I seem to recognize this argument from somewhere, but where was it? Oh, that’s right… it was me. I was making the same case in 2012 after watching the wreckage of a handful of totally winnable races two years earlier which slipped away. But a few years of observing the antics of Congress after we supposedly took control of both chambers has cured me of much of that.At some point, if you're going to play, you're going to have to play.
At this point, what difference does it make?
ReplyDeleteobserving the antics of Congress after we supposedly took control of both chambers has cured me of much of that.
ReplyDeleteWhat you mean "we," Paleface?
On what basis is a Republican Senator from Maine in any way beholden to Ted Cruz' constituents and not her own? In what way is a Republican Representative from California obligated to Louis Gohmert's constituents, and not his own bosses?
In what way should the personal egos of the right side be allowed to give the Democrats control of either house?
Eric Hines
Well that's an interesting question. I guess if there are no shared goals whatsoever, we should dissolve the party. We shouldn't have Republican senators from Maine, or Texas, or anywhere. We should just have senators from Maine, Texas, etc. That would be much more honest.
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't have Republican senators from Maine, or Texas, or anywhere. We should just have senators from Maine, Texas, etc.
ReplyDeleteThat was the original desire of the Founders. They inveighed against factionalism, even if the wish was tossed very early on. That was part of the gentleman politician mindset that was overcome by the radicalization of our Revolution.
Since we have parties, though, it would behoove the members of the Republican party to put their egos aside in favor of actually achieving their common goals.
Eric Hines
On what basis is a Republican Senator from Maine in any way beholden to Ted Cruz' constituents and not her own?
ReplyDeleteOn no basis, but that may be his point. Maybe if you want to do hard-core reform things, you need hard-core reform people. It may be worth losing one now and then to win one now and then with someone who's on board with the revolution.
if you want to do hard-core reform things, you need hard-core reform people. It may be worth losing one now and then to win one now and then with someone who's on board with the revolution.
ReplyDeleteTrue enough. However, the "hard-core" CINOs couldn't put their egos aside enough to accept the bare possibility that the other Republicans' views were as legitimate as their own. By employing the Democrats' my-way-or-the-highway tactics, they surrendered control of each house of Congress to the Democrats and got very little. A unified party would have left the Democrats irrelevant and would have gained far more. Even the legislative losses, coming only from vetoes, would have been exceedingly useful in demonstrating which party, and which particular Congressmen standing for reelection, were in the way of the nation's welfare.
But ego won out. And too little was won.
Eric Hines
The Democrat unity is based on fear, mutually incompatible religious ideologies, and totalitarian control. The Republican unity was based on being the loyal opposition and patriots.
ReplyDeleteWhen the latter two goes away, so does liberty and various other things that made the Republican party such a useful foil for the Democrat warmonger administrations like FDr 1, 2, 3, 4.
You say "warmonger" like it's a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteDepends on who is fighting and who has to clean up afterwards. For example, Nixon cleaning up after the Demoncrat war machine, as if he started the war to begin with the Tonkin incident and engineered (fast furious type) op.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrat plantation lords in 1830 were also keen on putting bounties on abolitionist pacifist speakers, hunting them down with lynch mobs in the North and South, irregardless of territorial boundaries. But to them, the war was easy because only poor white farmers and serfs would be doing the dying, the large plantation overlords were exempt from military service, even as they justified their warmongering as a result of their aristocrat land owning superiority.
As much as the aristocrat class of slave owners attempted to justify their ownership as a virtue, and sought to emulate Andrew Jackson's aura and image, they lacked certain essential virtues of Andrew Jackson.
ReplyDeleteSuch as the ability to fight duels or wars, personally. Slave owners who were naturally born to expect inferior species to do the job for them, began treating poor whites the same way. People like Lee and NB Forrest became outliers, tools of the Social Consensus, rebels without a cause, and rebels who weren't allowed any power to really change things to begin with.
That was the original desire of the Founders.
ReplyDeleteWho did you have in mind? As far as I can tell, it was the desire of George Washington. However, Jefferson and Hamilton were busy building their parties even while serving in Washington's administration.
Since we have parties, though, it would behoove the members of the Republican party to put their egos aside in favor of actually achieving their common goals.
Sure. Who could argue with that? But what common goals? And does that mean the common goals should override the goals of the individual state a senator represents? Or should the benefit of the state override doing what's best for the nation?
And you talk about ego. Could you be more specific? The only ego I see in the article is McConnell's.
I should have re-read the thread before posting.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the "hard-core" CINOs couldn't put their egos aside enough to accept the bare possibility that the other Republicans' views were as legitimate as their own. By employing the Democrats' my-way-or-the-highway tactics, they surrendered control of each house of Congress to the Democrats and got very little. A unified party would have left the Democrats irrelevant and would have gained far more.
Could you explain that more? I don't mean to be contrary, but I have a very different opinion about what's been happening, and I'd like to understand yours. What concerns do you have that the "CINOs" are ignoring?
From my viewpoint, the US is on a completely unsustainable fiscal trajectory, so increasing the national debt is insane. The size, scope, and lawlessness of the national government is beyond what the Founders thought justified open, violent revolution. And, effectively unrestricted immigration will only magnify both of the above problems.
Most Republican politicians seem to support all three: more debt, more powerful national government, and unrestricted immigration in practice. This is what we've seen over and over since Reagan. It's what Ryan's budget gives us. So, I'm not sure a unified party would have gotten more, if "more" means "different from what we'd have with Democratic majorities". The majority of Republican politicians seem to want exactly what the Democratic politicians want in these areas. That's what they keep voting for.
Consequently, where I think you see divisions caused by the Tea Party types leading to worse outcomes, I see the refusal of establishment Republicans to deal with the real problems of massive debt, federal tyranny, and unrestricted immigration leading to worse outcomes.
Again, I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm telling you my viewpoint, but I may well be wrong. I want to know more specifically what your concerns and thoughts are on this.
I'm not trying to start a fight....
ReplyDeleteI've never thought of you as one to pick fights for the sake of having a fight.
I'm not holding the establishment, so-called, or the moderate Republicans blameless in this. But consider this Washington Post article as indicative (even against my general disdain for the NLMSM).
Every single one of those items the Democrats got is because the two primary wings of the Republican party couldn't come to any internal agreements, and so the Democrats got leverage they shouldn't have had. The campaign finance bit is illustrative. The more moderate Republicans thought it would be a good idea for political parties to be able to fund-raise to the same extent as Super PACS (I must be RINO; I agree with them). But the right side of the party so distrust their fellow Republicans that they worked with Democrats--actively giving them leverage they wouldn't have had otherwise--to blow up the thing. The inclusion of the IRS block was a very near-run thing because of that; indeed, it looks very much like a bone contemptuously tossed by the Democrats as a sop.
A unified party would have gotten their riders included, through reconciliation, if nothing else, even those having nothing to do with spending (an inclusion with which I fully disagree; spending bills should be about spending and nothing else*). The bill then would have been passed into law or received a Presidential veto. In an election year. In very large part, it's the Democrat items that expanded spending. Defense is nearly the only exception.
The tax bill is very much the same. No real reform because the Democrats got too much leverage because the right side want too much too fast and won't compromise with their own party.
...where I think you see divisions caused by the Tea Party types leading to worse outcomes, I see the refusal of establishment Republicans to deal with....
Part of the problem. Where you see the refusal of the establishment, I see the refusal of the Tea Party types.
*Too often, a Congressman votes against this or that bill because it includes something which he cannot support, even though he supports the larger bill. Often that Congressman is telling the truth. A clean bill eliminates that excuse; a vote for or against the bill would be unequivocally a vote for or against the bill.
Eric Hines
Part of the problem. Where you see the refusal of the establishment, I see the refusal of the Tea Party types.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about this and wondering why we have contrary views on this.
