Question: For Republicans/Conservate who hate the GOP/Establishment GOP

[FillJackson]

One the key themes of this election cycle is how much GOP voters dislike the GOP. Or perhaps, they hate certain parts of it.

It seems that some conservative voters are quite gleeful to see the GOP on the verge of breaking apart.

If any of this resonates with your views, my question is when. When or what caused this disillusionment. And if you don't mind, roughly how old are you?


I was thinking back to Bush at the height of his popularity and noting it really wasn't all that long ago. Of course, for the younger folks, it's half a lifetime or more ago.

[ALBballer]

One the key themes of this election cycle is how much GOP voters dislike the GOP. Or perhaps, they hate certain parts of it.

It seems that some conservative voters are quite gleeful to see the GOP on the verge of breaking apart.

If any of this resonates with your views, my question is when. When or what caused this disillusionment. And if you don't mind, roughly how old are you?


I was thinking back to Bush at the height of his popularity and noting it really wasn't all that long ago. Of course, for the younger folks, it's half a lifetime or more ago.

One positive of the GOP is the diversity of views. You have the neo-cons, the libertarians, religious right and so forth. The democrats appear to be more standard views and the debates between Bernie and Hilary are about who is more of a lefty. I also despise this new SJW class, regressive left, or whatever you want to call them from the left.

I fall more or less with the libertarians, and I think most people my age (20s-30s) fall into this political ideology of socially liberal/ fiscally conservative.

[Akrazotile]

It's all relative, methinks, and Trump has had a shit ton to do with it. I'm actually planning to make a video on this very topic, but very quickly:

People typically just accept what's put in front of them. Whatever choices are given to them, they pick one. Most people do not think "outside the box" and have it ever occur to them that there could be some other kind of choice that isn't given to them by the mainstream, by social consensus, by their peer group, etc. People take what's given to them.

So when people have the choice between D or R, they just pick whichever one is closest to what they like, and stick with it. They don't think to actually reform it, challenge it, question it, etc.

But when Trump came along and actually eschewed typical cautionary, PC politician rhetoric and said what a lot of people wanted to hear, they were like "**** yeah, that's what we wanted to hear all along. How come Romney wasn't saying this?? How come Jeb Bush wasn't saying this?? Etc." And people are realizing that those are simply establishment guys who do not care about the people they represent. They've been defacto options put on peoples plate, they are shills for the establishment, and people just took it before because they didnt imagine anything else. It was better than the Democrat version of that. But Trump has presented a different option, and they resent that establishment Republicans never took this approach the way they should have.

[FillJackson]

Did you basically come up as a libertarian? Did you ever feel at home in the GOP?

[Akrazotile]

Did you basically come up as a libertarian? Did you ever feel at home in the GOP?

I try to avoid ascribing labels to myself - tho sometimes its a practical necessity in conversation - but basically if I'm in a situation where I have to choose between Democrat or Republican, I'll choose Republican. If I have to break it down further, I'll typically side libertarian. But even then, I'm not in agreement with every libertarian value/ideology.

But if I had to pick a common political label that MOST closely applies to me, then yeah, basically libertarian. Still tho, I'm not afraid to say what I think is wrong with the ideas of any groups I 'belong' to, or happen to side with on a particular issue.

[ALBballer]

Did you basically come up as a libertarian? Did you ever feel at home in the GOP?

I'm an immigrant and grew up with no American political ideology since my parents were more concern about working to provide for the family. I don't care for the social views held by the GOP (ie abortion, gay marriage rights, etc) but I do align with them fiscally, with views of personal responsibility, securing the borders (not necessarily a wall) etc but I recognize the hypocritical views the GOP have towards corporate welfare, bloated military, immigration etc. which is why I think I align myself more with the libertarians but even then I think there is a role for government. I would support a democratic president as well.

[nightprowler10]

I'm an immigrant and grew up with no American political ideology since my parents were more concern about working to provide for the family. I don't care for the social views held by the GOP (ie abortion, gay marriage rights, etc) but I do align with them fiscally, with views of personal responsibility, securing the borders (not necessarily a wall) etc but I recognize the hypocritical views the GOP have towards corporate welfare, bloated military, immigration etc. which is why I think I align myself more with the libertarians but even then I think there is a role for government. I would support a democratic president as well.
I'm in the same boat as you for the most part, but not only are the hypocritical views a huge turn off, I've also only seen a bunch of clowns run for president from the GOP camp since I've been able to vote. I would love to see the GOP go through some serious reform so I have better choices.

As a result I've only ever voted for democratic presidents since being able to vote, though locally I've gone more conservative at times.

[Norcaliblunt]

There are tons of people from both the right and left who feel disillusioned with the mainstream parties. Most just still possess this deeply rooted religious like / sports team fan like urge to need to root for the GOP or Dems at all cost. You see this here all the time. People acting like they are not affiliated with either party, but always ending up on the side of one in debates non stop.

[navy]

Time to stop encouraging political parties and to the more extreme extent political ideologies.

