I keep hearing how "we need a viable conservative party." Why? What for?

[thucythucy]

What have conservatives ever offered us but trickle down economics, nostalgia for "the good old days" of racial segregation, "family values" i.e. sexism and homophobia, red-baiting, environmental havoc and the shredding of the social safety net?

And why prop up a Republican party that has been morally bankrupt since the says of Dwight D. Eisenhower? (And even Eisenhower refused to take on Joseph McCarthy until McCarthy went after the army).

I'm ready for Democrats to steer this country for a couple of decades, as they did from 1933 to 1952, giving us Social Security, the New Deal, and in the 1960s Medicare and Medicaid.

Just imagine what President Biden and Vice President Harris could do without the ball and chain that the GOP has been for this country now for decades.

[nycbos]

1. To be a fully functioning democracy we need a rational opposition party.

[Irish_Dem]

2. When in our lifetimes has it been a rational opposition party?

[GulfCoast66]

11. For a good bit of my life.

Like it or not a shit ton of Americans don’t agree our prescription is best for making a more prosperous America. But some still support the general idea of elections and the rule of law. Think the Lincoln Project republicans. They are totally incorrect in their policy ideas but still support the law.

Remember, in today’s GOP Reagan would be a RINO.

Because none of my republican friends are religious nuts and have never loved trump we still have good relations. They just don’t agree Government can solve big problems, perhaps because they have never been in the position to need the help. They are delusional and wrong.

I don’t automatically categorize those who disagree with my ideas as bad. Other actions are required.

[Irish_Dem]

12. Not for my lifetime.

Nixon
Regan
Bush jr
Trump

Lying, cheating crooks, the lot of them.

[GulfCoast66]

15. Your reply rebuts your premise. Nixon only resigned because republicans told him they would impeach

Disagreeing with our policy is not the same as being disloyal to the constitution.

[thucythucy]

18. Nixon didn't "only" resign because Goldwater asked him to.

That came at the end of a long, agonizing process during which most Republicans defended Nixon to the bitter end.

In the meantime the majority of the country turned against him. His hand picked vice president had to resign and was then criminally indicted and pled no contest. His attorney general also had to resign, and was also indicted and convicted. As were all his closest aides--Halderman, Erlichmann, etc. Nixon fired a special prosecutor, tried to fire another. And then tapes came out where he was heard in the Oval Office personally directing the cover up through bribes of the crimes he'd ordered carried out, crimes which he'd spent two years denying.

Then too, his taxes were being audited and it looked as though he might go to prison for tax fraud. So he brokered a deal wherein he'd resign but then be pardoned by Ford. If not for that deal I wonder if he would have resigned at all .

Even then there were Republicans still against him leaving. But at the end the firestorm of opposition all across the country rendered him unable to govern. THAT, and the threat of criminal prosecution, is why he resigned.

Then too, corrupt and ruthless as he was, Nixon did have a sense of shame. Besides which, the stress clearly got to him. So Goldwater appearing was the final straw, and offered him an out with some sense of dignity.

There was a huge amount of backstory that led to that "only" that you cite.

[GulfCoast66]

21. Today that would not matter to republicans.

Back then republicans supported his conviction. You may disagree, but even if there were film of trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue I don’t think we would get 67 votes to convict.

This conversation is not about arguing republicans have ever been Saints, hardly. And certainly not saying they are now. But as a southerner I can’t forget that without republican support the civil rights act would not have passed. So yeah, there was a time they had a real conscience and would vote with the president of an opposing party.

On a totally different note, our back and forth is text book example of how dangerous typing about politics on the internet becomes. If we were sitting next to each other in a bar over a beer, or a cafe over a coffee we would be having a cordial, agreeable conversation. But go online and we all, myself included, find the Picayune item to argue about! Like how bad were republicans 50 years ago!

We agree they are total shit today and we support President Biden.

You have a very nice evening. And if you live up north be careful and stay warm. I can’t imagine those temperatures!

[thucythucy]

23. Yeah, it's a mite chilly tonight!

And I didn't mean to stomp on you, and I apologize.

And yes, I agree with what you're saying.

I just have a real thing about Nixon. It's personal as well as political.

Best wishes and you also--have a nice evening--or a good night, depending on whatever time zone you're in.

[GulfCoast66]

25. Hell, you did not stomp on me! I can take and give!

But now I’m about to stomp all over you...

It’s 10:42pm here. I’m sitting in my garage with the doors open wearing a T-shirt and shorts!

Call me Florida Man all night long tonight! Don’t care.

Seriously, enjoyed the back and forth. Conversation with those who agree with you all the time is boring!

Stay warm.