For my part, I can understand people seeing this as the Tea Party's fault. We're doing something different, we're passionate (loud-mouthed) about it, and a big part of the reason the Tea Party got started was a deep sense of having been betrayed by the establishment, so we don't like anything that smells like the establishment and aren't particularly kind in our language toward those things. (And sometimes our noses aren't that discriminating.)
A partial defense of the Tea Party types in Congress is that they are doing what their constituents elected them to do, which is what you yourself suggested representatives should do. We're in a revolutionary mood: we don't want them to get along with the politicians we feel have betrayed us; we don't want to compromise one iota more than is absolutely necessary (we feel we already compromised too much before 2008); we want fighters and we want to see them fighting, not kissing Pelosi or hugging Obama or getting all chummy with the corporate cronies.
Another reason I can understand Republicans in particular might have for disliking the Tea Party is that it did not begin as a Republican movement. At the beginning, it was a collection of people with all kinds of concerns. Many of us were Republican, but there were a number of Democrats, libertarians, and others who shared economic, political, and cultural concerns who no longer felt represented in mainstream politics (I was a Democrat at the time who felt that party had abandoned and now hated me). There was a brief period when the Tea Partiers discussed forming a third party, but they decided instead to move into the Republican Party and try to co-opt it. That must have certainly upset some Republicans. (To be fair, though, a number of Republicans in the Tea Party pushed for this, and others not in it approached us and suggested this as well. It wasn't all or even mostly outsiders.)
(continued)
I think one big mistake the Tea Partiers made was not understanding that "fighting" in politics means "persuading." We were very angry, and we felt a need to let the politicians in Washington know we weren't going to stand for the status quo anymore. But this carried into daily interactions with other citizens; I saw a number of sympathetic individuals turned off by the angry, all-or-nothing approach, and one marriage break up over it. I ended up leaving the Tea Party organization I belonged to because I just didn't think they were going to be able to get enough people on their side. They didn't care enough to calm down and persuade individuals.
ReplyDeleteI think, also, that we didn't think about what you brought up: The "establishment" politicians were representing their constituents. If we wanted to change them, we should have gone to their constituents and made our case. But it was a lot easier and more satisfying to angrily denounce the politicians, demand that our politicians fight them, and not do the work at the grass roots level.
Part of this, of course, is that the Tea Partiers were never politicians. It was always a genuine grass roots movement and so we made a lot of mistakes right at the beginning. That's not an excuse, just a bit of explanation.
(continued)
I still believe that "... the US is on a completely unsustainable fiscal trajectory, so increasing the national debt is insane. The size, scope, and lawlessness of the national government is beyond what the Founders thought justified open, violent revolution. And, effectively unrestricted immigration will only magnify both of the above problems."
ReplyDeleteI in fact think that that understates the magnitude of the problem.
Let me give you one example of why the Tea Partiers feel betrayed and feel like establishment Republicans are often indistinguishable from Democrats.
Back when Reagan and Congress gave illegal immigrants in the US amnesty, there was a promise that the border would be made more secure and that we would never do amnesty again. Every president and congress since then has failed to keep that promise, and they have no intention of ever keeping it. The Republican Party has been every bit as much at fault as the Democrats.
Briefly, two other examples include growing national debt and growing control of our daily lives by the federal government, regardless of which party is in charge.
The Tea Party didn't spontaneously form ex nihilo. It came out of decades of grievances, and it came because suddenly there was a sense that we were crossing a point from which there might be no possibility of return. We were willing to get along and compromise, lose some as long as we won some, until we started believing that there was no hope of achieving our most important objectives, and that our hope had been sold to pay for establishment politicians' gains in power and wealth.
That's why we have the feeling of having been betrayed by the establishment for decades, despite our earlier willingness to compromise, even though the Tea Party itself only formed in late 2008 and early 2009. That's why compromise seems like failure to us; all of our earlier compromises were turned against us, daggers in the back. No matter how much we gave, there were always excuses to increase the debt, increase the federal government's involvement in our lives, and put off doing anything about the millions of illegal immigrants in our country. So why compromise at all if we always get the short end of the deal?
