Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 111 to 114 of 114

Thread: Great Republican Ideas

  1. Top | #111
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    25,088
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    35,565
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Are the Republicans wrong to want to set a pretty firm stance against China's continued economic and military expansion?
    Economic expansion, ceteris paribus, is a good thing for the world, regardless of where it's happening.

    Military expansion is not. But I am doubtful that the Chinese position in that regard has changed significantly in the last several decades. What's changed is just the focus of the Western news media. China is still doing the same old sabre rattling, face saving, quasi-belligerent bullshitting that they've done since forever. But now it's making the news. Which makes me highly suspicious of the newsmen, and only very slightly suspicious of China.

    China tends to direct its unpleasantness inwards, not outwards. They've got enough trouble handling their domestic enemies not to want foreign ones. The smart move, given China's historical foreign policy, is to maintain the status quo of polite but firm containment.

    Insofar as Republicans want to be less polite and more firm, I would say that they are very wrong indeed.

  2. Top | #112
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    25,088
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    35,565
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    Okay, another bump.
    Not one Republican or "conservative" has come forward to articulate a single policy, idea or vision being advanced by the current Republican cabal.
    Not even the bad or terrible ideas that are held to be great ideas by Republican leadership (e.g. voter suppression, lower taxes on the rich etc.).
    None of them has come forth here (or anywhere else on this site AFAIK) to condemn The Big Lie or those who promulgate it.

    It really does appear that our resident "conservatives" are the equals of the intellectually, ethically and morally bankrupt leaders of the right wing extremist movement that is afoot in the United States.
    I largely agree with your post. But, as a centrist, I'll admit that traditional Republican values are not quite wrong.
    I don't think there are any 'centrists' in US politics; The term usually means "between Republican and Democrat", which is a distinctly right-wing position, lying as it does between the right-wing Democrats, and the far right Republican parties.

    Regardless, as a socialist, I will say that traditional Republican values are very wrong indeed, as they are based on a number of false assumptions.
    Reliance on family rather than government,
    Which inevitably means that those whose families are non-existent, are unable to help, or are unwilling to help, are left helpless and struggling.

    Family is brilliant, if you are fortunate enough to have one, and it's one that likes you, and can afford to help you. But lots of people have no family. And far more have family that have disowned them, for important reasons like being unconvinced by the rest of the family's religious beliefs, or having a partner who is the wrong colour, or the wrong gender, or the wrong social class. And plenty have loving families every member of which is struggling, and who can at best provide emotional, but not material, support.

    Reliance on the family and not on government is an idea that looks great to people who fit the Republican mould. But it's ultimately just a way to perpetuate economic divisions, social divisions, and the intolerance of diversity. It's great for comfortably well-off conformists, and awful for anyone who lacks wealth, or who desires freedom.
    letting the market determine wages,
    Which is a poor idea, because the market in wages isn't fair or free. At the very least, wages need to be negotiated between parties of similar experience and expertise in such negotiations. Employers typically have an HR department that includes people whose entire career has focused only on the negotiating of pay and conditions. To expect a boilermaker or computer programmer to negotiate against such an expert is crazy - you wouldn't ask an HR staffer to weld, or write code, for the exact same reason you shouldn't expect workers to be able to negotiate a fair wage and conditions.

    This can be mitigated to some extent by having unions, who can employ negotiators who might achieve comparable expertise to their opposite numbers in HR. But largely it's necessary to set some rules to minimise the inequity inherent in the system - if you don't find work, you risk starvation and homelessness. If your boss can't recruit a new employee, he risks failing to grow his business as fast as he would have preferred. That's not quite an equal distribution of risk right there.