Im sure most of the people here have read works by prominent philosophers and ideologist, have you ever noticed that they ALL get trapped trying to push their ideology, school of thought, or logic that they reach totally irrational conclusions.

:yaohappy:

At this point im sure both sides are disillusioned, but they still like to blame the other side because there is another side to go after. The republican party is just more vulnerable. Also Trump has smartly played into the different factions.

[UK2K]

I try to avoid ascribing labels to myself - tho sometimes its a practical necessity in conversation - but basically if I'm in a situation where I have to choose between Democrat or Republican, I'll choose Republican. If I have to break it down further, I'll typically side libertarian. But even then, I'm not in agreement with every libertarian value/ideology.

But if I had to pick a common political label that MOST closely applies to me, then yeah, basically libertarian. Still tho, I'm not afraid to say what I think is wrong with the ideas of any groups I 'belong' to, or happen to side with on a particular issue.
Same.

I agree and disagree with both parties, I just happen to agree with Republicans on far more. Given my views on several minor issues, you couldn't label me Republican, unless you broaden the meaning of the word.

[MMM]

If you believe in smaller government I can't see why you would be happy with the GOP over the last 30 years. The GOP dying off might be a blessing if it allows more space for new parties and ideas to take its place. I wouldn't say I'm full fledged conservative because would like to see programs and money off load into the local governments.

[falc39]

The GOP put the nail in their own coffin when instead of adopting the limited government libertarian views that was popular with the party's youth movement, they instead co-opted it and stubbornly stayed the course with the neo-con status quo of Bush and later Obama.

Similarly, the Democrat party is going through the exact same thing now, which is why so many voters are voting in protest against Hillary, trying to elect a candidate who in previous years would have no chance of cracking anything close to what he has been able to get now in votes. No matter how hard she tries to change that image, history has shown that she represents that establishment status quo of earlier administrations. If she gets elected, it can actually hurt the party long term because the younger voters will be that much more disillusioned that their party is working against and stubbornly resisting them. People laugh at what the GOP is going through, but really the Democrats are not that much farther behind.

[Akrazotile]

The GOP put the nail in their own coffin when instead of adopting the limited government libertarian views that was popular with the party's youth movement, they instead co-opted it and stubbornly stayed the course with the neo-con status quo of Bush and later Obama.

Similarly, the Democrat party is going through the exact same thing now, which is why so many voters are voting in protest against Hillary, trying to elect a candidate who in previous years would have no chance of cracking anything close to what he has been able to get now in votes. No matter how hard she tries to change that image, history has shown that she represents that establishment status quo of earlier administrations. If she gets elected, it can actually hurt the party long term because the younger voters will be that much more disillusioned that their party is working against and stubbornly resisting them. People laugh at what the GOP is going through, but really the Democrats are not that much farther behind.


The common theme being that special interests have controlled the candidate selection of both parties. Of course, technically voters CAN (and should, but don't) look outside of who is put directly in front of them by special interest marketing campaigns, but traditionally they don't. But at least that's starting to change.

My hope is that the Trump Revolution, even if unsuccessful ultimately in a white house bid, may pave the way for guys like Rand Paul etc. to capture more of the electorate. People are recognizing career politicians like Romney and Shillary for what they are - establishment puppets who really don't give a shit about the people of America.

[falc39]

The common theme being that special interests have controlled the candidate selection of both parties. Of course, technically voters CAN (and should, but don't) look outside of who is put directly in front of them by special interest marketing campaigns, but traditionally they don't. But at least that's starting to change.

My hope is that the Trump Revolution, even if unsuccessful ultimately in a white house bid, may pave the way for guys like Rand Paul etc. to capture more of the electorate. People are recognizing career politicians like Romney and Shillary for what they are - establishment puppets who really don't give a shit about the people of America.

I would agree, it's too bad Rand dropped out early. He was the only one fighting for certain things that a lot of people still feel strongly about (privacy rights, legitimately cutting spending/balanced budgets, etc.). Trump is obnoxious and definitely there are a lot of red flags, but if he takes a wrecking ball to the establishment, some good may come out of it in the end.

[Norcaliblunt]

The compromise needs to be libertarian policy on smaller fiscal issues like giving small business, upstart campanies, local small scale farming, and average people less regulation and relief. Then more economic populist policy when it comes to regulating Wall Street and giant corporations, with state sponsored mass works projects for technological advancement and social programs for basic human survival.

But this will never happen from either side.

[Akrazotile]

It is interesting though. The GOP is basically splintering between the old and new generation. Which is natural. There are still a lot of older and/or rural GOP voters who have certain cultural priorities they want the party to enforce, while the younger GOP voters tend to be more urbanized and have a lot of the same economic and foreign policy views, but not the same cultural concerns. The fact that this produces splintering when seeking viable candidates makes the party look disorganized and decaying. But really what it means is people are voting based on what they believe and not what their party says.