Have a good weekend and for gods sake, wear a mask and stay safe! As I know you do. Thanks to Joe we ate 4 months from being out of this nightmare!

[thucythucy]

26. Best to you too.

But brrrrrr it's cold.

Then again, no alligators.

You stay safe too.

[JonLP24]

22. Support the rule of law?

Lincoln Project Crumbles After Intelligencer Report on Sexual Predator

The Lincoln Project, a supergroup of “Never Trump” Republican campaign veterans, imploded Friday following Intelligencer’s report that the Lincoln Project was accused of protecting co-founder and sexual predator John Weaver.

Steve Schmidt, the most visible face of the Lincoln Project, resigned from the organization he helped found on Friday evening. Earlier that day, the company’s chief spokesperson Kurt Bardella also stepped down. The night before, the Lincoln Project descended into civil war: Schmidt tweeted from the Lincoln Project’s account private messages from a recently departed co-founder, accusing her and a reporter of preparing a “hit job” on the political action committee. George Conway, another co-founder, called on the Lincoln Project to launch an independent investigation after Intelligencer’s “disturbing and appalling” report. Through it all, multiple former employees and associates demanded the Lincoln Project release them from nondisclosure agreements so they may speak openly about the company and Weaver.

On Thursday, Intelligencer reported that the Lincoln Project was warned last June by an employee that Weaver — a co-founder and two-time campaign aide to John McCain — had preyed on a man inside the company and may be using his position to groom new victims by dangling job opportunities to young men he sent sexually explicit messages to without their consent. (The Associated Press was the first to report on the complaint.) Two men told Intelligencer they were offered jobs by Weaver following the warning to the company, including one who said Weaver continued to prey on him after he started as an intern last summer.

Though the Lincoln Project and it’s co-founders deny any knowledge of the accusations against Weaver until this year, the warning in June was sent to co-founder Ron Steslow who shared it with co-founder Reed Galen and the company’s corporate counsel. Weaver went on “medical leave” in August, but reappeared inside the company in October — and appeared on a 60 Minutes segment about the group. By that time, former employees told Intelligencer, the accusations against Weaver were an open secret inside the Lincoln Project; co-founders Rick Wilson and Schmidt were quoted at a staff party disparaging Weaver and saying it’s “being taken care of.”

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/02/steve-schmidt-quits-lincoln-project-amid-john-weaver-scandal.html

This article was published on Abraham Lincoln's birthday. I'm just glad I never supported The Lincoln Project.

[GulfCoast66]

32. Good god, I'm not defending today's republicans. Nor necessarily the Lincoln Project republicans.

Who I really don’t much about except they hate trump.

The subject was a party opposing ours and such. In my older lifetime they did not reject the constitution like they are now. Without republican support the civil rights law would not have passed. And the did force Nixon out.

I’m not defending today’s republicans. They are a authoritarian party. Fascist actually.

But in the past both parties, although having very different ideas on how to improve America were at least loyal to the constitution.

And we need that again. Where we are now is super dangerous. Either elect democrats or kiss your democracy goodbye. That is different that I was a younger.

[KentuckyWoman]

30. That has (mostly) been my experience as well.

I have lived long enough to have friends and acquaintances with all sort of ideas about how the future should look. The disagreements have nearly always been respectful.

Although I nearly lost my brother to Trump world, Jan 6 yanked him back. Some of those I know, who lived more affluent lives, insist on running with the tax cut crowd. I can "bust their chops" and keep trying to put a dent in the armor regularly. In turn they do the same.

Many have gone independent or libertarian. Few are still willing to hold with Republicans. It is not just Trump. There are just too many skunks under the porch. It is pretty bad when Mitt is the good guy ....

[GulfCoast66]

33. Oh, I'm not arguing that any of their leaders a worth a bucket of spit

When Romney is the best they got they got nothing.

But one of my best friends and the father of my grown god kids is a republican. Of course back then I was as well! Perhaps that is one reason I don’t write every republican voter off. I was one but am now a social democrat.

We went to Italy and Germany with he and his wife 2 years ago. The wife and I have been fortunate enough to go there 10 times for multiple weeks each time. Including working there for 7 weeks in the late 90’s. It changed my life. Since then I have seen a change in him. He was a self identified republican. Now he says he is a libertarian and hates trump. Skipped the president election this time. I’m not pushing him too hard but I think within 4 years he may be a democrat. Unfortunately his wife has not worked since the adult kids were born and spends all day watching conservative news. I think there is only so far he can go and maintain peace in the house. At least(as far as I know) she is not in the Q shit.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

3. Why

Dems are the only rational ones left.