    There are plenty of things that can mitigate this inherent inequity. Unionisation, minimum wages (universal and specific to particular kinds of employment), Universal Basic Income, generous unemployment benefits, etc.; Regardless of which of these you like or dislike, it's certainly not the case that a free market for wages is a good idea.
    reduced government red tape,
    Government red tape is one of those things that's obviously bad in general, but which inevitably turns out to be good in the specific. "Red Tape" is a whinge, like "why don't they go after the real criminals"; It's almost certainly a complaint about being forced to consider the needs or rights of others, or to look at the wider picture. "Bloody red tape" is what stops me from dumping industrial waste into the nearest river, or speeding up production by taking the safety guards off the machines, or doing any of dozens of other things that would hurt others, but which I don't immediately see as problematic.

    Feel free to post a specific example of a valueless regulation or law that causes delays or reduced profits or inconvenience, without having a valuable benefit in protecting health and safety, or preventing crime. I don't think there are enough such examples to be worth the effort of eliminating them.
    personal freedoms
    Which is the only good one - but suffers from being too vague. What constitutes "personal freedom" varies depending on who you ask. It's a meaningless platitude, without specific examples of freedoms that are being abridged and that should be restored.
    — these are all good ideas that have strong merit, if not taken to an extreme.

    Yes, "conservatives" DO take these ideas much too far. I understand that. But the core of their belief system is not wholly rotten. It would be good to have a wholesome conservative party in this country to help temper left-wing excesses.
    "Wholesome" is only a bee's dick from "God fearing". It's a weasel word used to promote compliance with unspoken norms, and is the very antithesis of freedom.

    The US doesn't have a left-wing. Left-wing excesses won't need tempering until you get a left-wing to start exceeding.

  3. Top | #113
    Tricksy Leftits Angry Floof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lancre
    Posts
    13,150
    Archived
    14,435
    Total Posts
    27,585
    Rep Power
    76
    Oh, boy! This thread has been here for a week! I bet it's chock full of great Republican ideas by now!

  4. Top | #114
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    26,016
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    29,050
    Rep Power
    100
    I didn't want to start a new thread for this. If it gains traction I can split it.

    Dissident College Republicans find out at their convention that voter suppression is real

    Sometime in the runup to the convention, it was decided that a key rule would be changed. Or not changed, so much as … interpreted differently.

    Apparently the CR constitution provides that the 52 member state (and DC and PR, I assume) federations qualify themselves for voting, weighted by their organization’s size within the national organization, by providing membership rolls or whatever attesting to this that are then audited by an outside firm. This year the deadline for submitting that information was February. While it’s common for some states’ federations to not receive any votes after this process, this year 22 states in total were so denied, raising eyebrows.

    If federations miss the original deadline, they can still get votes at the convention by providing letters from at least two colleges with member CR chapters, on letterhead, attesting that the chapters are real, and then haggle at an appeals meeting for votes.

    But very late in the process, the arbitrator, the sole authority empowered to interpret the organization’s constitution, decided that the rule required that all federations submit the two letters regardless of whether they had qualified already. This was not just in contradiction to what the organization had told member federations in pre-convention workshops. It was in contradiction to what the very same arbitrator had ruled in advance of the 2019 CR convention.

    And, some of the CR people said, it was in contradiction to the organization’s constitution itself.

    At this point you’re probably wondering, why haven’t I quoted the relevant passage from the CR constitution? Perhaps, you think, it’s something that reasonable people could interpret differently.

    I haven’t quoted it because I can’t. The document is not available to the public, apparently. It is stored on a private Google Drive, which supposedly not all the state CR federation chairs were even aware existed, much less had access to.

    And wasn’t there a possibility that someone, say the CR national board, could be appealed to to, in theory at least, overturn or modify the arbitrator’s decision? Nope. Apparently not only is the arbitrator’s decision final, he (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a he) doesn’t even have to explain it.

    So, to recap, the College Republican National Convention is:

    run by procedures spelled out in a secret constitution,
    that one person alone has the power to interpret,
    and that person’s decision is nonreviewable, nor do they have any duty to explain it.

    Wow! Almost aggressively opaque. A real model for democratic governance, especially of an organization part of one of the major political parties in one of the world’s most important democracies. Given that Waxelbaum’s platform called for more transparency, now maybe it isn’t such a mystery why he might have credibly been elected the organization’s chair in an free and fair election.
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •