Conservative tribalism

[neoconish]

Tea-Party Resistance Clouds Push for Major Trade Pacts - WSJ.com

generally speaking free trade support is soft, at best, with the grassroots.

There is an apparent disconnect between grassroots Tea Partiers and their candidates. All of the prominent figures are hardcore free trade proponents and often berate the current administration for doing too little in this regard.

I believe NAFTA is demonized as it was pushed through by Clinton. But if you look at the votes, the legislation garnered bipartisan support, including the likes of Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy. Republicans opposing NAFTA were either Dixiecrats (Helms, Thurmond, Shelby), intellectually challenged (Craig, Kempthorne, Stevens) or closet pro-union Democrats. This very element--paleoconservative, ex-Democrat and "challenged"--is preserved in the grassroots movement. It may be unfortunate, but I still appreciate the way they cast their votes when they reject decline and vote in favor of American Exceptionalism (i.e. hard power).

moreover, the definition of "strong military presence" seems to change depending on the situation-- for instance there's no unified Republican view on what we should do with Syria.

The Syrian situation is complex not because of its many actors but because of its unforeseeable endgame. It evokes a variety of approaches, and you may find left-wing liberals calling for action while stubborn neconservatives oppose any such move. I, for one, am with Pelosi on this one. The absence of a directed US military operation, be it a humanitarian corridor or a no-fly zone, leaves a vacuum which al Qaeda has been all-too-eager to fill. Reserve also allows for Russia and Iran to continue propping up a tinfoil dictator.

moreover foreign policy is not really high up on the Tea Party sense of priorities. it's domestic politics that interest them

As long as the core of their domestic agenda is tax cuts and deregulation, either by proxy or incident, I am on board.

but if they do think about foreign policy they incline the same way they do with their domestic politics, ie libertarian

But as there is no candidate mirroring such a position, I do not see the problem.

that actually represents another split in terms of the GOP foreign policy continuum; now, in addition to paleo-conservatives/realists and neo-conservatives, there is a libertarian/isolationist faction.

I grant you that there is a trifecta of paleocons, ex-Dems, and derp. But as far as candidates are concerned, I would say that Paul, the only libertarian running, would fall back on the Kissinger/Scowcroft brand of foreign policy.

Of course Paul won't win, but it will be interesting to hear him challenge the others in the upcoming debates.

[astralis]

neoconish,

There is an apparent disconnect between grassroots Tea Partiers and their candidates. All of the prominent figures are hardcore free trade proponents and often berate the current administration for doing too little in this regard.

frankly that doesn't make too much sense; what's needed is a renewal of Presidential fast-track authority. which, ironically, has caused another split between conservatives:

Don

which actually ties back into the original thesis of this thread, that conservatives oppose many things because of the Obama factor that they would normally support.

But as there is no candidate mirroring such a position, I do not see the problem.

OTOH it not being presidential election year, there's hardly been any real GOP leaders stepping up to the plate. we'll see what comes up in a few years.

I would say that Paul, the only libertarian running, would fall back on the Kissinger/Scowcroft brand of foreign policy.

no, i doubt he'd fall back on that. he's not a realist so much as a pure isolationist.

in any case none of the GOP candidates in 2012 really articulated much of a foreign policy. i don't expect this to change in 2016.

[zraver]

z,

i really don't get your point. this thread is about how conservatives have wrapped themselves so much against Obama that they're attacking things which they'd normally be for. if you want to talk about something else, you can start your own thread.

i just mentioned how this was emblematic of the greater organizational dysfunction within the GOP, and how this dysfunction is both bad for the party and ultimately for the US.

to wit, your one cogizant argument is that there IS no dysfunction within the GOP and that everything going on is simply a healthy part of the democratic process. everything else is just a parade of GOP political talking points. is it so hard to have a discussion without throwing out every single talking point you can think of?

They are so much more than talking points. But speaking of talking points, you seem to be stuck in 2010 with the oft repeated talking point that the TP is loony so ignore them, but, but, but keep watching them so you don't notice the real world results of Obama's policies. If you want insane look at the actual results of Obama. Every single one of his domestic programs has failed. He's pivoted so many times on jobs and Asia that it looks like a dance routine.

Yet despite this his allies in Congress continue to put party ahead of country. That is insane.

[astralis]

z,

you seem to be stuck in 2010 with the oft repeated talking point that the TP is loony so ignore them

if you actually bothered to read what i wrote, that's pretty much the -opposite- of what i'm saying. but ok.

[zraver]

z,



if you actually bothered to read what i wrote, that's pretty much the -opposite- of what i'm saying. but ok.