Shut out the republicans they are out to destroy government,rule of law,the constitution,human rights,they abuse power and they are sociopaths. There is no reasoning with republicans and no reason they should be trusted.

Biden, roll over the republican party and fuck them all.

[nycbos]

8. Indeed.

That is my point. You can't reason with them.

I am saying the country would be better off with a rational opposition. People you would disagree with on the overwhelmingly majority of issues but aren't a threat to democracy and the rule of law.

[LeftInTX]

53. Wish we could shut out the republicans in Texas!

They crazy ones now rule the state and want to impose the worst voter suppression imaginable.

[thucythucy]

9. That's not what the founding fathers thought.

They generally abhorred the idea of political parties.

Still, we do need a rational opposition, and options. Emphasis here on the word "rational."

But at this point I don't think the Republican Party fills that role.

[GulfCoast66]

13. I agree. But they unintentionally created a system of government that requires them.

If we had a parliamentary system with 800 members like Germany the country would way different. And there would still be parties. It’s what humans do. We group with others to achieve common goals.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. We either have two parties that agree with the basic underlying premises

of a constitutional democratic republic, or we have a democratic party and an anti democratic party.

I know which option I prefer.

A single party state isn't going to happen, unless our party gets eliminated by the nascent fascist party.

[TeamPooka]

7. this

[thucythucy]

10. Exactly.

[TomSlick]

14. Exactly!

If there is not a conservative party that stands for democracy, it will be replaced by a party that is conservative and anti-democratic - i.e. fascists.

[GulfCoast66]

16. Bingo. There will always be a Conservative party.

And they will always be powerful. It’s human nature.

But it’s if they decide, as many apparently have, that power is more important than democracy that we are in jeopardy. Today’s republicans give a shit about democracy.

[LeftInTX]

52. Yep, they aren't going away

And this crazy, "further to the right" is hurting those of us in red states.

Now we've got crazy Allen West running the GOP in Texas. They want to pass the most draconian voter restrictions imaginable. Then what???

[bamagal62]

5. We need 2 honest parties.

And, we need to get money out of it. We also need to stop all the lobbying crap.

[Hekate]

27. Yes. Citizens United needs to be overturned and expunged. nt

[tonedevil]

6. It's been hella better in Cali...

since we reduced our Republican party to the size where we can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. A conservative party in the tradition of Edmund Burke would be a worthy rival.

Sadly the Republican party will never be that.

[Hortensis]

19. Might as well ask why we need representative government

Trump could solve that problem. If we went to a dictatorship we not only would not need political parties, but those who tried to form any might well disappear into political prisons or be publicly executed for their crimes, as warnings to others.

[thucythucy]

37. I don't agree it's the same thing at all.

No one is legislating the GOP out of existence or imprisoning its leaders--unless they're going around murdering police and trying to overthrow the government.

The national GOP is self destructing -- driving out anyone who isn't blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic or a conspiracy loon. That's hardly the same as us disappearing them into political prisons.

And if no conservative party arrives to take its place in the near future, we might actually be able to start to tackle issues like wealth disparity, climate change, and the pathetic state of our public health and infrastructure, and the appalling disparity in racial justice.

For all intents and purposes the US was a one party state--on the national level anyway--from 1934 to 1948--when Democrats were able to pass Social Security, the GI Bill of Rights, and all the rest of the New Deal reforms. And when Democrats had overwhelming majorities in both chambers of Congress and the White House we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Not to mention confirming Thurgood Marshall as Supreme Court justice.

What might happen is the Democratic Party, with no organized (or sane) national conservative opposition, might split into a Center Party and a Progressive Left Party.

I think the GOP will survive on a state level in the red states, where it will continue to degrade the lives of people there, relying as always on the federal government and subsidies from the blue states to bail them out as needed.

But the GOP as a national party may well sink into irrelevance, taking the conservative movement with it. And not a moment too soon.

[Hortensis]

39. You posted about any conservative party at all. Conservatism

is not a movement that can pass, it's a deeply embedded way of seeing and reacting to the world, literally genetically coded and enhanced by culture/environment from childhood on. An MRI of the brain can often reveal whether a person is liberal or conservative just by which areas are comparatively larger and smaller, but behavioral differences make orientation already discernible in young children.

Regarding representative government, roughly half (possibly more) of humanity are overall conservative and they're not changing. Most of the rest are overall liberal. We have far more in common than otherwise, but...those differences!

Speaking of environment, the peoples and cultures of hot climates (plus others that make survival difficult) are overall more conservative than those of temperate climates. A quick glance at political maps of our nation and the globe can confirm this. A thought for the next time the subject of global warming and climate disasters comes to mind. It's not the kind of movement you referred to, but America's hot regions are expanding.

