MinnPost Lessons from the past for the GOP to become a majority party
This was an interesting piece... Probably not likely given the GOP's current rightward shift, however worth consideration. Since a Far Right party does not seem to be very popular.
46 comments:
The problem with Republicans establishing an urban wing is that their electoral success is based on campaigning against the cities in the outstate areas. In this sense, Republican problems are the inverse of Democratic problems or at least the perception of them. The current Republican strategy isn't without it's successes. At least at the moment, it ensures that they will be competitive in the race for control of the legislature. But as the population moves to the cities and suburbs, success for Republicans statewide, Republican prospects are fading away. And, by the way, muttering about "Democratic socialism" to people who understand that problems are much more complicated than their labeling, doesn't help. That kind of talk is manufactured by focus groups for the outstate hayseeds.
--Hiram
Historically, for many years now, the Republican Party has been composed of social and business conservatives. Social conservatives provide the votes, business conservatives provide the money. It's not monolithic, but it is cohesive. A big reason for that is that business conservatives have enough money to insulate themselves from the stuff social conservatives want to impose on the rest of us. They also know that Democrats along with passive support from business conservatives, can mostly block the worst of what social conservatives would like to do.
--Hiram
Yes I understand that you believe that "electoral success is based on campaigning against the cities in the out state areas", where as you know that I disagree.
That is unless you think the "cities" is some kind of code word of "progressive liberals".
As we noted in G2A Suburbs, there are a LOT of people like me out here who are fiscal conservative / social liberal. And the party, who can propose solid solutions will get our vote.
The reason the GOP lost us this time was because they ousted all the moderates and their obsession with anti-birth control, anti-LGBT, etc is too "facist" for our tastes...
I keep hoping a third party could start up between the extremist DEMs and GOPers.
Kasich for President !!!
Cities means a lot of things. I think they are seen as sinks of immorality by some outstate. They are seen as foreign, providing "sanctuaries" to aliens, legal and illegal. The ciities are parasites benefiting from the hard work of rural areas. Real America is rural America which is why their votes should count more. They are seen as "cosmopolitan", the sort of place George Soros might live. These are modern forms and ideas of ancient stereotypes, used in politics from time immemorial.
There are of course financial conservatives who are socially liberal. They finance the Republican Party, for which in exchange they receive tax cuts.
I look around and see a lot of Republicans who weren't ousted but who lost elections anyway.
--Hiram
How does John Kasich appeal to the "social liberal" in you, exactly?
Hiram,
Some people in some cities are choosing to provide sanctuary to illegal workers and their families. Even as their local citizens struggle to find good paying jobs.
There are a lot of failed families, struggling children and welfare issues in the urban areas and the people there not fixing the problem.
These are simple facts, not party propaganda.
Sean,
At this site you will find whatever you are looking for... Please read with an open mind.
Here is his GovTrack chart
By the way, I grabbed his name because he seems willing to work across party lines. Not because he is perfect...
Some people in some cities are choosing to provide sanctuary to illegal workers and their families
And even more cities welcome people from international backgrounds, are places of worldliness and sophistication. And that bugs a lot of folks.
There are lots of people going through hard times. That has always been the case throughout history. One political response to that is to blame "the other". It's a time honored and often successful political strategy, quite apart from whether "the other" may or may not be to blame. I can tell you another thing, there is never a shortage of "the other" even when they are not even there.
--Hiram
Problems get fixed all the time. Just not as often and not as completely as we would like.
--Hiram
Please explain that to the poor and under educated citizens and children in the metro.
In these cases we know there are others...
And they are working at jobs that could be filled by legal American residents or citizens.
And we know that poverty and the academic achievement gap thrives the urban schools. Which is terrible for the children unlucky enough to be born into those neighborhoods and households.
No one ever offered up an answer to why one of our country's wealthiest and bluest states has a severe homelessness problem?
Or why there schools struggle so much?
I don't have an easy explanation why we have a homelessness problem, but I don't think it's because we are so wealthy, except to the extent that Minnesota is a good place to live.
--Hiram
The links were actually about California.
We aren't as wealthy as California, I suppose.
There is always an other. Who the other is is interchangeable and irrelevant. In the '80s Trump used to run ads against the Japanese, that decade's other. Today it's the China, and Honduran caravans. At other times in our history, it was the Irish.
--Hiram
But the Irish were in the country and working legally... Not so for tens of millions of those being given sanctuary today.
My point again is that the GOP doesn't pit the rural vs urban people against each other. They just support and promote views that some folks in the cities disagree with. (ie deporting illegal residents, cutting welfare and promoting working / learning, holding social services and schools accountable, etc)
Unfortunately neither Conservatives nor Liberals seems to be willing to hold the mama / papas accountable for the good of the unlucky kids.
But the Irish were in the country and working legally..
