What is wrong with Democrats. Why can't they lead?

[fskimospy]

What does that survey show? Very little, I'd say. Let's imagine I propose killing your entire extended family. I'm guessing you'd object and propose I kill none of them. Reasonable compromiser that I am, I propose to kill only half of them, and yet you still object and refuse to move off your original position that none of your family be killed. So what's more important here, sticking to your beliefs or embracing compromise?

You're making his point for him right now, you realize. If conservatives really view any increase in taxes, etc, etc as the equivalent of the mass murder of their families that would go a long way towards explaining how they have become so irrationally opposed to compromise.

I personally think that they reject compromise because our structure of government is biased towards inaction and they have found there are large political payoffs for intransigence.

 

[zsdersw]

Bill Clinton was the last great "triangulator" in the Democratic party. Democrats haven't been adept at messaging and packaging their agenda ever since.

 

[Mursilis]

You're making his point for him right now, you realize. If conservatives really view any increase in taxes, etc, etc as the equivalent of the mass murder of their families that would go a long way towards explaining how they have become so irrationally opposed to compromise.

I said no such thing. I merely pointed out that a failure to compromise isn't always bad, and is situation-specific.

 

[fskimospy]

I said no such thing. I merely pointed out that a failure to compromise isn't always bad, and is situation-specific.

Nobody said it was ALWAYS bad, just that the Republicans are opposed to it at a level we've never really experienced before, at least since shortly before the Civil War. If you want to run a country of 300 million people you have to be prepared to find some middle ground. I worry that conservatives have become so radicalized over the last 30 years that this is becoming increasingly impossible.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Actually Charles did specifically call Republicans leaders evil, which would at least imply that those who follow them are also evil.

No, it would not.

And when he insists that the other side is pure evil and his side is good but too nice - but it's not really his side, he's just a disinterested observer pointing out how the Republicans are evil and the Democrats are just too nice - what can I do but laugh?

You could try, actually making reasonable points, rather than repeatedly mischaracterizing my position. The Democrats are not "my side", and frankly, your constant implications that I'm being dishonest here are getting to the point of being flatly inappropriate for this room.

What is there to discuss?

Not much, it would seem, since all you appear to be interested in is labeling me and sneering at everyone's arguments.

What is there to discuss?
You insist the Democrats are playing softball for graciously allowing the Republicans to use the same procedural tactic the Democrats have used for tens of decades.

Because the Republicans are using it in a way that has not been used for tens of decades. This has been explained repeatedly with evidence provided.

What is there to discuss?
You insist the Democrats are playing softball when they claim that Republicans want to starve children and kill old people because Republicans do want to starve children and kill old people. You insist you aren't a Democrat, but also insist that Republican leaders are evil and not worthy of respect.

Correct, I am not, and correct, they are not.

And a couple of barbs about children and old people has nothing to do with what I am talking about, which is political effectiveness.

You guys are so funny with your accusations of partisanship. When we agree you say I'm a reasonable guy, but when I go off the reservation I'm "preaching (to some imaginary choir of his own invention)" or that a "Maybe a democrat peed on his lawn last week." Yet the two parties are far more alike than dislike, and our nation is more or less evenly split between parties. Given those things, your strong belief that one party is evil and always wrong doesn't make you rational, thinking beings, just cartoon caricatures. This is especially amusing now, when the party of pure though ineffectual good is using the IRS to oppress the party of pure evil.

Since you bring it up, I used to think you were a reasonable guy. But mostly at this point it's clear to me that you're just a more erudite version of the right-wingers on P&N. You're capable of analyzing a situation fairly when you want to, but it seems that you rarely want to. Which is your choice, but don't blame others for taking note of it. (I mean really.. you repeatedly bring up talk radio talking points, and you're surprised at the reaction?)

(And by the way, I could make the same comment about how people like you paint me as a "Democrat" whenever I criticize the Republicans, while I have people here complaining that I'm too far right when I get into discussions on topics such as gun control.)

 

[woolfe9998]

What does that survey show? Very little, I'd say. Let's imagine I propose killing your entire extended family. I'm guessing you'd object and propose I kill none of them. Reasonable compromiser that I am, I propose to kill only half of them, and yet you still object and refuse to move off your original position that none of your family be killed. So what's more important here, sticking to your beliefs or embracing compromise?

You've unwittingly exposed the irrationality of conservative inflexibility here by selecting this analogy. Precisely because it isn't a fair analogy but it may well be how conservatives subjectively view it. Any movement off their ideologically pure position is a catastrophe for them.