[thucythucy]

41. I'm always skeptical about arguments that say certain political behaviors

Last edited Sat Feb 13, 2021, 11:03 AM - Edit history (1)

are "literally genetically encoded." It may be true, but after our national experience with the "science" of eugenics I reserve judgment on such absolute determinism.

Conservativism is I think most often a result of upbringing and environment. Indeed, the choice of politics or religion is most often correlated with the religion or politics of one's family. And before you jump to the conclusion that this is proof of "genetics" it's good to recall that correlation is not necessarily proof of causation. Even the differences in brain structure you cite can beg the question of which comes first--these differences, or factors in the environment that can influence neurological development in young children.

In a "conservative" culture we now have a majority of people supporting President Biden's Covid relief and rescue plan. This despite decades of right wing demonization of all things Democratic and anything to do with "big government." Similarly, the US was by all accounts far more conservative as a culture in the early 1930s than it is today. And yet FDR's "radical" fixes for the economy meant five presidential wins and an unshaken majority in the House for something like nine election cycles. Remember conservatives (who back then had factions in both parties) opposed the GI Bill of Rights, which meant the only way Republicans were able to win the White House in 1952 was by nominating a war hero who by today's standards was pretty far left of center. Indeed, if not for the Korean War stalemate, and Eisenhower's statement that "no sane person" would want to repeal Social Security, that winning streak for Democrats could well have extended to 1968.

If we lose the conservative opposition long enough for people to actually experience how Democratic and liberal policies can help them economically, and won't necessarily hurt them socially (i.e. they won't be forced to turn gay, be put into FEMA work camps, forced to convert to Islam and obey Sharia law, etc. etc.) we could see an even further swing in favor of Democratic and liberal policies. As it is, many of the policies we identify as "liberal"--paid maternal leave and sick time, subsidies for child and adult day care, even President Obama's health care act--when polled without that label--gain the favor of majorities across the board.

In any case the GOP certainly won't disappear at the state and local levels. People whose family and friends have been conservative Republican, especially in rural areas, for generations--largely as a result not of genetics but of decades of unabated talk radio, church sermons, and Fox News--aren't going to cast aside that inclination. Which I think is a shame. But even such red states as West Virginia used to be home to what we would now consider to be a "radical" labor movement which began to founder only when the economy shifted from smokestack to service.

I'm not saying we don't need an opposition party. But I don't see why we should support any efforts, even rhetorical, to save the GOP from the consequences of its own destructive and even treasonous behaviors.

Edited to add: I would also point out that, despite the perception of the American public being so "conservative," Democrats have won the popular vote--and generally by impressive margins--in seven out of the last eight presidential elections. This despite voter suppression of urban, young, and most especially Black voters--all of whom favor Democrats by impressive margins--the likes of which we haven't seen since before passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

[Hortensis]

46. There's no absolute determinism, and I'm surprised you found

it in my post. To underline, researchers have found that culture's usually much stronger than basic wirings (which themselves vary greatly), but all the very complex dynamics that affect personality and behavior can come into play to different degrees.

Here in rural GA I know a number of lifelong conservatives who talk and vote conservative but I feel confident would be liberal if they grew up in a blue community -- because of their tolerance and acceptance of differences and, as Jane Austen put it, of a "liberality of ideas." That's compared to those I believe would be conservative anywhere.

How many times have we read about people surprising their friends by "changing horribly" -- over time, or got a new girlfriend, moved from Boston to Oklahoma City, discovered Trump, developed the wisdom to realize liberals were wrong about almost everything, etc. They didn't have a brain transplant. They matured, developed awareness and connected with forums and new friends who gave them validation.

"I'm not saying we don't need an opposition party. But I don't see why we should support any efforts, even rhetorical, to save the GOP from the consequences of its own destructive and even treasonous behaviors." Didn't know anyone was, but of course there must be some somewhere. Not me. I agree with you there, andt he various prescriptions for the grave problem of the GOP are now usually, as Elizabeth Bennett said, "in fact...quite the opposite."

[thucythucy]

47. Well, you did say

"literally genetically encoded," which I took to mean "literally genetically encoded."

Aside from that we probably agree on most issues, so I'll leave it at that.

I very much enjoyed the Bidens' chat on the White House lawn this morning. It's so refreshing to have such a down to earth couple in the White House, after four years of the monster-in-chief and his "I really don't care do U?" third lady.

Best wishes, and happy Valentine's Day weekend.

[Hortensis]

49. Yup. Just occurred to me that the third wife's despicable

"I don't care" coat fits their "owning the libs" pathology where conservatives sabotage and humiliate themselves to spite Democrats. Attack dogs now chortling in glee at savaging their own ankles.