Does that meant they weren't targeted as "The other"? Anti immigrant sentiment is hardly limited to questions of legal technicalities.
"My point again is that the GOP doesn't pit the rural vs urban people against each other."
Sure they do. It's evidence that they support views people in cities disagree with. Sometimes it's thinly veiled sometimes it's pretty blatant. And it's why the GOP performs so disastrously in the cities.
The GOP also campaigns on the view that people in the cities hate those in rural areas. I know this for a fact, because I have often been accused of that myself.
--Hiram
"No one ever offered up an answer to why one of our country's wealthiest and bluest states has a severe homelessness problem?"
What's your theory, since it's so important to you?
Hiram,
I am happy to stand up for every immigrant who is in our country legally. The people who have problems with Black and Brown folks are not my friends or associates.
The whole Muslim immigrant thing is more complicated given there being some folks in that community who's beliefs are not aligned with America's. And some who would even be happy disrupting our country.
I don't know if "city folk" hate "rural folk", however I have met and corresponded with plenty of the "city folk" who think they are much smarter and more enlightened than their "rural peers". (ie urban elites)
Remember Hillary's "irredeemable deplorables"... Unfortunately that seems to be a belief shared by too many urban DEMs.
Personally I think those urban elites need to spend more time doing manual labor...
Sean,
I guess my position is that the DEMs for all their arrogance don't have it figured out either.
I mean California has every physical benefit a State can have. (ie weather, ports, arable land, tourist friendly, etc)
And with all of this going for them they still have BIG PROBLEMS...
So if becoming more "progressive" is the answer, which state has it figured out?
I am happy to stand up for every immigrant who is in our country legally.
Nevertheless Trump campaigns against immigration. Here, I am not questioning whether he is right about that. Maybe he is. Rather my point is, this is an argument always made by rural politicians against urban politicians. The legal technicalities the change, the immigrants change, but the hostility to immigration is constant.
Remember Hillary's "irredeemable deplorables". Sure and Obama remarks. Conservative operatives and interns shift through remarks made by Democrats that they can portray, rightly or not, as hostile to rural America.
--Hiram
I prefer my "lifeboat" comparison.
Liberals seem to want to let a lot of the world's most desperate, uneducated, poor, etc into the USA. Their belief apparently being that the USA is a big life boat that can handle millions of these refugees yearly with no negative consequences on our own poor uneducated citizens.
Where as Conservatives want to ensure that the immigrants who we allow in will help to improve our country, including helping our poor uneducated citizens.
Please remember that we are near a record high of foreign born (13.4% / ~43,000,000) folks living in the USA today... It is not like we have a shortage of immigrants.
Hiram,
Oh come now, it really isn't too hard to find Liberals who say condescending and insulting things about our rural citizens...
In fact they even use some very colorful words on this blog occasionally... Xenophobic, Racist, Misogynistic, etc... I just don't see or hear Conservatives doing that as often...
Usually they use terms like tree hugger, idealistic, delusional, peace lover, etc.
Oh come now, it really isn't too hard to find Liberals who say condescending and insulting things about our rural citizens...
Sure. But is that a basis for policy? But in any event this is an old tactic, playing urban and rural areas against each other. The language changes, the surfaces change, but they underlying themes are always the same.
--Hiram
You notice how the groundwork gets laid by that Republican MinnPost writer. He had an objective at the outset, to project certain aspects of liberalism to all liberals generally. That'e why he argued liberalism was "monolithic". He isn't the most sophisticated guy so he said in so many words what so many cleverer strategists only imply. Implication, rather than saying things outright, is everything in this area.
--Hiram
"I mean California has every physical benefit a State can have. (ie weather, ports, arable land, tourist friendly, etc)"
Actually, I would argue that many of those actually work against California from the standpoint of homelessness. Warm weather attracts the homeless. Coastal real estate is more expensive, making it hard to provide affordable housing options (not to mention the fact that being in an earthquake zone means that what is built has to be built to a higher degree of safety than in other areas). Tourist friendly means that a lot of jobs can have seasonal impacts.
" I just don't see or hear Conservatives doing that as often..."
You should get your vision and hearing checked.
Hiram,
To me the Liberal block does seem pretty cohesive with some far left outliers. (ie pro-abortion, pro-illegals, pro-welfare, pro-LGBT, pro-tax the rich, pro-tax the businesses, pro-unions, etc) Though I am certain there are some divides in the ranks.
Where as there are some huge cracks between folks like me and the religious right...
Sean,
What equally vilifying terms do Conservatives aim at Liberals? Maybe Socialists?
I don't know of anyone who is pro abortion. Lots of people just don't think it's anyone's business. I am for enforcing immigration laws, but the fact is, being here illegally isn't a crime. Is anyone against gay people these days? Or against taxing the rich?
