What went wrong with the Republican party?

@luckranger71 It does seem like the systems we have in place nowadays are channeling us all toward that huh? We all watch news sources that we find suites our bias, or people follow news sites that aren't worth the name news with their extreme biases.

The idea of watching something really fair and balanced seems ridiculous nowadays :(

@luckranger71 See. Here is the problem. When the right strays from its foundational principles, and the left strays from its foundational principles-- then what does the politics of beating the "other guy" really mean?

@CopperCicada Very true, at that point, if we aren't standing on our foundations, isn't it just a popularity contest?

@Pherick IMHO we're just battling for power.

@CopperCicada I'd agree, although I don’t see an equivalence in each side and I worry about this nation delving even deeper into complete cynicism about politics and having more voters disengage.

Not all politicians are self serving and even among the flawed politicians (most) there are enormous practical differences that affect people’s day to day lives. As an example: one doesn’t have to ascribe heroic and benevolent qualities to Al Gore (he’s not a hero) to understand that the nation would be a vastly different place had he won the Presidency instead of W in 2000. We can debate whether those differences would be better or worse than what we now have, but there would be differences.

We don’t have to believe or expect that the next politician we vote for is the next Lincoln. We should understand the meaning of that vote and the fact that elections have very real consequences and that there can be different practical outcomes.

@luckranger71 Arundhati Roy has a great quote about the 2004 US election. It's dead on:

[quote]It's not a real choice. It's an apparent choice. Like choosing a brand of detergent. Whether you buy Ivory Snow or Tide, they're both owned by Proctor & Gamble This doesn't mean that one takes a position that is without nuance, that [...] the Democrats and Republicans are the same. Of course, they're not. Neither are Tide and Ivory Snow. Tide has oxy-boosting and Ivory Snow is a gentle cleanser.[/quote]

I think this is important. One makes apparent choices wisely. But one still has to understand that one doesn't have a real choice and call that out and resist that.

@CopperCicada I respect where you’re coming from, but we’ll agree to disagree. I think a lot of the middle class on up is somewhat insulated from the practical effects of elections unless their occupations deal with groups that are affected by policy choices.

In my state, Wisconsin, there is an enormous change in how human services departments operate since Scott Walker was elected in 2010 and the GOP took over the legislature. Some may argue the change is the for better (Lower taxes! Wasteful spending! grr, pull em up from the bootstraps) and others can see the practical effect of kids being left in marginal homes because of a lack of social workers and support of foster placements.

Again, one not believe that the next Eisenhower is on the ballot to believe that a different choice yields a different result.

Are the parties too close on certain economic issues? Absolutely. But because of the lack of proportional representation in our legislative setup this nation is doomed to two major parties. Want third parties and more choices? We have to amend the constitution to look more like a parliamentary democracy.

@luckranger71 I think we're in agreement. Like Roy says. It's not without nuance. It's not that the Democratic and Republican parties are the same. They're not. These pragmatic differences matter.

But I don't see a way out of the massive level of political non-participation, the inability to form competitive third parties, and the influence of special interests without balancing these pragmatic differences with the understanding that we have no choice.

@CopperCicada Change is hard in our system because it really was set up but the to act reactively, not proactively. We are practically taught in school that American democracy is divinely ordained, but the reality is that most new democracies choose to set up their government along parliamentary lines (Canada often forms the template)

If you think about it, it really took cataclysms to spur change. The Civil War begat the 13th-15th amendments.
The Great Depression begat the social safety net and banking regulation.

The period from ‘64-66 is a bit odd: The Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Voting rights Act and Great Society measures. I chalk that up to LBJ capitalizing on grief from JFK’s assassination, a candidate so outside accepted discourse at the time (Goldwater) that allowed for huge, temporary majorities. Again, not a comment on whether that change was all good (little debate on CRA or VRA); just that it’s rare in American history.

@luckranger71 I don't think it's just about affecting change. It's about the clarity of our political discourse.

If you look just across one election cycle, differences seem to be monumental. Hillary and Trump are both the anti-christ to their opponents. But if you look at both of them through the lens of real conservative (Hayek) or progressive (Zinn) thinkers.. or through the historical lens of real conservative (Eisenhower) or liberal (FDR) former POTUS's.. then the differences are huge.

That's not necessarily an exercise in trying to prove Hillary = Trump, but rather is shows how far we've come from historical benchmarks in leadership.

I really see it as the only way to get beyond the insanity in our discourse.