I do read what you write and it, like the OP is just another round of- we would be getting what we wanted if not for those rascally tea baggers... mixed with warnings from the GOP that it better mend its ways and get rid of its base if it ever wants to win a general election and topped with veiled hints of racism (they just oppose it because Obama is for it which is code for because he's black, they don't like black people and so are irrelevant. You're a lefty, and your points so far have been taken nearly verbatim from Paul Krugman and Jay Carney.

I don't start threads talkign about what the Des should do to win... I want them to lose and any advice I gave would be suspect. Likewise when Krugbots and obamabots start telling me what (destroy the Tea Party) the GOP needs to do to fix itself I take it as evidence that the current influence of the Tea Party is a good thing.

[neoconish]

frankly that doesn't make too much sense; what's needed is a renewal of Presidential fast-track authority. which, ironically, has caused another split between conservatives:

I can definitely see Stelzer's argument. In his first term Obama not only delayed but downgraded the free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The Obama administration slashed the existing writing to come up with new bills that were favorable in the eyes of pro-union Democrats. What was created with the new deals were lukewarm free trade agreements that would otherwise have had an immediate effect for businesses in either nation.

Moreover, the TTIP will not be delayed because of a Republican divide in Congress or elsewhere. The agreement is insanely unpopular in Europe. Not only due to Europe's fear of placing decisions in the hands of arbitration courts, instead of governments' rule by fancy, but especially due to the implementation of the investor-state dispute settlement clause (ISDS). Germany and France are especially wary of this clause, as it would render their usual statist practices void. Negotiations have sped up thanks to the inanity of Putin, but it will take more than the promise of economic growth to get the French and Germans on board. Expect negotiations to drag on for years.

That said, it is of course very important that both the TTIP and TPP are passed ASAP. These two deals are the guarantors of decades-long growth, making their passage the most pressing legislative matter in the history of international trade. As with NAFTA in 1993, it will also be possible to reach a bipartisan consensus and ram it through both Houses of Congress, regardless of Tea Party opposition and regardless of a presidential fast-track authority.

which actually ties back into the original thesis of this thread, that conservatives oppose many things because of the Obama factor that they would normally support.

Yes. It's the anti-incumbency of the unthinking Vulgarian Right. The Weekly Standard was hit by that as Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol presented their support for the US intervention in Kosovo in 1999, an intervention supported by Dennis Kucinich yet opposed by 38 out of 54 Republican senators.

You see, anti-incumbency works both ways. Many left-wing Democrats will be ready to support a Republican cause as long as they can be persuaded that the cause is also Obama's or the nation's. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Always.

OTOH it not being presidential election year, there's hardly been any real GOP leaders stepping up to the plate. we'll see what comes up in a few years.

On trade and defense, the leadership in Congress have proved to be reliable.

no, i doubt he'd fall back on that. he's not a realist so much as a pure isolationist.

Rand Paul is a know-nothing Luddite way out of his element. But he possesses a capacity for rhetoric which is particularly appealing to the do-nothing audience. As such, he will therefore learn--perhaps by rote--the foreign policy positions of the former realist guard, which is held in high regard by older Republican voters.

It is not that I believe him to hold any such position--the fatherly influence is much too strong--but that I think he is ready to play the game in precisely this fashion. And I will enjoy watching it in the upcoming debates. The other GOP nominees will not have a field day.

in any case none of the GOP candidates in 2012 really articulated much of a foreign policy. i don't expect this to change in 2016.

They did, though. It is because they all (bar Ron Paul) agreed on counter-terrorism, Iran sanctions, Israel, and defense spending that there were no distinguishable differences between them. The topic was easily and swiftly exhausted.

[GVChamp]

I would argue that Regan's ability to raise taxes when it became apparent that it needed to be done is a good indication of sanity. He campaigned heavily against raising taxes, yet when faced with reality, he did it despite his ideology. I find it particularly remarkable that he managed to raise taxes without paying much of a political cost for it. Can you imagine a modern Republican POTUS raising taxes after campaigining against it without Gorver Norquist and half the GOP going up in flames? Idology is well and good, but a good leader can't follow idology blindly while ignoring the changing realities they face.

Okay, but Reagan and Bush were both castigated and painted as insane. Dubya was painted as insane for a modest tax decrease, and painted as a reckless spender when he was down-right frugal compared to both his father and Reagan, and considered insane for a partially privatized social security program.
Democrats are going to call us insane no matter what, because they are the party that believes that growing your own food on your own farm for your own consumption is inter-state commerce and should be taxed to provide mammograms to under-served groups despite recent statistical evidence claiming mammograms are worthless. And then painting it as "war on wimminz!!!!AA@!aonezorz!" too.
Who cares what they think "sane" is?

[astralis]

neoconish,

unthinking Vulgarian Right

heh, nice epithet. unfortunately that seems to be most of the right nowadays.

