Another Tuesday of Republican primary voting unfolds as Mitt Romney attempts to race further to the right to win Southern conservative votes away from candidates who (in any logical world) should have no chance of winning a presidential election.
Never in the history of America has one party produced in such short succession so many candidates ill-suited for the office they seek, either because they do not have the intellectual horsepower (Rick Perry, Sarah Palin), because they are ethically bankrupt (Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain) or because they are so reactionary they want to turn America into a land of magical religiosity by disclaiming global warming and denying evolution (Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum). And yet each one has been lethal in his own way to Mitt Romney.
Even Democrats can agree the Republican Party was not always like this. Republicans used to be a sensible lot. They touted values like entrepreneurship, freedom and individual responsibility. They stood for sensible fiscal spending, low taxes, limited government, and strong defense. They were smart.
But in recent years, the Republicans seem more and more, well, lost. They've run up huge debts under both Bushes' and Reagan presidencies (in real dollars, these presidencies account for 66.4% of the national debt on the books today). They've refused to end the expensive Bush tax cuts that have blown a hole in the budget. In the last two years, the Tea Partiers' unwillingness to compromise is the reason a real debt reduction package could not pass.
The Republican Party used to be strong on national defense thanks to men like Gerald Ford, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. But that reputation was largely destroyed by George W. Bush's ruinous war in Iraq. Today, the sparse foreign policy credentials and anemic ideas of the Republican contenders (Mitt Romney, Rich Santorum and Newt Gingrich) leave even a Democrat wishing for the days of Richard Nixon.
However what is most troubling is the Republican social agenda, which has been hijacked by the social conservatives. In the name of religion, Republicans (who once believed in a limited government) have supported intrusion into every level of our lives whether it is limiting women's reproductive rights to legislating whom we can and cannot marry. They've denied real scientific truths (global warming) that threaten our very existence on the planet earth and made contraception a central issue of a presidential campaign like Victorian-era pedagogues.
Republicans have not always been an intolerant party. In fact, with the exception of George W. Bush, all modern Republican presidents had moderate religious views and drew clear distinctions between church and state:
One has to go all the way back to Warren Harding to find an evangelical president. Harding famously said that "the people of the United States... have gotten too far away from the Almighty God" and that "we need... more of the Christ spirit." Of course, no one enjoys a comparison to Harding, one of the least popular presidents of all time.
In 1908, Republican William Howard Taft declared that he did not "believe in the divinity of Christ." When accused of being an atheist during his presidential bid he responded: "If the American electorate is so narrow as not to elect a Unitarian, well and good. I can stand it." Can you imagine a Republican candidate today saying that he does not believe in the divinity of Christ? Can you imagine a Republican, as Herbert Hoover did, talking about evolution and the cosmos? Or Richard Nixon who faulted religion for the bloodiest of wars? Or Gerald Ford and George Bush, Sr. who both refused to discuss their religious beliefs, because of modesty and the separation of church and state?
Thanks to political operatives like Karl Rove and Lee Atwater, who used religion as a wedge issue to win votes in the 1980s and 1990s, the Republican Party is now hoist with its own petard. Mitt Romney, the only viable Republican presidential candidate, has had to shift so far right to appease social conservatives that he is likely to lose his general election bid.
America is better when it has two strong political parties that balance the extremes. But over the last generation, the Republican Party has indulged its extremes in an effort to secure votes and lost its bearings. All Americans -- not just Republicans -- are the lesser for it.
Follow Meredith Bagby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bagbyreports
Zinnia Jones: Gov. Bryant, There Is No 'Non-Denominational' School Prayer
Richard Schiffman: Why We Need to Start Teaching About Religions in School
Nicole Neroulias: I Was a Virgin on Birth Control
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
| Romney | Santorum | Gingrich | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delegates | 1.47 Thousand | 254 | 138 | |
| Fundraising | $76 M | $16 M | $21 M | |
| Intrade | $9.61 | $0.06 | $0.01 | |
| 570 K | 200 K | 1.5 M |
Compromise is the essence of politics. Without compromise there is only tyranny.
Conservatives simply want to be the tyrants.
Also, since many scientists and professors never bother to waste their time by going to the polls and voting, I wish that Congress would pass an act mandating eligible voters to go to the polls. They would not be required to cast their ballots for a candidate, however, if they did not want to do so (you know, by checking "present" or something like that).
If we had 90% or better voting rates in this country, you'd see some By God changes then, heh.
I can't help but notice, however, one glaring omission: your explanation of how the Democratic party (aside from a few minor details) is any different.
We didn't lose the moderate Republicans, we just call them Democrats now; what we are truly missing is a left wing party.
If you like, I can send you the documentation of the $16 trillion U. S. taxpayer dollars stolen by the Federal Reserve in just 8 months in 2008 (compliments of the FED audit window Ron Paul was able to get). Total estimated U.S. taxpayer dollars given to banks, foreign banks, foreign governments, private armies and even MSNBC is about $51 Trillion Dollars. The greatest Ponzi Scheme of all time.
Go back to Adam Smith and look at what he posits will happen when there is massive deregulation and concentration of wealth at the top of society if you don't believe me.
Ron Paul is not corrupt and he has good drug, anti-militarism, and social (except abortion) policy; other than that, he is absolutely nuts and would bring about the collapse of American society.
Giant tax cuts would cripple the national infrastructure, education, and regulatory departments; the environment would be strip-mined, as there would be no oversight in the free market; the rich would get richer, while the poor would die in the streets.
That said, I agree with your assessment of the Republicans as pushing a soft form of fascism.
Its only hard fascism when they are sticking probes up bodily orifices? There has got to be a better play on those words ...
The problem is the political system of the day which prevents a moderate from winning a general election. It seems you can only win if you cater to your particular extreme. Wouldn't you love fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and 'you get what you work for,' to go along with pro-life, equal rights, environmental protection (global warming) and gay marriage. Obama is not the answer. I can only hope that Romney comes back to the middle and governs that way if elected. Great article!
They should be similar in craziness and none should be essentially the same as a previous one using different words. Explain what is objectionable in your quotes.
Ready?
Santorum Says that you have no right to privacy and states should be able to outlaw contraception.
------
"The state has a right to do that,” said Santorum. “I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.” "That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and they should be left up to the people to decide,” he added.
-----
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/santorum-court-ruled-wrongly-griswold-v-connecticut-pre-roe-right-privacy-decision
Now the 9th amendment to ye old constitution clearly states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
------
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-------
By claiming that We The People have no rights that were not specifically listed in the constitution Santorum is saying something truly radical/tyrannical.
The founders wrote an entire amendment just to make sure you and I would know that Santorum is full of it.
Santorum advocates going to war with China( he'd have to actually have a foreign policy to mean it but I can't find him walking it back anywhere ... )
------
Fellow candidate Mitt Romney promised that if elected, he would immediately label China as a currency manipulator, but added, “I don’t want a trade war with anybody.”
“You know, Mitt, I don’t want to go to a trade war,” Santorum remarked. “I want to beat China. I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business.”
-------
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/11/santorum-i-want-to-go-to-war-with-china/
If he doesn't want to go to a "trade war" then I'm at a loss to think what he could possibly have meant by "go to war" with china except the old world war 2 strategy of blowing up everyone else's manufacturing base so you have to buy American.
But regardless, people who just blurt out crap like that have no business in a position where they can actually command soldiers.
Which brings us to the underlying point that Santorum's foreign policy credentials ... well who knew that when Palin said she could see Russia from her house we hadn't hit the bottom of the barrel for republican foreign policy credentials?
The man thinks one in 20 dutch people are forcibly euthanized by their government.