Thinking of the Bidens is a nice antidote to that.

[NoMoreRepugs]

20. The RePutinicans would LOVE to have a one party country.

[Hekate]

24. A one-party country will crumble because of the "absolute power" axiom...

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In the two-party system that we have, we need each party to be “the loyal opposition” to the other — not to be seen as “the enemy.” As each branch of government is designed to be a check on the others, so does each party have that obligation as well. Checks and balances.

Democrats did not break the system — Republicans did that, and they own it. I would like the Rs to heal themselves, but barring that I’d be quite happy to have them split and create a Reform party. Anything to repudiate the dysfunctional hot mess we currently have.

But a single party? Be careful what you wish for.

[BannonsLiver]

29. There are plenty of people here who would be just fine with absolute power in perpetuity.

That’s why I can never really convince myself that even though we are right on most of the issues we don’t share some basic commonalities with the other side that are not great.

[Hekate]

31. Exactly so

[thucythucy]

42. Not "perpetuity"

and certainly not "absolute."

If by "absolute" you mean unfettered by law, due process, and the Constitution, then no, not what I want at all.

And not "perpetuity." Just long enough for liberal policies to be enacted and actually take hold.

Social Security was almost violently opposed by conservatives as the first step on the road to Stalinism. As was Medicare--which Reagan told us in 1964 would lead to the total stripping away of our democratic freedoms. But those programs remained in place long enough so that--despite repeated Republican efforts to undermine, dismantle, and destroy them--the vast majority of Americans oppose any such tampering with these highly successful programs. Just one result: prior to the passage of Social Security a huge percentage of the elderly lived in poverty, a figure that has been substantially and hopefully permanently lowered. Even conservatives--who might not recognize these programs as "Big Bad Government"--support these programs, hence the "Keep the government out of my Medicare" signs we used to see at Tea Party rallies.

If we could institute such popularly supported programs as paid parental leave, substantial government subsidies for child care and adult day care, adequate medical leave, and massive investments in green infrastructure--most of which have been in place in European democracies for decades--and keep them in place long enough to show results--all these "liberal" ideas would become so mainstream as to be unalterable. Add to this a return to progressive tax policies of the 1950s and '60s, investment in public school education and community mental health options, and yes, raising the minimum wage to a rate equivalent to what it was in the 1970s, and we'd see an enormous shift in American life, and all for the better.

Conservatives can then compete all they want for the vote--as indeed they're able to compete now. But if we could just put a lid on their anti-government wrecking long enough for all those reforms to reach fruition the country would, to paraphrase Nixon's infamous Attorney General Mitchell, "swing so far to the left you won't be able to recognize it."

Oh--and add to that holding power long enough to return the Supreme Court and federal judiciary to the standards we had when Thurgood Marshall was confirmed--and this nation would indeed have the potential to become that "shining city on a hill" conservatives always claim us to be.

All this is possible, but not as long as the national Republican Party or some similar national conservative party holds its current outsized power and ability to obstruct, derail, distract and destroy.

To sum it all up for a bumper-sticker: "Republicans are why we can't have nice things." To which I would add, "conservatives as well."

[BannonsLiver]

28. I think the point is a sane opposition

I’m not under the delusion that Dems will always be in power. So when we lose some, and we will, the results are not catastrophic as seen between 2016-20.

If you can figure out a way for the opposition to dissolve into the ether I’m all ears, but that doesn’t sound very realistic.

[thucythucy]

43. It will be tough

to bring about their "dissolving into the ether"--but it's not impossible.

The best way, and only way I can think of at the moment, is for President Biden's administration to use this two year window--and especially this first year--to push through a series of reforms which he pledged to do during the campaign. Passage of his Covid rescue plan would be first on the list. If President Biden and Vice President Harris can be seen to have brought the pandemic under control--or even to an end--and return life and the economy to something resembling what it was prior to Trump, I think this success will be rewarded in the midterms. Which is why Republicans are so desperate to delay and diminish the full plan. This is what they did to President Obama. They had him compromise so much of his plan in 2009 that it took an extra year to bear fruit--well after the midterms, which saw the GOP take back the House and Senate, and thus derail pretty much everything else he wanted to do. It looks like Biden has learned the lesson--that the GOP doesn't ever negotiate in good faith. Even now there are GOP senators saying they'd favor censuring Trump as opposed to convicting him. This is an obvious ploy to keep the Republican Senate caucus on board for acquittal. Once that happens, those same GOP senators will suddenly discover they're actually opposed to censure as well.