Let's take a real world example instead of opining over fictional scenarios. One party has 97% of its sitting members in Congress sign a pledge stating that they will never vote to raise taxes under any circumstances, no exceptions. Which means even after taxes have already been lowered multiple times because the pledge doesn't depend on how high taxes currently are. Is raising taxes to any degree under any circumstances akin to losing half your family? If that is how conservatives actually view it, as being similar to your analogy, that is the crux of the problem right there.

Edit: Eskimospy already made a similar point, above.

 

[woolfe9998]

You're making his point for him right now, you realize. If conservatives really view any increase in taxes, etc, etc as the equivalent of the mass murder of their families that would go a long way towards explaining how they have become so irrationally opposed to compromise.

I personally think that they reject compromise because our structure of government is biased towards inaction and they have found there are large political payoffs for intransigence.

The politically pragmatic rationale you offer to explain their inflexibility is probably correct for the most part as to their elected officials. However, I think their base wants them to be inflexible because they probably view compromise as a disaster akin to his analogy. They've just become that extreme.

 

[Moonbeam]

As I said in my OP, self analysis isn't easy and something just occurred to me that I see easily in conservative thinking, that 'we create what we fear'. Perhaps the reason that Democrats can't lead and face constant obstructionism is that they unconsciously act in a way that will bring that about, that they are unconsciously motivated to destroy themselves that way. Perhaps all the democratic hemming and hawing and red eyed indecisiveness is a psychological condition, a paralysis to bring about what they fear. What kind of trauma could that be, probably, I would think, something to do with guilt.

 

[werepossum]

No, it would not.



You could try, actually making reasonable points, rather than repeatedly mischaracterizing my position. The Democrats are not "my side", and frankly, your constant implications that I'm being dishonest here are getting to the point of being flatly inappropriate for this room.



Not much, it would seem, since all you appear to be interested in is labeling me and sneering at everyone's arguments.



Because the Republicans are using it in a way that has not been used for tens of decades. This has been explained repeatedly with evidence provided.



Correct, I am not, and correct, they are not.

And a couple of barbs about children and old people has nothing to do with what I am talking about, which is political effectiveness.



Since you bring it up, I used to think you were a reasonable guy. But mostly at this point it's clear to me that you're just a more erudite version of the right-wingers on P&N. You're capable of analyzing a situation fairly when you want to, but it seems that you rarely want to. Which is your choice, but don't blame others for taking note of it. (I mean really.. you repeatedly bring up talk radio talking points, and you're surprised at the reaction?)

(And by the way, I could make the same comment about how people like you paint me as a "Democrat" whenever I criticize the Republicans, while I have people here complaining that I'm too far right when I get into discussions on topics such as gun control.)

Right. My points are talk radio talking points, but "Republicans are evil and Democrats are just too nice and naive" is nicely reasoned impartial analysis.

If I'm being "flatly inappropriate" for this forum by not blindly accepting your disinterested third party stance when you claim that Republicans are evil and Democrats are just too nice and naive, then I will leave. I only request that you rename the forum more accurately - Dictation Club.

 

[fskimospy]

The politically pragmatic rationale you offer to explain their inflexibility is probably correct for the most part as to their elected officials. However, I think their base wants them to be inflexible because they probably view compromise as a disaster akin to his analogy. They've just become that extreme.

It is very important to note that I am definitely referring to elected officials, and I definitely agree it is only 'for the most part'. I still remember the spectacle of the debt ceiling where Republican leadership panicked when they realized that a significant percentage of their elected caucus was so ignorant and so nuts that they really saw no problem with a US debt default. That was scary both for what it meant economically and what it showed about some elected leadership.

As far as the base goes, I agree that most of them don't think about policy in that way. I think most people really view politics much more as a culture war than as a policy debate.

 

[OGOC]

Maybe that is because compromise is usually a win for the Democrats.

Consider for example Obamacare. I think it would be reasonable to assume this represents a compromise over what Democrats really want for healthcare. Now in the future do you think it is more likely that laws will be passed to give Democrats more of what they want on healthcare, or that Obamacare(or substantive parts of it) will be repealed?

To Democrats, "compromise" means only getting 80% of what they want.