Whereas Democrats all seem to be in lock step - The young white cuckolds, a fair percentage of women, minorities, and the elderly... basically everyone who wants more from the government. Their arms are linked and their hands are out. There's literally no idea they won't disagree with their party on. The leader of the drum circle or the political opportunist just has to shout something out, and they basically all get on board.

"Homeless people should get TWO votes in each election!"
Yeah, totally, give homeless more votes, they deserve it, 99% ruleslsss!!!!

"Banks shouldn't be ALLOWED to charge for their services!"
OMG exactly, stupid banks, stupid republicans, you can't let banks charge us money!!!!

"Businesses should have to build enough restrooms equivalent to the maximum occupancy of the building, that way everyone can view their gender identity individually and don't have to worry about how bathrooms are labeled!!!!"
YESSSS!!!! Brilliant but good luck convincing those stupid teabillies, theyre so much big0ts and stupid rednecks my gawd!"


It's like... I've never heard a Democrat disagree with what his party says or does. Just look at this board. A lot of republicans opposed bank bailouts, even though Bush and Obama supported them. Democrats for their part opposed them when Bush was support them - but once Obama said it was okay, they agreed.

Same with things like the Patriot Act, huge deficits, etc. A lot of conservatives don't want either party doing this stuff, while the left simply doesn't want Republicans doing it. If a Democrat does it, it's okay.

Tbh, they're so robotically in sync with the party it's actually scary. Yet for some reason, they seem proud of it.

[Nick Young]

One the key themes of this election cycle is how much GOP voters dislike the GOP. Or perhaps, they hate certain parts of it.

It seems that some conservative voters are quite gleeful to see the GOP on the verge of breaking apart.

If any of this resonates with your views, my question is when. When or what caused this disillusionment. And if you don't mind, roughly how old are you?


I was thinking back to Bush at the height of his popularity and noting it really wasn't all that long ago. Of course, for the younger folks, it's half a lifetime or more ago.
The current GOP is basically the same as the Dems. The parties are too similar. Neo-Con establishment candidate Clinton could easily interchange with being a Republican and no one would bat an eyelash.

If you disagree with the status quo establishment, the Repubs are too similar to what's already been happening.

[NumberSix]

The worst thing that ever happened to the GOP was George H.W. Bush winning the 1988 election. Not that he was terrible or anything, but had the dems won that election, Reganism would have remained the platform of the party. But because the presidency went straight from Reagan to Bush, the party platform immediately switched to Bushism and has remained Bushism ever since and the only GOP president since Bushism took hold of the party has been his son.

The Bushists have been in control of the party for too long and they don't want to lose their positions in the party. That won't change until there is a new GOP president that can put a new party platform in place.

[UK2K]

It is interesting though. The GOP is basically splintering between the old and new generation. Which is natural. There are still a lot of older and/or rural GOP voters who have certain cultural priorities they want the party to enforce, while the younger GOP voters tend to be more urbanized and have a lot of the same economic and foreign policy views, but not the same cultural concerns. The fact that this produces splintering when seeking viable candidates makes the party look disorganized and decaying. But really what it means is people are voting based on what they believe and not what their party says.


Whereas Democrats all seem to be in lock step - The cuckolds, the women, the minorities, the elderly (as in those of those groups who vote Dem, which is not all but substantial percentages)... basically everyone who wants more from the government. Their arms are linked and their hands are out. There's literally no idea they won't disagree with their party on. The leader of the drum circle or the political opportunist just has to shout something out, and they basically all get on board.

"Homeless people should get TWO votes in each election!"
Yeah, totally, give homeless more votes, they deserve it, 99% ruleslsss!!!!

"Banks shouldn't be ALLOWED to charge for their services!"
OMG exactly, stupid banks, stupid republicans, you can't let banks charge us money!!!!

"Businesses should have to build enough restrooms equivalent to the maximum occupancy of the building, that way everyone can view their gender identity individually and don't have to worry about how bathrooms are labeled!!!!"
YESSSS!!!! Brilliant but good luck convincing those stupid teabillies, theyre so much big0ts and stupid rednecks my gawd!"


It's like... I've never heard a Democrat disagree with what his party says or does. Just look at this board. A lot of republicans opposed bank bailouts, even though Bush and Obama supported them. Democrats for their part opposed them when Bush was support them - but once Obama said it was okay, they agreed.

Same with things like the Patriot Act, huge deficits, etc. A lot of conservatives don't want either party doing this stuff, while the left simply doesn't want Republicans doing it. If a Democrat does it, it's okay.

Tbh, they're so robotically in sync with the party it's actually scary. Yet for some reason, they seem proud of it.

It's almost like you are me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Republican party is splitting between old and young. I vote Republican, but I'm all for gay marriage and I'm all for marijuana legalization. But, what really makes me vote Republican when it comes down to it, is the constant bitching by the left. Bitching about 'In God We Trust' being on city police vehicles. Bitching about coaches praying with their teams before games. Bitching about not getting a job after college because you think that you have a degree, somehow you're special. Bitching about, literally, everything under the sun.