Many left-wing Democrats will be ready to support a Republican cause as long as they can be persuaded that the cause is also Obama's or the nation's. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Always.

ah, you mean like the ACA...:)

On trade and defense, the leadership in Congress have proved to be reliable.

but they are not national leaders, really. IE no one is looking to mitch mcconnell or john boehner as the lodestone of GOP ideology. moreover the fact that there's no clear leader makes GOP messaging very difficult. for instance, in 2000 there was W's "compassionate conservatism"...there's no counterpart today. in fact, what you deem the vulgarian Right seems to be the loudest.

They did, though. It is because they all (bar Ron Paul) agreed on counter-terrorism, Iran sanctions, Israel, and defense spending that there were no distinguishable differences between them. The topic was easily and swiftly exhausted.

they have policy positions but no policy, if you get my meaning. there's no equivalent of an "Asia-pivot", for instance (which while executed somewhat poorly is at least a strategy).

the problem with GOP hawkishness at this point in time is that the party is riven between the isolationists and people whom want a general continuation of George W's policies...but whom also recognize that hawkishness is not popular among the war-weary US populace. that's why the overwhelming focus the last two cycles have been domestic policy uber alles. this isn't a problem that's limited to Republicans, of course, but it's notable to see the continuation of such a split while the Democratic split of the 90s (liberal internationalism vs realism) has largely been silenced.

[GVChamp]

And in my previous post, I want to draw a distinction between rank-and-file voters, motivated idelogues, and the actual policy-makers. Politicians get a lot of crap (much deserved), but they have the toughest job imaginable: they need to persuade people to give up money and freedom on the promise they might get something back. Yeah, we get a lot of dick-heads in office, but we elect them: I don't feel bad for us anymore than I feel bad for the girl who whines about how all men are jerks when she only dates men in biker bars. Don't be an idiot.
I think I could work with a lot of the Democrat policy-makers, like Harry Reid or Dick Durbin. I don't think they are crazy nut-jobs. Democrat ideologues, akin to the Krugman types, or worse, the people I went to college with? Yeah, they are radicals that just hate Republicans as much as the Tea Party hates Democrats. There's nothing to do there but shrug and hope they elect someone that can play ball. They are Democrats because they don't like Republicans, and to them this is a knee-jerk unexamined religion, sort of like how my future mother-in-law doesn't like blacks, gays, or Muslims because that's what she's invested her ego in.

[astralis]

GVChamp,

Yeah, we get a lot of dick-heads in office, but we elect them: I don't feel bad for us anymore than I feel bad for the girl who whines about how all men are jerks when she only dates men in biker bars.

gerrymandering. by creating "safe" political districts, the competition is now between who is more pure, vice who is more pragmatic.

this is an issue both parties have, but Republicans get affected by this relatively worse because their main constituency, older white males, is shrinking in size. the fight over a shrinking pie is more contentious than a fight over an expanding one.

I think I could work with a lot of the Democrat policy-makers, like Harry Reid or Dick Durbin. I don't think they are crazy nut-jobs. Democrat ideologues, akin to the Krugman types, or worse, the people I went to college with? Yeah, they are radicals that just hate Republicans as much as the Tea Party hates Democrats. There's nothing to do there but shrug and hope they elect someone that can play ball.

the issue here being that Dems can control their crazies a lot more than the GOP can control theirs.

just think on the ACA for instance; Dems really wanted single-payer or at a minimum a public option, not the circa 1993-Heritage Foundation idea behind the ACA. yet there was enough party unity for the legislative whips to cajole/bribe/threaten everyone into nodding, and the plan went forward.

compare and contrast that with the enormous amount of teethpulling that Boehner went through on almost every single bill -he- championed, most of which died when it became clear he couldn't get his folks to rally around what time of day it was, let alone the bill in question.

[GVChamp]

I don’t disagree. The Republican Caucus is disorganized at the moment, in large part because of the infusion of Tea Party members. That’s made a lot of things more difficult for the Republican leadership to accomplish. No major disagreement there.
However, this comes across as Concern-Trolling. Parties undergo upheaval all the time. That’s not unhealthy, that’s a normal, healthy part of the political process. It’s not a permanent condition, it’s a shifting of priorities and interest groups.
And it’s concern trolling not in the interest of the Republican Party, or the American people. It’s concern trolling to benefit the Democratic legislative agenda. We hear whining from the Dems all the time, including when the Republicans were lock-step to oppose the Democratic legislative agenda (and not disorganized) or when the Republicans proposed modest policy changes (and painted as crazy). Democrats will say whatever they can to undermine Republicans. Why should I pay attention to them now?