We could also look at gun control. What have anti-gun people, (not always, but often Democrats), what have they compromised on? Are machine guns legal again? No. Did they offer some kind of carry permit in Illinois before the Supreme Court forced them to? No. Did they allow handguns in Chicago before the Supreme Court forced them to? No. Did they allow handguns in Washington D.C. before the Supreme Court forced them to? No. Do they say how about you give us background checks for all private sales and we'll give you constitutional carry? No.

For those who haven't realized it, pay attention. Gun banners will never compromise. Never ever. Not until they have all of your guns. They'll start with "high-capacity" mags, then they'll drop the 10-round limit down to 7 (like they already did), then it will be 5, then 3, then 1, then 0.

They will take your "assault weapons" just like they took your machine guns. And then they will take your "sniper rifles". ...Or what normal people call "hunting rifles."

And then they will ban all dealer sales of firearms without a background check and a nice fee. And then they will ban all private sales of firearms without a background check and a nice fee. And then they will just ban the firearms entirely.

And then they will pass $50 ammo fees. And they will require you to pay a fee to get an I.D. card to be able to buy ammo. And then will raise the tax on ammo so you can't afford it.

And then they will pass microstamping laws which are useless and easily circumvented. (California just did that.) And they will pass laws requiring you to have a spent shell casing on file with the state to help solve crimes, which will waste millions of dollars and never solve a crime.

And they will "compromise" and say you can't have this or that type of gun or this or that type of magazine because they are for "military use" only, but the government agents we control who aren't military can have them.

And they will tell you you only need six shots to stop a home intruder. They say six shots is all you need for protection. But if you call 911 because of a home intruder, a dozen or more government agents will show up with the firepower of a small army and body armor and helicopters and even tanks for their protection against that same home intruder.

 

[OGOC]

Another problem is the difference between liberals and conservative in their world view. Liberals think you can reason with people and they will do the right thing.

This is why when you don't do what liberals want you to do they send their government agents after you with guns and fine you and put you in jail. "It's for your own good."

How come you don't want to pay money to help out Bob? Bob is down on his luck and could use some help. You have more money than Bob does. You don't want to pay money to help out Bob? Well, that's too bad because we're going to take it anyway and give it to Bob.

I'll tell you why dems aren't capable of leading, they have been brain washed by the republicans.

The same can be said for the financial well being of this country, they have bought into the "dems are big spenders" talking point which makes them tempered when discussing financial policies.

This makes sense. Republican brainwashing is why Senate Democrats didn't pass a real budget in 4 years, and then when they finally did it has $1 Trillion dollars in tax increases. The reason is Republican brainwashing and not because Democrats are lazy, spineless, big spenders.

For example when dealing with foreign policy compare the record of dems and reps, I'd say the dems have a better history of avoiding conflict and not creating conflict all together

Huh? Before the last decade, for pretty much every war of the past 50+ years, Democrats started the wars and Republicans were elected to end the wars.

And for the past decade, they're all pretty much on the same page together.

 

[OGOC]

Democrats can't lead because the American people are generally not in favor of the specific things the Democrats want to do, so leadership has to be done by sleight of hand. We have to pass the bill so that you can see what's in it.

Republicans were voted out in 2008 because they didn't do what they said they were going to do. Democrats were voted out in 2010 because they did do what they said they were going to do.

Republicans for the most part are in lock-step with each other, even if they're marching off a cliff. This is because Republicans have lost sight of doing what's best for the nation and its people (as opposed to just the very wealthy), in favor of doing what's best for the Republican Party itself. It's become self-serving and not representative of the average American.

This must be why the Republican Party and people like John Boehner hate the Tea Party so much. Because the Tea Party never is accused of "obstructionism" by other Republicans by doing crazy, extreme things like wanting to balance the budget. :\

Seriously, it's pretty far out there to say Republicans are all in lock-step with each other when there's been a Republican Party civil war going on for years now, not only from the Tea Party side but also from libertarians and real conservatives.

 

[OGOC]

Watching GoT... it's because they are the Starks when the Republicans are the Lannisters... maybe.

Maybe. Like, for instance, when Rob Stark made an oath to marry the daughter, and then he lied and broke his oath. That does remind me of Democrats lying.

And then when there are repercussions from him lying and breaking his oath, a lot of people feel sorry for him, even though it was a really big deal not to break his oath, so he's the actual one at fault and brought it on himself, and his oath breaking will send tremors throughout the countryside and will wind up harming all the little people.

That reminds me of a lot of Democrat voters, feeling sorry for people who lie and break their oaths and forgetting the repercussions only came about due to their own actions.