The constant bitching is what makes me vote for the other party. Do I want Trump to win the election? No, but it'd be too funny to see the amount of bitching you'll hear from the other side if he does. I'd love for the heads of every bitch and cry baby in this country to explode on election night.

Between that and the Democrats being the party of enabling... enabling laziness, feelings of superiority or special privileges. And you're right, all Democrats can be fit into some special interest group who wants the government to take care of them.

[Akrazotile]

It's almost like you are me.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Republican party is splitting between old and young. I vote Republican, but I'm all for gay marriage and I'm all for marijuana legalization. But, what really makes me vote Republican when it comes down to it, is the constant bitching by the left. Bitching about 'In God We Trust' being on city police vehicles. Bitching about coaches praying with their teams before games. Bitching about not getting a job after college because you think that you have a degree, somehow you're special. Bitching about, literally, everything under the sun.

The constant bitching is what makes me vote for the other party. Do I want Trump to win the election? No, but it'd be too funny to see the amount of bitching you'll hear from the other side if he does. I'd love for the heads of every bitch and cry baby in this country to explode on election night.

Between that and the Democrats being the party of enabling... enabling laziness, feelings of superiority or special privileges. And you're right, all Democrats can be fit into some special interest group who wants the government to take care of them.


New generation taking over baby :cheers:


WE IN HERE

[FillJackson]

The worst thing that ever happened to the GOP was George H.W. Bush winning the 1988 election. Not that he was terrible or anything, but had the dems won that election, Reganism would have remained the platform of the party. But because the presidency went straight from Reagan to Bush, the party platform immediately switched to Bushism and has remained Bushism ever since and the only GOP president since Bushism took hold of the party has been his son.

The Bushists have been in control of the party for too long and they don't want to lose their positions in the party. That won't change until there is a new GOP president that can put a new party platform in place.
What do you make of the fact that the Bushism of the father was nothing like the Bushism of the son?

[Thorpesaurous]

I'm an immigrant and grew up with no American political ideology since my parents were more concern about working to provide for the family. I don't care for the social views held by the GOP (ie abortion, gay marriage rights, etc) but I do align with them fiscally, with views of personal responsibility, securing the borders (not necessarily a wall) etc but I recognize the hypocritical views the GOP have towards corporate welfare, bloated military, immigration etc. which is why I think I align myself more with the libertarians but even then I think there is a role for government. I would support a democratic president as well.


This is pretty much where I stand as well, with a few exceptions. I'm not fond of corporate welfare, but have a more case by case opinion on it. And I am not actually opposed to some social systems that would be considered way left. But generally I consider myself a libertarian republican. The far Christian right seemed to be a huge part of the split.

[Thorpesaurous]

I'm in the same boat as you for the most part, but not only are the hypocritical views a huge turn off, I've also only seen a bunch of clowns run for president from the GOP camp since I've been able to vote. I would love to see the GOP go through some serious reform so I have better choices.

As a result I've only ever voted for democratic presidents since being able to vote, though locally I've gone more conservative at times.

This is actually an interesting concept that my father subscribes to. Voting to the left nationally to help disperse money to the states, and then conservative locally so that the money is addressed more fiscally once it's in state. I don't think it has a ton of merit, but it's an interesting concept.

[NumberSix]

What do you make of the fact that the Bushism of the father was nothing like the Bushism of the son?
You're mistaking personal differences for political platform differences. 43 is a lot more Christiany than 41, but personality differences aside, it was all the same people behind the scenes pushing the same things.

[BoutPractice]

No, they were actually immensely different as presidents.

First of all, Bush father was arguably one of the most qualified men to ever run for the office. He knew his stuff, so he was much less easily influenced than the gullible, eager-to-please W.

Most importantly, he had pragmatic instincts, which prevented him from going all the way in Iraq even though some members of his administration wanted him to.

W by contrast let the neocons run the White House for most of his administration... From 2001 to early in his second term, the president was essentially Dick Cheney and the official line of the administration "full spectrum dominance", a form of aggressive imperialism seeking world domination. This policy was so extreme even W himself eventually recoiled from it. (In fact he usually had more common sense than his more competent, well informed advisers when he thought things through on his own... He was too deferential - probably had to be because of his ignorance on the specifics of the issues)

One thing people usually miss when discussing presidents is just how big the differences are within an administration. At the table with POTUS there will typically be hawks, doves (by imperialist standards) and everything in between. Many of them hate each other, too, far beyond the hatred you see between democrats and republicans, because the problem is personal, not just political.

They also miss the wide range of advice a president gets in most foreign policy situations. Most would be shocked by how often the president is presented with a plan to outright invade a country... even to use nuclear weapons. Those things are always "on the table"...

So a president's personality and instinct ends up mattering a great deal... it drives policy to a much greater extent than you'd think.

A final point and corollary of all this : when you see an administration's string of decisions, you tend to react as if the president is 100% behind everything that was decided, and that it was all part of some plan. Whereas in reality, the president is often only 51% behind his own decision, and may even change his mind and regret his call the next day. Often times whatever was decided was seen at the time as the least horrible of a bunch of horrible choices...