I'm not asking you to believe that we are right. I just want to explain why we feel this way.
As for me, I am working out what to do about all this. We Tea Partiers have certainly made mistakes and been quite bellicose, often indiscriminately. I want to stop doing that. In fact, one of my goals this Christmas season is to get over this anger. I think Breitbart had it right: we should be joyful warriors, and I've spent far, far too much of the last dozen years angry.
You misunderstand me. I'm a fan of the Tea Partiers; they've dragged a party too used to being a loyal opposition to the right and closer to being the party in power.
ReplyDeleteMy beef is with the tactics used, which are self-evidently (to me, in my awesomeness) stupid, and in some cases (Ted Cruz comes to mind) outright dishonest.
...the US is on a completely unsustainable fiscal trajectory, so increasing the national debt is insane. The size, scope, and lawlessness of the national government is beyond what the Founders thought justified open, violent revolution. And, effectively unrestricted immigration will only magnify both of the above problems.
Absolutely.
we don't like anything that smells like the establishment and aren't particularly kind in our language toward those things. (And sometimes our noses aren't that discriminating.)
A tactic that makes the CINOs (as opposed to actual Tea Partiers) who use it indistinguishable from Democrats, who do exactly that vis-a-vis anything Republican.
...we don't want to compromise one iota more than is absolutely necessary.....
Nor do I. But the CINOs have drawn that threshold in the wrong place. The just-passed spending bill is an example of what that produces. The Cruz blowup of Boehner's Plan B on taxes (a demonstration of Cruz' dishonesty, since he knew what the outcome would be and had decided that his personal political gain would be worth the cost to the nation) is another.
Related: why do you think (or do you?) that today's compromise is the final answer and not merely the baseline for tomorrow's compromise?
The Buckley Rule needs to be applied to legislation as well as to candidacy.
Since you brought up immigration and amnesty, what current Republican candidate for President has proposed an immigration reform plan that provides amnesty?
Eric Hines
One more point. That Evil Establishment Republican, Paul Ryan, when he was chairman of the budget committee, proposed a budget that balanced in 10 years, and he proposed a Medicare reform plan that took a first step toward privatizing the monstrosity via vouchers, and the Democrats' demonizing advertising notwithstanding, it was the "conservative" side of the party that blew both of them up. Those first steps weren't big enough, so the country got no step at all.
ReplyDeleteGood luck getting any serious reform of Medicare, or of Social Security, proposed again this generation.
Eric Hines
Yep, I do misunderstand you.
ReplyDeleteA tactic that makes the CINOs (as opposed to actual Tea Partiers) who use it indistinguishable from Democrats, who do exactly that vis-a-vis anything Republican.
Hm. What do you mean by "CINOs," then? Who would that be?
Related: why do you think (or do you?) that today's compromise is the final answer and not merely the baseline for tomorrow's compromise?
I don't. Why would I? As I said above, every compromise has been turned against us in the past. Why would the future be different, unless we change what we're doing and who we're electing?
Since you brought up immigration and amnesty, what current Republican candidate for President has proposed an immigration reform plan that provides amnesty?
Pretty much all of them but Trump. The questions seem to be, one, whether to offer a path to citizenship or just legalization and work visas / permanent residency, and two, how much do we try to prevent illegal immigration in the future (if at all).
Also, which Ryan budget are you talking about? Which year?
ReplyDeleteCINO--my own acronym: Conservatives in Name Only. Congressmen who claim to be conservative, but whose tactics are identical to Democrats' and so, lacking the votes, and knowing they lack the votes, they produce Democrats' favored results.
ReplyDeleteImmigration amnesty? Every Republican candidate (except Trump, who won't say much about immigration beyond a blanket he won't allow it) have said current illegal aliens must pay a penalty before they can do anything at all about staying. How is a penalty amnesty? Those two are mutually exclusive states.