And of course, the Libertarians are the Targaryens, hot, crazy and powerless.

It's true Libertarians tend to be hot. And I think they wouldn't be shut out of the rigged national presidential debates as easily if they had a few dragons.

 

[OGOC]

I still remember the spectacle of the debt ceiling where Republican leadership panicked when they realized that a significant percentage of their elected caucus was so ignorant and so nuts that they really saw no problem with a US debt default. That was scary both for what it meant economically and what it showed about some elected leadership.

The default talk was only to scare you. The government wouldn't have defaulted. What would have happened is the government would have for once not auto-raised the debt ceiling and would have had to come to terms with the impending doom of $17 trillion dollars of debt. When interest rates go up, that's really going to hurt.

I would think at least people with kids would care about such things since their kids are the ones who will be paying for it. Or, maybe parents simply like stealing money from their kids.

 

[ivwshane]

Wow! Five posts of pure garbage with nothing factual about them. I'll address your "points" when I have time but for now you should educate yourself on the budget process and realize why your posts are a joke.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbudgetprocess/a/budget_process.htm

 

[sandorski]

This

 

[Onceler]

Because they are lying. They say things that get them elected then go off on a tangent contrary to what got them elected.
Take Obamacare for instance, every Dem voter thought it would be free to them and low and behold it is the biggest tax hike in history.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I've been reading this thread and watching what our government has done with the NSA and I shake my head. Read the "soft totalitarianism" article in p&n. People are discussing which of the two frightening parties are the most compromising.

I submit the concept of leadership has become quaint, a party piece to pull out at fund raisers and photo ops. The dems and reps have to control not lead.

 

[fskimospy]

The default talk was only to scare you. The government wouldn't have defaulted. What would have happened is the government would have for once not auto-raised the debt ceiling and would have had to come to terms with the impending doom of $17 trillion dollars of debt. When interest rates go up, that's really going to hurt.

This is the exact sort of foolishness that the tea party caucus had bought into. The government could have avoided default through spending cuts that would have sent the US into a catastrophic recession. Speaking of what would really have hurt, if your goal is to make US debts sustainable that was about the worst thing you could have done.

What's funny is that the experience of Europe has showed just how fundamentally ignorant of basic economics such a plan is. Cuts of that nature would have cut US GDP so much that it most likely would have made our debt problem worse, not better. THAT is the part that is scary. When you have elected officials who understand economics so poorly that they think the answer to deficits in a depression is to threaten government default or catastrophic recession, you have a really... really scary opposition party.

I would think at least people with kids would care about such things since their kids are the ones who will be paying for it. Or, maybe parents simply like stealing money from their kids.

A lot of this comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of US debt. Not only does spending more money in the short term improve the long term outlook for US debt, but much of US debt is owed to other citizens. For a good percentage of our publicly held debt our kids will be paying our other kids back.

 

[fskimospy]

I've been reading this thread and watching what our government has done with the NSA and I shake my head. Read the "soft totalitarianism" article in p&n. People are discussing which of the two frightening parties are the most compromising.

I submit the concept of leadership has become quaint, a party piece to pull out at fund raisers and photo ops. The dems and reps have to control not lead.

That article was ridiculous and incredibly naive. Of course America is spying on German citizens. Germany is spying on American citizens as well, by the way. The reason why it wasn't a bigger dustup? Every single one of those countries at that meeting was doing their best to spy on every single other one and they all know it. That's the entire purpose of intelligence services.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Right. My points are talk radio talking points, but "Republicans are evil and Democrats are just too nice and naive" is nicely reasoned impartial analysis.

If I'm being "flatly inappropriate" for this forum by not blindly accepting your disinterested third party stance when you claim that Republicans are evil and Democrats are just too nice and naive, then I will leave. I only request that you rename the forum more accurately - Dictation Club.

Welcome to CK's "Discussion" Club. Live and learn.

 

[woolfe9998]

Welcome to CK's "Discussion" Club. Live and learn.

You mean the Discussion Club where AFAIK the only banned poster is Craig?

 

[fskimospy]

You mean the Discussion Club where AFAIK the only banned poster is Craig?

Inconvenient facts rear their head again.

From my understanding one of the primary purposes of this forum is to get rid of posts like werepossum's and Charles hit it pretty spot on.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Inconvenient facts rear their head again.

From my understanding one of the primary purposes of this forum is to get rid of posts like werepossum's and Charles hit it pretty spot on.

I completely agree. Thank you for your candor.