[FillJackson]

You're mistaking personal differences for political platform differences. 43 is a lot more Christiany than 41, but personality differences aside, it was all the same people behind the scenes pushing the same things.
It was not the same people behind the scenes

They were not pushing the same things.

Their foreign policies were pretty far apart. Bush I had his guy go out an argue against the Iraq invasion.

On the domestic sides, Bush I tried to deal with the debt/deficit responsibly and paid for it. Bush II immediately reversed the policies that led to the surplus. Did Bush I ever try to privatize social security?

[FillJackson]

No, they were actually immensely different as presidents.

First of all, Bush father was arguably one of the most qualified men to ever run for the office. He knew his stuff, so he was much less easily influenced than the gullible, eager-to-please W.

Most importantly, he had pragmatic instincts, which prevented him from going all the way in Iraq even though some members of his administration wanted him to.

W by contrast let the neocons run the White House for most of his administration... From 2001 to early in his second term, the president was essentially Dick Cheney and the official line of the administration "full spectrum dominance", a form of aggressive imperialism seeking world domination. This policy was so extreme even W himself eventually recoiled from it. (In fact he usually had more common sense than his more competent, well informed advisers when he thought things through on his own... He was too deferential - probably had to be because of his ignorance on the specifics of the issues)

One thing people usually miss when discussing presidents is just how big the differences are within an administration. At the table with POTUS there will typically be hawks, doves (by imperialist standards) and everything in between. Many of them hate each other, too, far beyond the hatred you see between democrats and republicans, because the problem is personal, not just political.

They also miss the wide range of advice a president gets in most foreign policy situations. Most would be shocked by how often the president is presented with a plan to outright invade a country... even to use nuclear weapons. Those things are always "on the table"...

So a president's personality and instinct ends up mattering a great deal... it drives policy to a much greater extent than you'd think.

A final point and corollary of all this : when you see an administration's string of decisions, you tend to react as if the president is 100% behind everything that was decided, and that it was all part of some plan. Whereas in reality, the president is often only 51% behind his own decision, and may even change his mind and regret his call the next day. Often times whatever was decided was seen at the time as the least horrible of a bunch of horrible choices... I agree with a lot of this, however, I do not agree that Bush had an aggressive foreign policy because he was gullible, I would say that his aggressive foreign policy was the main reason he chose the advisors he did and why he chose to freeze out/stiff arm the advisors like Colin Powell who didn't share his views. He internalized the neocon worldview prior to becoming president and wanted to "correct his father's mistake" in Iraq." He picked a lot of the JV team from the Reagan administration and consciously set a path away from the pragmatic realism of his father's team. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz criticized Bush 1's decision not to go to Baghdad throughout the 90's. You don't put them in the DOD unless you agree with them. He wasn't blindsided or fooled by their views. He agreed with them.

[falc39]

If your original question was to figure out why a lot of voters are disillushioned with the current state of politics and you are discussing at length the differences between bush sr and bush jr, then you are completely missing the point. :facepalm

[Akrazotile]

Not a republican, but I would suggest checking this table out:

http://i66.tinypic.com/scqjxy.png
source (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-trump-supporters-were-doing-before-trump/)

If you're looking for where the difference in opinion comes from, look at issues in that table on which there is a big disparity between Trump and Rubio supporters.


I don't understand this chart.

People were polling public opinion on Trump, Cruz, and Rubio for President in 2007?

[fpliii]

I don't understand this chart.

People were polling public opinion on Trump, Cruz, and Rubio for President in 2007?
Here's more info on the study from the article:

[QUOTE]Still, there is a well-known challenge in figuring out which comes first. Do people gravitate to candidates who share their political views, or do they adopt the political views of the candidates they already back for other reasons? We can get around that conundrum using the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics panel survey that Diana Mutz and I have been conducting along with colleagues. The panel has followed the same American adults since late 2007, with the most recent survey having wrapped up in early February of this year, shortly after the Iowa caucuses.

The panel gives us an unparalleled look at Trump supporters

[Dresta]

I was gonna come in here and say the Bushes destroyed the GOP: you might survive one Bush, but two Bushes are a death-wish. But someone else has already kind of implied that.

What is ridiculous, are the people who don't recognise the continuation between Bush I and Bush II: to not recognise this is to be profoundly ignorant--they monumentally changed the GOP into a far more liberal party, dominated by so-called "compassionate conservatism," reckless foreign adventures, and profligate spending.

Actual conservatives like Russell Kirk recognised this was happening during the Presidency of the first Bush, so to pretend the Bushes were fundamentally different, is frankly absurd:


My task with respect to the fiscal measures of the Bush Administration is made the easier for me by Dr. Edwin Feulner's "State of Conservatism, 1991" message, entitled "Fashionably Out of Fashion Again." I concur heartily in his observation that "after more than eight years of steady growth, a combination of new federal taxes, out-of control spending increasing, and suffocating regulatory burdens have conspired to send the economy into spasms." Federal expenditure soon will exceed a quarter of the gross national product; the deficits for the present fiscal year and for the fiscal year 1992 will be the largest in the history of the United States. The reforms of income tax and inheritance tax, worked in the Reagan years, are undone. As socialism dissolves in Eastern Europe, in the United States, an unofficial and unproclaimed form of socialism gains ground.

