Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
And an anecdote fills the white wash bucket to the brim. You couldn't have summarized the problems with the GOP more succinctly had Maddow written the talking point herself.
-spence
|
I have become accustomed to trying to figure out what you are talking about. Though it can be mind wrenching and sometimes worth the effort, there are times when I don't succeed. This is one of those times.
I don't know which anecdote to which you refer. Nor do I remember summarizing the problems with the GOP, at least not in this thread. As for those problems, my opinion is that the so-called "establishment" or "centrist" Repubs are mini-Dems. They may differ in variously articulated policies, but ultimately cave in not only to progressive notions, but to the progressive defining principal that government is the answer. Why you consider them obstructionist is puzzling. I recall you once saying that the two parties keep each other in check from straying too far from "center." That establishment Republicans publically say what you consider ultra-conservative things, doesn't ultimately translate into action. That is what's called appealing to the base--pragmatism. You do approve of pragmatism, don't you?
Why Repub theorists believe that average folks would choose mini over maxi is also puzzling. Well, I suppose they believe that when progressive policies eventually lead into the inevitable and predictable crises, they can pretend to provide saving conservative alternatives. Of course, eventually, if that succeeds in getting them elected, they revert, after brief "conservative" fixes, to big government status. And so we "progress."
On the other hand, the truly conservative Repubs and libertarians don't appear to be pretending. They actually mean what they say, and are therefor a threat to the established ruling class of maxi- Dems and mini-Dem Repubs as well as their crony capitalist boot lickers. In my opinion, Tea Party types, true "conservatives" of a constitutionalist stripe are, rather than a problem to be marginalized and eradicated, the, or a, solution to the ever expanding social and fiscal crisis which the "main stream" progressive political and social ruling class is constantly driving us.
In my opinion, progressivism is a dead end top-down authoritarian political system which ultimately leads to static social and economic paralysis. It actually reduces and ultimately limits choices instead of expanding them as it professes to do. Centralization, by definition, is limitation. Doing so for the sake of order and efficiency leads to ant colony or bee hive systemization. And that is even further exacerbated by the inevitable rise of mediocre bureaucrats who will be those who regulate what is permissible and what is not.
Although our founded constitutional system is not necessarily the only way to achieve a fluid, evolutionary social and political regime, it is the one we have, what is left of it.
The choice of which system of government we wish to have boils down to the question of what is the purpose of government. The Founders created a system for the purpose of maximizing individual freedom by limiting governmental authority, yet providing it with some necessary essentials. The purpose, as far as I can tell, of the progressive system is to achieve collective freedoms which are limited by the wisdom of all-powerful bureacrats.
Both systems "work" in respect to their goals. What do we want to "work" for us? The ACA, a great progressive achievement, will eventually "work." So will a free market system of health care. They "work" in different ways to achieve different goals. The Mafia system of local government also "works." All the isms "work" to achieve their specified goals. Thievery, corruption, force, all work, but are they "right"?
That the ACA, or progressivism in general, works begs the question if they are right. And what are they right in respect to. Ultimately, the question is still a viable one--is the objective a collectivist or an individualistic society. Choosing one or the other is the answer to if progressivism is right, or if constitutionalism is right.