Displaying all 3 Forum Posts for the Thread:

Cantor has no relevant ideas on job creation, Republicans all about ideology

12-31-2009, 01:11 PM

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

"House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, appearing at a recent public forum, complained that the media were ignoring his party's economic ideas. OK, replied a reporter, what are those ideas? Cantor could only pivot to his political calculation. 'The big idea is to get, to get, to produce an environment where we can have job creation again,' he replied. "

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/23/opinion/main6014774.shtml

The problem with the Republican party is that they are so largely reactionary. Cantor just wants to denounce Obama's stimulus bill without having any relevant ideas himself about economic recovery. In the cases where Republicans do have suggestions, they are almost always based on ideology and not reality. For instance, Senator Jim Demint's stimulus proposal consisted of making the Bush tax cuts permanent and adding to them to various other policies that favor excessive savings for the rich. This would end up costing 3 trillion dollars, three times the amount Obama's plan would cost, and would continue to incur costs in the long-term. Such policies are blindly created not based upon scientific reason and economic analysis, but on some old-world concepts dug up from the Reagan years and Atlas Shrugged.

That is not to say that Ayn Rand did not make some fair points, but Republic continue to accept their ideology as Gospel and refuse to tweak their thinking towards a more moderate approach.

What do you guys think, are Republicans too ideological, or can the blame be put on both sides of the aisle?

01-05-2010, 05:14 PM

Frank K
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 73

I'll share my opinions which are certainly open to debate. The Republican Party of today is indeed void of real ideas. That's not saying they didn't make contributions to our society in the past, but the party of today really has coalesced from a mixture of separate ideologies into one collective mindset that is bound together by their common need to survive as an an influential political unit. Their common enemy is not communists, or al Qaeda, or Muslims, but rather liberals and liberal thinking.

They are led by the Plutocrats on Wall Street, but are supported by the Militarists (the neoconservatives), and the Christian Fundamentlaists or the Aramageddonites as I prefer to more accurately call them, and the Ruralites...the mindset of "God and Country" in rural America.

The Plutocrats are the original "rich" of the Republican Party. Their idealogy is capitalism, money and power. They manipulate and influence our elected officials with money. Their base thrives on Wall Street.

The Militarists are just that..."hawks" whose ideology is military intervention to solve the world's problems. They are largely represented by the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower spoke about...and Dick Cheney.

The Armageddonites are the hard core Christian Fundamentalists whose orthodoxy calls for applying Biblical law to government institutions, a belief that the State is under God's law. They believe in the pre-tribulal rature of the church, the End Times, and the Second Coming of Christ...the coming apocolypse at Aramgeddon in Israel. Pat Robertson and Pastor John Hagee are their most outspoken leaders, but many members of the infamous C Street Family identify with this group...John Ensign, James Inhofe, Mark Sanford, James Coburn and several others. Sarah Palin as a member of the Pentecostal movement is an Armageddonite.

Finally the Rurarlites are the Norman Rockwell mindset. They embody working class values, but they are first traditionalists, patriots, flag wavers, boy scouts, faithful church goers...the family values crowd. I don't want to knock the Ruralites, but they're political views are heavily influenced by traditional conservatism and right wing talk radio. They are often misinformed by right wing conservative media.

The Tea Party movement is not really "Republican". It started with more Libertarian idealogies, but has since degenerated into a "hate Obama" camapign. That part, however, fits well with the more extremist faction of the Republican Party.

There is a power struggle within the Republican party right now between the traditionalists like Michael Steele and the rabble rousers like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I invite intellectual criticism of my opinions. I lay these ideas out above to stimulate discussion and debate.

01-15-2010, 12:36 PM

Pulkit
Coppell, TX
Posts: 31

I think this is a good outline of the major factions of the Republican party. I would say that currently the majority of the Republican party base is misinformed. The reason why they are tethered to the Republican party to begin with is because Republicans have done a very good job of marketing their party as the party for the hard working, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps, "American" party. At the same time, they have branded the Democratic party as the elitist liberal party for those who sip lates and listen to Wilco. This is why so much of middle America feels they can identify better with Republicans.

The problem is that this branding distorts true party ideologies. While the Republican party is for free market capitalism, with tax-cuts for the wealthy, the Democratic party is the party of equality, trying to regulate the market with various social programs to create a more equitable playing field for everyone. Most of middle America is not very wealthy, and could certainly benefit from many of the measures that Democrats tout, but simply do not realize it. Would elitists care about the poor? Would elitists stand up for seniors? Would elitists care about the plight of the rest of the world? I don't think so. If people really knew what the Democratic party stood for and what the Republican party is trying to advocate, I think more middle class Americans would realize that the Democratic ticket would suit their pocket books better.

Playing devil's advocate: However, there is a possibility that people do not vote with their wallets, but rather based on ideology. It is true that the Democratic party is for various social reforms such as same-sex marriage and abortion rights. If middle Americans care more about social issues than economic ones, then I can understand better why they vote Republican. However, I do not know if I'm willing to make that leap. I think there are certainly some people who vote based on traditional social beliefs, but I also think that there is a large sector of Americans who vote Republican because they actually believe that Republicans will help them more economically. I think THAT should be the group Democrats could try to target in converting by rebranding themselves as the party of the working-class.

What do you guys think of this analysis, like Mr. Frank, I am open to criticisms and comments.