Why has this come to pass? Why does a national administration elected on a conservative platform offer such feeble resistance to measures advocated by doctrinaire liberals.

Now the Republican Party long boasted of its frugality. The Bush Administration, on the contrary, has stolen some of the Democrats' old clothes while the sons of Jefferson and Jackson were out bathing. But those purloined garments are ragged; and Republicans look odd and unconvincing when clad in them.

The Bush Administration had one handsome prospect for reducing governmental expenditure, reducing the federal deficit, and possibly even making a gesture at reduction of the federal debt: that is, the prospective contraction of the armed forces, what with the dwindling of the Soviet menace. Instead, Mr. Bush has plunged the United States into a war which, so far, has cost about a billion dollars a day. (You will recall that a billion dollars is a thousand million dollars.) Already, more taxation to pay for this struggle in the Levant is being discussed in Washington. So I quote Parkinson once more: "Taxes become heavier in time of war and should diminish, by rights, when the war is over. That is not, however, what happens. Although sometimes lowered when the war ends, taxes seldom regain their pre-war level. That is because the level of expenditure rises to meet the war-time level of taxation."

Unless the Bush Administration abruptly reverses its fiscal and military course, I suggest, the Republican Party must lose its former good repute for frugality, and become the party of profligate expenditure, "butter and guns." And public opinion would not long abide that. Nor would America's world influence and America's remaining prosperity.

But, time running on, I must turn to affairs diplomatic and military: Republican errors internationally. What are we to say of Mr. Bush's present endeavor to bring to pass a gentler, kinder New World Order?

Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson were enthusiasts for American domination of the world. Now George Bush appears to be emulating those eminent Democrats. When the Republicans, once upon a time, nominated for the presidency a "One World" candidate, Wendell Willkie, they were sadly trounced. In general, Republicans throughout the twentieth century have been advocates of prudence and restraint in the conduct of foreign affairs.

But Mr. Bush, out of mixed motives, has embarked upon a radical course of intervention in the region of the Persian Gulf. After carpet-bombing the Cradle of Civilization as no country ever had been bombed before, Mr. Bush sent in hundreds of thousands of soldiers to overrun the Iraqi bunkers -- that were garrisoned by dead men, asphyxiated.

And for what reason? The Bush Administration found it difficult to answer that question clearly. In the beginning it was implied that the American national interest required low petroleum prices: therefore, if need be, smite and spare not!

That excuse reminds me of Burke's rebuke to the Pitt ministry in 1795, when it appeared that the British government was about to go to war with France over the question of the navigation of the River Scheldt, in the Netherlands. "A war for the Scheldt? A war for a chamber-pot!" Burke exclaimed. Now one may say, "A war for Kuwait? A war for an oilcan!"

"The blood of a man should never be shed but to redeem the blood of man," Burke wrote in his first Letter on a Regicide Peace. "It is well shed for our family, for our friends, for our God, for our country, for our kind. The rest is vanity; the rest is crime." Burke was eager that England declare war against France because of the menace of the French revolutionaries to the civilized order of Europe, and because of their systematic crimes. But he set his face against war for mere commercial advantage. So should Republicans. "The rest is vanity; the rest is crime."

A war for an oilcan not turning out to be popular, however, President Bush turned moralist; he professed to be engaged in redeeming the blood of man; and his breaking of Iraq is to be the commencement of his beneficent New World Order. Mr. Bush has waged what Sir Herbert Butterfield, in his little book Christianity, Diplomacy, and War, calls "The War for Righteousness." As Butterfield begins the third chapter of that book, "It has been held by technicians of politics in recent times that democracies can only be keyed up to modern war -- only brought to the necessary degree of fervor -- provided they are whipped into moral indignation and heated to fanaticism by the thought that they are engaged in a 'war for righteousness'."

I doubt whether much good is going to come out of the slaughter of perhaps a hundred thousand people in Iraq. "For one of the troubles of war," Butterfield writes, "is that it acquires its own momentum and plants its own ideals on our shoulders, so that we are carried far away from the purposes with which we began -- carried indeed sometimes to greater acts of spoilation than the ones which had provoked our original entry into the war. Before the war of 1914 had lasted a year, its own workings had generated such a mood that we had promised Russia Constantinople and had bought the alliance of Italy with offers of booty, some of which had later to be disavowed by President Wilson. And it is a remarkable fact that in wars which purport to be so ethical that the states attached to neutrality are sometimes regarded as guilty of a dereliction of duty, the great powers primarily concerned may have required an iniquitous degree of bribery to bring them into the conflict, or to maintain their fidelity. The whole ideal of moderate peace aims, and the whole policy of making war the servant (instead of the master) of negotiation, is impossible -- and the whole technique of the 'war for righteousness' has a particularly sinister application -- when even in the ostensibly 'defending' party there is a latent and concealed aggressiveness of colossal scope, as there certainly was in 1914."

