republican Party is much more conservative in countless ways than it is today. Tax policy is the most obvious example, but plenty of other government issues are there as well.

President Eisenhower in 1952:


Eisenhower was a large proponent of expanding the federal minimum wage. Eisenhower was a big union supporter. Nixon wanted to implement something very similar to the Affordable Care Act. Nixon increased Social Security payments, created the EPA and OSHA and more.

Do you think the modern Republican Party is closer to the views of that 'tiny splinter group' today or closer to Eisenhower and Nixon's views?

I hope that puts to bed the impossibly silly idea that Republicans have not become dramatically more conservative in recent years. You have not only objective, empirical analysis telling you this, but just a cursory look at the trajectory of Republican ideology should tell you the same.

Unless you have some empirical research of your own, kindly admit this.

I see no mainstream Repubs trying to abolish SS, merely reform it out of fear of financial projections. The demographics are much worse, that cannot be denied. Also, SS has changed, e.g., COLA adjustments did not exist until 1975, well after Eisenhower was President.

Labor laws and Farm subsidies have also changed. Then was then and now is now. Were farm subsidies really enacted to pump billions to Monsanto?

Eisenhower was not for public unions, heck neither was Roosevelt. The latter is more an indication of Dems moving further left, not the repubs moving further right.

Fern

 

[Fern]

So I use the full history to show that the Democrats are back to their historical norms, and it's spin, you explicitly look at only a subset of information and it's facts? Or are you just full of shit? Hint, it's the latter.

While the policies have the same name, they are often radically different. Did unemployment benefits back then last for several years? Of course not. Many of these policies/programs have evolved to the left, sometimes considerably so, opposition or support now is not the same as it was back then. To compare the two is beyond apples & oranges, and disingenuous. One might as well point to polls on WWII and note that recently Dems have dramatically reduced support for wars such as Libya and make some claim as to relevance.

One might also point out that Dems opposed civil rights and have therefore now moved far to left. But that would require willful ignorance, of which many here seem to indulge, of Southern Democrats. Apples & oranges, heck this is more a full blown fruit cocktail..

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I see no mainstream Repubs trying to abolish SS, merely reform it out of fear of financial projections. The demographics are much worse, that cannot be denied. Also, SS has changed, e.g., COLA adjustments did not exist until 1975, well after Eisenhower was President.

Labor laws and Farm subsidies have also changed. Then was then and now is now. Were farm subsidies really enacted to pump billions to Monsanto?

Eisenhower was not for public unions, heck neither was Roosevelt. The latter is more an indication of Dems moving further left, not the repubs moving further right.

Fern

You're trying to argue broad gut feelings, I'm providing you with real analysis. You offer no empirical support for your position, just broad, anecdotal opinion statements of how things used to be vs. how things are now. This isn't just about public unions either (in case you didn't notice, Republicans frequently attack private sector union protections as well). Not to mention all the things you ignored like Nixon creating OSHA and the EPA and moving for an Affordable Care Act like plan with modern Republicans treating all three like an anathema.

Unless you can provide some real analysis that there really isn't much else to say. I won't wait for you to admit this lack of evidence, but I do think this is quite enough to throw out the whole 'Republicans haven't become more conservative' BS.