If the Biden administration is successful enough for us to keep the House and expand the majority in the Senate (which the numbers right now favor us to do) then we could see more popular efforts underway, such as I described in a previous post in this thread. Biden may not run in 2024, but I hope Vice President Harris will, and that she will be elected, and then re-elected. Twelve years of control is what we need to turn this country around in ways that can't be altered by a single GOP administration. FDR/Truman had twenty years, but I suppose that's too much to hope for.

Even twelve years will be a challenge. But having Democrats and pundits out there talking about how we "need" a strong conservative party isn't helpful. What we desperately need--most especially in order to work toward racial justice and to take serious measures to make the transition away from a fossil fuel dependent economy--is Democratic control of the levers of political power. Which can only happen, at least for now, if conservatives remain in disarray and unorganized. Otherwise we're doomed to repeat the cycle of Republicans fuck things up, Democrats get elected and repair the damage, only to have Republicans back in power to fuck things up again. And each spin around the cycle things get worse.

This dynamic has to end. And it can only happen with national conservatives reduced to a pittance of their present political selves. Hence my OP: who needs conservatives at a time like this? FDR welcomed their hatred. We should welcome, at least for the next decade or more, their political impotence.

[BannonsLiver]

55. I'm not sure I made myself clear

The point is there will always be people who don’t agree with us. Always.

[ck4829]

34. Yes. Why does that opposition party NEED to be the GQP? Does it NEED to be conservative even?

Why can't the opposition party be, say, a Marxist party?

[LeftInTX]

54. Because no one votes for them?

[ck4829]

58. How do we fix this?

The Republican Party is no longer a worthy opponent. No longer worthy of being "the other side of the aisle".

I'm going to have to agree with the OP here.

[Hamlette]

35. Maher made a compelling argument on his show tonight

He is in California where almost all political jobs are held by Dems and he has been trying for years to get permission to install solar panels.

[thucythucy]

44. Arguing by anecdote generally doesn't do it for me.

And does Maher seriously believe if there was a stronger conservative Republican presence in California that he'd have an easier time installing his panels?

If so he's being delusional.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

36. Because a positive feedback loop is self-destructive. See, e.g., GQP.

[thucythucy]

45. And why would the demise of a national conservative party--

especially one that sees undermining democracy as its best and only way to gain or retain power--necessarily mean we'd be locked into a "positive feedback loop?"

There would still be primaries, after all. And right wing corporate media. And megachurches.

If anything Democrats have been too willing to listen to conservatives, affording their absurd and discredited notions--trickle down economics is a perfect instance, tax cuts for the rich as a benefit to the middle class--way too much credibility.

Democratic candidates have won the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections. The number of votes cast for Democratic senators is vastly more than those cast for Republicans (and yet the Senate is split 50 50). And this has happened despite GOP efforts to suppress voter turnout the likes of which we haven't seen since passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I endorse the slogan "Republicans are why we can't have nice things." Such as a democracy that works in the interest of the vast majority of its citizens.

Seriously, I doubt the party of Clinton, Gore, Obama, Biden, Harris, Warren et. al would ever allow itself to fall into a "positive feedback loop" such as the GOP has been in now for decades. But if that's the risk of having enough political power to turn this country away from self immolation, it's a risk I'd be willing to take.

[Azathoth]

38. Close to a third of the country are conservatives

Not all of them are inherent racists, fascists, and/or religious fanatics. If there is no viable conservative party to represent them and keep them part of the mainstream democratic process, they're not suddenly going to disappear or become liberals. They're either going to pile into the Democratic party and pull it right, or they're going to buckle down and embrace the illiberal, authoritarian cult that is the current Trump Party. Either way, both the Democratic party and the country are going to suffer.

Our political system is the same as our judicial system: both seek to resolve conflicts through a regulated adversarial process. Waste, abuse, corruption, and poor governance are kept in check by pitting one side against the other so that each will keep the other honest. If you want to see where one-party rule eventually leads, just look at the first two years of Trump. Congress not only abandoned its adversarial oversight role, it actively colluded with the lawbreaker-in-chief. Just because Democrats aren't currently anywhere near that debased and anti-democratic doesn't mean they couldn't get there after a couple decades of unchecked power with no accountability.

And finally, while this might be sacrilege on DU, not all conservative ideas are completely without merit. Sometimes taxes *can* get too high, sometimes the private sector *can* perform a function more effectively and efficiently than government, etc. Having two sane, responsible parties opposing each other helps keep their policies from drifting too far from the sensibilities of the majority.