[astralis]

GVChamp,

However, this comes across as Concern-Trolling.

not really "concern trolling". most Dem partisans chortle at the sight of the Tea Party and the GOP civil war because it sabotages the GOP in the short-term. moreover it's good for the partisan gander; what type of person do you think raises the most hackles/funds, Palin or HW Bush?

in any case the original point of the article is that the civil war/Tea Party sabotages the GOP's -own agenda-.

Parties undergo upheaval all the time. That’s not unhealthy, that’s a normal, healthy part of the political process. It’s not a permanent condition, it’s a shifting of priorities and interest groups.

it's more generational rather than "all the time". the last major disruption of this sort for the GOP was in 1994-1995; before then, 1980, and before that, 1964.

from a non-partisan view i'd say this disruption is significantly worse than it was in the previous eras, because of the underlying factors of gerrymandering and the rise of the Internet. the fall of the national media and the tendency for people to gravitate towards media that largely agrees with their own POV means further splintering.

these are trends that should concern Americans as Americans, not as Republicans or as Democrats.

[JAD_333]

GVChamp,



gerrymandering. by creating "safe" political districts, the competition is now between who is more pure, vice who is more pragmatic.

this is an issue both parties have, but Republicans get affected by this relatively worse because their main constituency, older white males, is shrinking in size. the fight over a shrinking pie is more contentious than a fight over an expanding one.



the issue here being that Dems can control their crazies a lot more than the GOP can control theirs.

just think on the ACA for instance; Dems really wanted single-payer or at a minimum a public option, not the circa 1993-Heritage Foundation idea behind the ACA. yet there was enough party unity for the legislative whips to cajole/bribe/threaten everyone into nodding, and the plan went forward.

compare and contrast that with the enormous amount of teethpulling that Boehner went through on almost every single bill -he- championed, most of which died when it became clear he couldn't get his folks to rally around what time of day it was, let alone the bill in question.

Geez, Asty, you've uncorked the liberal viewpoint which one can liken to tunnel vision, a quality common to all partisan viewpoints. I feel sorry for you, because there is far more contentment in understanding both sides. I don't see much to gain by starting with the premise that conservatives are wrong and citing examples of where liberals didn't get their way to prove your point.

As I've said before, the so-called conservative 'tribe', to use your term, has a much bigger fish to fry with liberals, aka Democrats. Blocking the latter's initiatives is certainly not the main goal of the far-sighted ideologues on the right. Rather the goal is a fundamental change in the direction or management of the central government, much like we see in some of the states where GOP governors preside and have been successful in fiscal and some social matters.

This is not an unrealistic goal. The utter failure of liberals of late to offer realistic compromises acceptable to the right points to a divide in the electorate that is only reflected in Congress. But Congress is as good a place to begin.

Mind you, I am neither defending nor condemning this approach, although I do agree with the basic contention that the Federal government is well off the reservation in terms of its constitutional authority and, if that is not enough, far too involved in aspects of governance best left to state and local control (and discretion). I do not mean we should roll back civil rights gains or take the country backward to some nostalgic, covered-bridges era, but I do believe it is time to adjust, in a general sense, progressive strides of the past few decades. Basically, it's the pendulum concept--too far, too long in one direction seeks a correction. You see trees; I see forests. :)

[SteveDaPirate]

Rather the goal is a fundamental change in the direction or management of the central government, much like we see in some of the states where GOP governors preside and have been successful in fiscal and some social matters.

I’d like to think that the policies in Kansas could be instructive for the rest of the country. Gov. Brownback has used his time in office to see what happens if you drastically cut both government spending and the state income tax.

So far Brownback’s policies have gotten the state in trouble with the courts, as education is now being funded below constitutionally specified levels. The economic recovery in Kansas has fallen behind the surrounding states in the region, and big employers like Boeing are packing up and leaving. The state pension plan has $16.7 billion in unfunded pension liability, and Moody’s credit rating has just downgraded the state of Kansas’s bond rating due to unsustainable financial policies.

Our Governor’s plan to deal with this problem is to cut taxes more, spend down the remaining state reserves, and poach a few hundred million more from the highway fund. That might work once or twice, but robbing Peter to pay Paul quits working when Peter is out of money. If you know some successful GOP Governors please send them our way.

[astralis]

JAD,

As I've said before, the so-called conservative 'tribe', to use your term, has a much bigger fish to fry with liberals, aka Democrats. Blocking the latter's initiatives is certainly not the main goal of the far-sighted ideologues on the right. Rather the goal is a fundamental change in the direction or management of the central government,

yet the very premise of the thread is that this is not the case. see the conservative outrage over Common Core, or the result when governors refuse to participate in setting up state exchanges on the ACA, or immigration.

in each case, ask yourself if the Tea Party opposition has actually led to a change in the direction or management of the central government-- and if that change is the one that conservatives would want. :)