Was not Egypt's cooperation obtained by forgiving the Egyptian government's indebtedness of several billion dollars? Was not Syria's assent gained by America's ignoring of the Syrian conquest of the Lebanon, with a massacre of General Aoun's Christian army? What began as determination to restore a legitimate (if somewhat arbitrary) government in Kuwait may result in the overturn of several governments in the Levant. As for regarding neutral states as guilty of dereliction of duty -- why, the United States has done just that to Jordan, by cutting off economic aid at the very time when Jordan is crammed with destitute refugees from Iraq.

In short, deliberate entry into war commonly brings on consequences disagreeable even to the seeming victors. Prudent statesmen long have known that armed conflict, for all involved, ought to be the last desperate resort, to be entered upon only when all means of diplomacy, conciliation, and compromise have been exhausted. In Iraq, we have crushed an insect with the club of Hercules. Temporarily, Mr. Bush's stroke is popular. When a democracy goes to war, at first there occurs a wave of enthusiasm: "Bop the Wop; sap the Jap; get the Hun on the run!" But afterward, when troubles arise....

True, we did not suffer a long war in the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq. But we must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States -- even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq.

In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary; while the Soviet Union, by virtue of its endeavors to mediate the quarrel in its later stages, may pose again as the friend of Moslem lands. Nor is this all: for now, in every continent, the United States is resented increasingly as the last and most formidable of imperial systems.

[NumberSix]

So, supporters of Marco Rubio, the CUBAN-American senator from MIAMI were anti-Hispanic in 2012?

#MadeUpStats

[Dresta]

In this century, great empires have collapsed: the Austrian, the German, the British, the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Italian, and the Japanese. The Soviet empire now languishes in the process of dissolution. "Imperialism" has become a term of bitter reproach and complaint; all this within my own lifetime.

But there remains an American Empire, still growing -- though expanding through the acquisition of client states, rather than through settlement of American populations abroad. Among the client states directly dependent upon American military power are Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Israel, and El Salvador; and until the withdrawal of American divisions from Germany for service in Arabia, Germany, too, was a military client. Dependent upon American assistance of one kind or another, and in some degree upon American military protection, are the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, and Panama; and also, in the Levant, Egypt and Jordan, and formerly Lebanon. Now Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are added to the roster of clients. I hardly need mention America's earlier acquisitions: Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgins, and lesser islands. I refrain from mentioning America's economic ascendancy, through foreign aid or merely trade, over a great deal more of the world. In short, although we never talk about our empire, a tremendous American Empire has come into existence -- if, like the Roman Empire, in a kind of fit of absence of mind. No powerful counterpoise to the American hegemony seems to remain, what with the enfeebling of the U.S.S.R.

Such a universal ascendancy always has been resented by the lesser breeds without the law. Soon there sets to work a widespread impulse to pull down the imperial power. But that imperial power, strong in weapons, finds it possible for a time to repress the disobedient. In the long run -- well, as Talleyrand put it, "You can do everything with bayonets -- except sit on them." In the long run, the task of repression is too painful a burden to bear; so the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has discovered in the past few years. Napoleon discovered that hard truth earlier and King George III and the King's Friends discovered it between the years 1775 and 1781. Doubtless George Bush means well by the world near the end of the twentieth century. He is a man of order, diligent, dutiful, honest, and a good family man. But he lacks imagination, "the vision thing." And power intoxicates; and, as Lord Acton put it, power tends to corrupt. The love of power tends to corrupt both speech and actions. It may corrupt a grave national undertaking into a personal vendetta. It may corrupt what began as a chivalric rescue into a heavy belligerent domination. (Talk continues to come to our ears of a "permanent American presence" in the Persian Gulf.)

President Bush and Americans of his views doubtless intend the American hegemony to be gentler and kinder than the sort of hegemony that prevailed in the ancient Persian Empire, say; more just even than the Roman hegemony that gave peace, for some centuries, to several lands -- relative peace, anyway, at the price of crushing taxation and the extinction of earlier cultures. But devastating Iraq (and the rescued Kuwait) is an uncompromising way of opening an era of sweetness and light. Peoples so rescued from tyrants might cry, as did the boy whom Don Quixote de la Mancha had saved from beating by the muleteers but who was thrashed by them not long later, nevertheless -- "In the name of God, Don Jorge de la Casablanca, don't rescue me again!"

Don Jorge de la Casablanca has toppled and imprisoned one Central American despot -- somewhat small fry -- and is in the process of dealing after the same fashion with one Mesopotamian despot, somewhat larger fry. "Well done!" some cry. It has all been rather like deer hunting in my Michigan back woods.