[thucythucy]

48. A third alternative not mentioned in your first paragraph is

that they might leave the GOP to form another political party, the way liberal Whigs left to form the Republican Party in the 1850s. This certainly seems to be what's happening now, at least on the national level. I think a lot will depend on the success or failure of the new Biden administration.

And yeah, sometimes some taxes can be too high, but that hasn't been true of federal income taxes as an aggregate since the 1950s, if then. As it is the tax burden has shifted downward, off the top brackets and down into the middle class, especially when you consider how Social Security payroll tax is capped and the tax on capitol gains has been so drastically lowered. Property taxes throughout much of the country remain too high, but that's mainly because it's the primary way we finance public education. Shifting that funding into, say, a state wide general income tax fund would go a long away to solving generational poverty. In western Europe even the poorest children have a chance at a decent education, since the money is split more or less evenly between localities. Here, if you live in a poor neighborhood chances are good your kids will go to a poor school, which in so many cases means that familial poverty will continue on into the future.

I find most conservative critiques of liberal policies to be unconvincing. There's nothing magical about the private sector, especially when unregulated. Private prisons, charter schools, mercenary outfits like Black Water, none of them impress me as being notably more effective than government run prisons, public schools, or the regular US military. In fact, quite the opposite. Private efforts at space flight are still mostly tentative, a half century after government run NASA put men on the moon. The Jules Verne notion of private enterprise funding interplanetary space exploration is still science fiction.

The most convincing argument for an opposing party is to try to keep corruption in check. But this hardly seems to be a priority among current Republicans, or even current conservatives. We've just lived through four years of what is arguably the most corrupt administration in American history, certainly the most corrupt since Harding. I haven't seen much evidence of conservatives caring much about any of it.

By contrast, Senator Harry Truman's claim to national fame was his bulldog investigations into corruption at the War Dept. during FDR's third term. Unlike the current Republican Party, which is now censuring anyone breaking ranks even after an actual, literal, bona fide attempt to overthrow the Republic, Democrats in 1944 "punished" Truman by giving him the Vice Presidential nomination. Look at the difference between how Democrats responded to Senator Franken's alleged misdeeds, and Jim Jordan's ignoring the sexual abuse of young men he was coaching at Ohio State. One doesn't need to be in an opposing party to fight corruption. One merely needs to have a moral compass.

I honestly didn't see Democrats abandoning their oversight responsibility during the first two years of the Obama administration, did you? Nor during the first two years of Clinton, or four years of Carter. In fact, the most vociferous opposition to LBJ--if you want to go back even farther--was from Democrats like McGovern and RFK.

The need for an opposition party to fight corruption seems to be salient only when Republicans hold power, at least on the national level. Honestly, I don't see any real argument for the continuation of a national conservative party, aside from, as you say, giving conservatives a chance to rant and feel listened to. Which they have ample opportunities to do, given their control of so much media and their grip on much of mainstream religion. To give them such a huge voice in national politics seems not only unfair to the rest of us, but actually dangerous to the continuation of our small d democracy.

But then I of course could be wrong about all of this.

[Azathoth]

57. ...

they might leave the GOP to form another political party

Sure, but this effectively just reestablishes the traditional political landscape by replacing the GOP with a new mainstream conservative party and once again quarantining the Bircher freaks, this time within the tiny remains of the rump GOP. Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely to happen as a practical matter, for the same reason it's unlikely that moderates or progressives and socialists would split from the Dems: they know they'd be splitting their coalition and consigning themselves to irrelevance for the foreseeable future. Most people aren't stupid. They realize it's better to be locked in an alliance where they may have some tiny influence, rather than locked out in the cold where they will have none at all. The only way a meaningful new party is going to emerge is if it can quickly pull enough support to reach some level of parity with its opponents.

that hasn't been true of federal income taxes

Well, two observations. 1) That's a reasonable claim, but it's by no means an accepted fact. 2) If we assume you're correct and federal taxes aren't too high, then you have to consider that fact in light of conservative counterpressure for the last half century. Can we say with reasonable certainty that they wouldn't be too high right now without all those decades of conservatives fighting to lower them?

the tax burden has shifted downward

It certainly has.

There's nothing magical about the private sector

No, but the point is that when one side reflexively looks to government to solve every issue, and other reflexively looks to the private sector, and both sides are rational, you will (hopefully) get a competitive process where the most effective solutions eventually emerge based on demonstrated superiority.

Look at the difference between how Democrats responded to Senator Franken's alleged misdeeds

Yes, and also look at the absolute rage here on DU and elsewhere in the Dem base directed at those Democrats. It's no exaggeration to say that Gillibrand's chances of being on the 2020 ticket pretty much ended after she turned on Franken. The impulse to enforce party loyalty and overlook the misdeeds of those who you agree with ideologically is not exclusive to the GOP.