Eric Hines
which Ryan budget
ReplyDeleteThe ones he proposed when he chaired the House budget committee. The Democrats controlled the Senate, so they wouldn't have gotten far, anyway, but the "conservative" wing wouldn't let the budgets come to a vote in the House because they didn't go far enough. And so we got the Democrats' budgets. Which we likely would have, anyway, given a Democrat Senate and White House, but the "conservatives" spared the Democrats having their votes on the record as favoring higher spending and deeper deficits for the sake of more welfare and government dependency.
Eric Hines
I meant, specifically which Congresscritters do you consider CINOs?
ReplyDeleteReagan's amnesty required a penalty be paid as well. We all called it amnesty then, and we still do. It's not amnesty if we enforce the laws they broke and deport them. Anything less is a form of amnesty.
Honestly, I think Trump's bluster about immigration is just an opening position for negotiations, and if he's elected he'll negotiate down to amnesty in return for something else he really wants. But that's just my opinion.
With the budgets, as you point out, the Dems were going to get what they wanted either way, and they've always been proud to have higher spending and deficits to give out more welfare. We didn't need their votes to show us that.
Ryan's budgets also included repealing the ACA. It was never going to pass, ever, with a Dem Senate and President, supported by an overwhelmingly Dem / establishment media. Cruz's grandstanding didn't cost us anything that I could tell. Not that I can remember right now, anyway. His constituents wanted him to make waves and he did. As you have argued, why should he be beholden to the voters of other states who might have been upset by it?
Now, it may have been dumb, or bad tactics, but I really don't see any dishonesty there.
[W]hich Congresscritters do you consider CINOs?
ReplyDeleteThe Freedom Caucus for one group who've been most willing to blow up any progress because the movements in that direction aren't big enough to suit them.
We didn't need their votes to show us that.
If Congressional votes don't matter, then let the Freedom Caucus go on blowing up chances at real change, because the increment sizes don't suit their egos. On the other hand, the voting record isn't only for we; that's just another ego trip. The voting record also is for the benefit of the middle and of the center-left, who are persuadable.
The voting record also is a useful cudgel for use, strongly, against Democrat Congressmen. Sort of like was done by that initial wave of Tea Partiers that swept so many of them into Congress.
Eric Hines
On the matter of immigration amnesty, you can call exacting a punishment amnesty to your heart's content; it doesn't make it so.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, for a highly trained, extremely talented lawyer like Ted Cruz to call it amnesty is for that lawyer to outright lie. The lawyer knows better.
Eric Hines
What real change has been offered, that had a real chance of being enacted, that the Freedom Caucus opposed?
ReplyDeleteRyan's budgets never had a chance of passing. If Cruz or the Freedom Caucus had actually destroyed any chance of it passing, I would be upset about that. But they didn't. It was never going to pass the Senate, and we knew that at the time.
Also, I didn't say Congressional votes don't matter. We just didn't need one more to show us that Democrats love ever-greater spending.
Exacting a small fine in lieu of a much greater punishment is a form of amnesty. And, again, we all called Reagan's small fines in exchange for legalization "amnesty." We could call it "near-amnesty" or "virtual amnesty" if that makes you happier.
To go back to the differences I explored above, you and I, both Tea Party sympathizers, cannot seem to agree. I'll say right now that I can see some important goals, but I do not really understand what strategies or tactics we should employ to achieve those goals.
ReplyDeleteIf the Freedom Caucus is harmful, if their tactics are stupid, what is your proposal? What strategies and tactics should we use?
Also, if there is anything I could read -- articles, books, whatever -- that would help me understand your point of view, please link them. Thanks!
I guess I should narrow that question down.
ReplyDeleteWhat strategies and tactics should Republicans in Congress use? If you could change just the tactics and strategies of the Freedom Caucus, what would you change?