Yet presidents of the United States must not be encouraged to make Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, nor to fancy that they can establish a New World Order through eliminating dissenters. In the second century before Christ, the Romans generously liberated the Greek city-states from the yoke of Macedonia. But it was not long before the Romans felt it necessary to impose upon those quarrelsome Greeks a domination more stifling to Hellenic freedom and culture than ever Macedon had been. It is a duty of the Congress of the United States to see that great American Caesars do not act likewise.


http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/political-errors-at-the-end-of-the-20th-century



No similarities or continuity doe :oldlol: .

[Akrazotile]

Here's a table, with Cruz removed, and differences >=5% highlighted:

http://i63.tinypic.com/2aez0ut.png

The one point on which Rubio might differ from the establishment is 'Create pathway to citizenship'. Split between Cruz (who might hold more of a party view) and Trump on that is -.08. Still a legitimate difference, but Rubio is more liberal on that issue which might inflate the gap.


How were these guys polling people who 'supported' Trump in 2007? He wasn't running for anything then.

That chart makes no sense to me. What am I missing?

[fpliii]

How were these guys polling people who 'supported' Trump in 2007? He wasn't running for anything then.

That chart makes no sense to me. What am I missing?
I quoted it above:
[QUOTE]Still, there is a well-known challenge in figuring out which comes first. Do people gravitate to candidates who share their political views, or do they adopt the political views of the candidates they already back for other reasons? We can get around that conundrum using the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics panel survey that Diana Mutz and I have been conducting along with colleagues. The panel has followed the same American adults since late 2007, with the most recent survey having wrapped up in early February of this year, shortly after the Iowa caucuses.

[B]The panel gives us an unparalleled look at Trump supporters

[Akrazotile]

I quoted it above:


It's a longitudinal study, they polled the same group of people on their opinions going back a few years, and categorized them in the table together based on which of the candidates they support this year as of Iowa.

Here's a link (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-who-like-obama-like-clinton/) to the democratic side, which includes more information on the study:


They're probably conducting more polling this year for both parties, which I guess will come up in 2016.

But how did they determine who was a Trump 'supporter'?

He wasn't running for anything then. What was there to support?

And Rubio was just a guy in the house of representatives back then. How many people outside of Florida (and probably not that many in Florida) had any idea who he was? (Edit: Just noticed this was based on a 78-person sample size)

This supposed poll sounds way too sketchy. Also, data from 2007 and 2012 isn't even relevant. If they're not polling supporters relative to this election, it's not even really worth looking at.

Edit: Yeah, this poll is worthless. No offense.

[Dresta]

The polling overlooks that people's opinions and preferences can change a lot over the space of 8 or so years. Their preferences in 2007 could be very different to those in 2015.

[fpliii]

But how did they determine who was a Trump 'supporter'?

He wasn't running for anything then. What was there to support?

And Rubio was just a guy in the house of representatives back then. How many people outside of Florida (and probably not that many in Florida) had any idea who he was? (Edit: Just noticed this was based on a 78-person sample size)

This supposed poll sounds way too sketchy. Also, data from 2007 and 2012 isn't even relevant. If they're not polling supporters relative to this election, it's not even really worth looking at.

Edit: Yeah, this poll is worthless. No offense.
It's not perfectly representative obviously, since it's a small sample, so I don't disagree with you that it's not 100% accurate. It's possible that attitudes have changed, just cited it since it's already been compiled.

To be honest, I think since we have a lot of states done now, if someone wanted to, they could look at the exit polls state by state (for this year's elections), based on issues that are important to voters. This site is pretty good:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/IA

Just have to select a different state from the drop-down menu to change the states for the exit polls.


The polling overlooks that people's opinions and preferences can change a lot over the space of 8 or so years. Their preferences in 2007 could be very different to those in 2015.
That's true, so looking at exit polls might be more valuable (since they're all relevant this year). It seems the purpose of those articles on 538 were to identify the overlap in candidates supported in prior elections. Sorry for any confusion.

[FillJackson]

If your original question was to figure out why a lot of voters are disillushioned with the current state of politics and you are discussing at length the differences between bush sr and bush jr, then you are completely missing the point. :facepalm

Well this is a detour.

But the reason I asked was I surprised by learning that Republicans have gotten angrier with the party since the 2014 elections.

From the responses here, it seems that most were never fully identified with the party.

[fpliii]

So, supporters of Marco Rubio, the CUBAN-American senator from MIAMI were anti-Hispanic in 2012?

#MadeUpStats
I noted that perhaps looking at exit polls might be superior due to points raised by Akrazotile and Dresta, but wanted to investigate this point.

It confused me too, so I looked at the footnotes. From one of the two articles I linked (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-who-like-obama-like-clinton/):


The prejudice measures are calculated by subtracting assessments of blacks or Hispanics from assessments of non-Hispanic whites, and range from 0 (strong bias toward blacks/Hispanics) to 1 (strong bias toward whites). The midpoint of 0.5 indicates people who endorse stereotypes about different groups to the same degree. These measures are not available for respondents who identify as members of the target groups.

So .49 from Rubio supporters means a slightly more favorable bias of Hispanics as compared to .50 (which would be an equal bias towards/against). Still a fuzzy concept, but that explains what their scale is.