Incidentally, I'm not arguing that Franken did anything he needed to resign over. But let's take a more troublesome case: Cuomo. Anyone who wasn't a complete party apparatchik knows, and has known for some time, that he screwed up big with his nursing home order. But since there's really no effective, responsible opposition party in NY anymore, there was no serious oversight to hold him accountable in real-time when it might have mattered, and he was allowed to bluster his way through until the press forced him to change course, and then he was allowed to conceal the effects of the policy and stonewall legislative inquiries.

I honestly didn't see Democrats abandoning their oversight responsibility during the first two years of the Obama administration, did you?

Well, as I said in my previous post, we have to be careful here, because Democrats objectively are orders of magnitude less depraved and contemptuous of our constitutional form of government. So no, nothing the Dems did during Obama's first two years are even within the same solar system as what the GOP did during Trump's first two years. But let's be brutally honest: I don't recall too many hard-hitting oversight hearings and waves of subpoenas of Obama officials being issued circa 2009-2010.

I don't see any real argument for the continuation of a national conservative party, aside from, as you say, giving conservatives a chance to rant and feel listened to

Considering that self-identified conservatives still outnumber self-identified liberals/progressives by around 10 points, they could easily make the same argument about having a liberal party.

[DFW]

40. I'm OK with "convervative" as defined in English, not Republicanese

Republicans, Fox Noise and National Hate Radio have re-defined "conservative" to mean "radical right wing with fascist tendencies." In English, it just means cautious, reluctant to risk, or just adherent to old-fashioned ways. This notion that the word now means hate-filled, authoritarian, xenophobic, fear-filled, religiously fanatic and greedy is one put forth by the Republican Party in the last 60 years, not Webster's. There is a reason Republicans wave bibles around and not dictionaries.

If a truly conservative (English meaning, not Republicanese) party exists as a counterbalance to any arising of fascist tendencies in our own party, and they can appear from the left as easily as from the right, I don't see that as a danger. No, we don't want any more Trumps, Cheneys of Joseph McCarthys, but we don't want Stalin, Mao, Ulbricht or Pol Pot, either.

[thucythucy]

50. The basic flaw in your argument can be seen in the examples you cite.

Trump, Cheney, and Joseph McCarthy were actual players on our political scene, put forth by conservative Republicans and nurtured and supported by conservatives through most if not all of their political careers.

By contrast, Stalin, Mao, Ulbricht and Pol Pot were hardly American political figures endorsed by the Democratic Party. For goodness sakes, I mean really! I can't think of a single American liberal Democrat calling for the collectivization of American farms, a "Cultural Revolution" to exterminate intellectuals and all foreign influence on our culture, the imposition of a Stasi secret police force or building a wall around our borders, or the mass evacuation of urban populations and the extermination of educated elites. "The Kulaks must be eliminated as a class" has never been a plank in any Democratic platform of which I've ever been aware.

So who pray tell would be the Democratic equivalent of Trump, Cheney, and McCarthy? What Democratic president in power in the last hundred years has been anywhere near as destructive to American politics and the American people as these Republicans you cite? I might offer up LBJ and his disastrous Vietnam misadventure, certainly a major foreign policy blunder with horrific consequences here and in Asia, but in that instance the most vociferous critics were liberal Democrats like George McGovern and Mike Mansfield. Most Republicans supported the war, and their criticism of LBJ was that he wasn't fighting it viciously enough.

I see no equivalence whatsoever between the current Democratic Party and the current Republican Party. Nor do I see any attractive features to American conservatism. Nor do I see any possibility of left leaning Democrats devolving into Stalinism or some such obscenity. But I'm certainly willing to have my mind changed on any of these, given enough evidence.

[DFW]

51. Just because the Nina Turners of this world have not been given the free rein that Trump has

That does not mean that, given the chance, they wouldn't do the same or worse. I don't trust extremist demagogues in power from any direction.

American "conservatism" has nothing to do with the word "conservative," by the way, any more than the German Democratic Republic was Democratic or Republic. The wall in Potsdam where Putin oversaw the execution of unrepentant opponents of their brand of socialism still has the bullet holes in it (or did three years ago). You can use any label you want.

Agreed on there being no equivalence between the Democratic and Republican parties, but I also subscribe to the notion that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The current benevolence of the leadership of the Democratic Party is no guarantee that it stays that way if allowed sole rule of a one-party state for forty years.

[JonLP24]

56. Nina Turner?

Whatever you think of her she isn't the same or worse than Trump.

She was an Ohio State Senator and I don't know if she has a chance of winning but she is popular with some people in the district she is running in.