--Hiram
Socialists. Communists. Godless. Elites. In some circumstances, "Urban". Just for a few...
They seem less evil than racist, etc to me.
I mean it is like calling a GOPer a capitalist... Oh my... 🤪
"Liberals seem to want to let a lot of the world's most desperate, uneducated, poor, etc into the USA. Their belief apparently being that the USA is a big life boat that can handle millions of these refugees yearly with no negative consequences on our own poor uneducated citizens."
Can you give me the name of a liberal who has suggested that we take in "millions of refugees" every year?
The odd thing about Republicans is that even as a pro capitalist party, they don't seem to understand capitalism very well. They have an extremely limited understanding of markets. They have no idea at all of how insurance works. And they think Trump is a model businessman.
We don't have a capitalist economic system as such. What we have is crony capitalism where each party has it's cronies. Businesses do have their favorite parties, but they also hedge their bets by making contributions to the other party. What is clear across the board is that the way capitalism actually works is very different from the way it is perceived by our politicians and the way it's presented by our political media.
--Hiram
Sean,
No I can not... Because typically they will never give me an answer as to how many immigrants per year should be allowed into our country.
Typically they complain that we do not accept enough people... Then I explain that in 2016 the USA legally immigrated 1,183,505 people into our country... Plus another ~400,000 illegal immigrants in and ~400,000 deported... And I ask them what would be a good number and get nothing...
On the other hand they do fight deporting the ~11,000,000 illegal residents tooth and nail... So my millions seems in the ball park.
How many immigrant and refugees do you think we should bring in each year?
Is 1.2 Million per year too much or too little?
"No I can not."
So stop saying that they do.
I think the USA does Capitalism pretty well. Except for there are people who can not afford to pay their own way because of bad luck, laziness and/or incompetency...
Then in our mixed economy the government steals from the successful to give to the unsuccessful.
From Wiki
"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.
In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets."
Sean,
I notice you neglected to give a number... :-)
And as long as there are Liberals who want to eliminate ICE and not strengthen our borders. I think my comment stands.
This is worth reading.
I think the USA does Capitalism pretty well
Maybe, but we see large areas of the country who are suffering, areas in which by the way, Trump runs very well.
--Hiram
"I notice you neglected to give a number.."
You're right. I'm not engaging you when you argue dishonestly.
Please prove me wrong / dishonest...
"Liberals seem to want to let a lot of the world's most desperate, uneducated, poor, etc into the USA. Their belief apparently being that the USA is a big life boat that can handle millions of these refugees yearly with no negative consequences on our own poor uneducated citizens."
I probably should soften it a little...
"Some number of Liberals seem to want to let a lot of the world's most desperate, uneducated, poor, etc into the USA. Their belief apparently being that the USA is a big life boat that can handle millions of these refugees and low skill / low knowledge immigrants yearly with no negative consequences on our own poor uneducated citizens."
Is that more accurate?
Here are some interesting pieces supporting my belief...
Why DEMS should support open borders
DEMs becoming Party of Open Borders
Far Left Goes Too Far
A New DEM Agenda
The last one had this interesting quote...
"Immigration policy for national greatness
Fundamentally, an affirmative progressive immigration agenda ought to view the desire of millions of foreigners to live and work in the United States as a source of national strength.
Despite China’s impressive record of economic growth over the past 25 years, people are clamoring to move here, not there. That’s an opportunity for the United States to maintain its stature as the world’s largest economy and only superpower, while raising incomes for native-born Americans and reducing income inequality."
I am not sure how they plan to be "raising incomes for native-born Americans and reducing income inequality" by flooding our work force with low skill / low knowledge workers.
There are certainly lots of things to say about immigration policy. Certainly it could be improved. But what is interesting to me is the decision to make immigration a central issue in our politics. It's an ancient political tactic going back deep in our history and the history of other nations. It's us v. them. It's playing on the fear of the other. And what it's used for is diverting attention from real issues that matter, and about which something can be done.
--Hiram
What issues are those?
Are they not in someway related to having ~11,000,000 illegal workers and/or burdens on our systems?
I mean per the VOX quote, it may be great for many of us in America if we flooded the work force with lots of low cost labor.
However my basic economics understanding is that providing a big supply drives down wages...
Kind of the opposite of what most of us want to see happen.
People are burdens on our system no matter what their legal status. And bear in mind that being here illegally, unlike double parking, is not a crime.
--Hiraam
Apparently being here illegally is similar to parking illegally. Both have legal consequences for the offending party. Just not in the criminal court.
Actually our country is made up of ~320 million citizens, legal residents and illegal residents. Many are net providers to our society who enable the people who are net burdens to our society to be assisted and cared for by the government and charities.
Unfortunately as more net burden folks are added to our society, the burden on the net providers increases...
Post a Comment