Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Ixtellor » Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:34 pm UTC

For those who are paying attention to the raging war going on amoung Republicans, there seems to be two main Camps with two main arguments.

Argument 1:
Which is better for the republican party; conservative intellectuals or average joes who can relate to the common man.

Argument 2:
What is needed to make the republicans winners again;
1) A commitment to traditional conservative values: lower taxes, small gov, social conservatism, and massive national defense. (proponants include: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, basically all of Talk radio)
Their ideal candidate: Sarah Palin

or

2) Tackle the new problems facing America including: income inequality, massive defecits, healthcare, terrorism. (proponants include: George Will, Krauthammer, David Brooks, and most of the conservative columnists)
Their ideal candidate(s): Jindel, Pawlenty

While I voted Dem for the past 8 years, I could be brought back into the Republican fold if they would gravitate towards the Reformer camp. I am a believer in the basic argument that Republicans won their early battles. They defeated communism (debatable that they were responsible, but the cold war IS over) and they made America a tax cutting society. (Obama a super liberal ran as a tax cutter, few democrats have the guts to raise taxes even when necessary)

I hope the reformers win and the tradionalists go the way of the segregationists.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Kizyr » Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:53 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:Argument 2:
What is needed to make the republicans winners again;
1) A commitment to traditional conservative values: lower taxes, small gov, social conservatism, and massive national defense. (proponants include: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, basically all of Talk radio)
Their ideal candidate: Sarah Palin


There's another split altogether that I think you may be missing, that between economic and social conservatives. On one side you have "fiscal conservatives" who favor low taxation and small government, free markets / free trade, etc.. On the other side you have social conservatives, for whom abortion, preventing gay marriage, and demonizing any religion that's not evangelical Christianity are most important.

...sorry, it's probably a bit apparent where my biases are. Anyway...

It's actually rather weird that the Republican party has focused on tying together things like free markets or low taxation with banning gay marriage and abortion. (There's a lot of other examples of odd things that they've tied together as well, but I don't want to divert the subject.) So I think that's creating another schism within the party where you have, on one end, people trend more towards being libertarian--and so want a small, non-intrusive government even in cases of religion--and on the other end people who trend more towards being reactionary--and so might not care about free market capitalism, but really want to make sure that everyone has the right to own a gun, gays don't have the right to be married, and there's little to no leeway with abortion rights.

So to back up, I think within your first category, there are probably three groups:
1a) Social conservatives - like Hannity, Coulter, much of talk radio
1b) Fiscal conservatives - like Greenspan, Schwarzenegger, Giuliani or Bloomberg (possibly? I'm not as familiar with either of them)
2) Reformers, as you mentioned

And additionally, there's a lot of crossover between the three. Some fiscal conservatives are also reformers (like McCain with campaign finance reform). Some social conservatives consider themselves reformers (like how Coulter wants to tackle terrorism by active discrimination against minorities). KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Ixtellor » Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:41 pm UTC

Kizyr wrote:
Ixtellor wrote:Argument 2:
What is needed to make the republicans winners again;
1) A commitment to traditional conservative values: lower taxes, small gov, social conservatism, and massive national defense. (proponants include: Rush, Hannity, Coulter, basically all of Talk radio)
Their ideal candidate: Sarah Palin


There's another split altogether that I think you may be missing, that between economic and social conservatives. On one side you have "fiscal conservatives" who favor low taxation and small government, free markets / free trade, etc.. On the other side you have social conservatives, for whom abortion, preventing gay marriage, and demonizing any religion that's not evangelical Christianity are most important.



You are basically talking about the three legs of the Republican party.
I didn't mention the social conservatives because their is no major debate taking place over those issues within the party, it is still a pro life, anti-gay marriage party and I dont' see any prominant conservatives among the reformers calling those views into question.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Absolute
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:13 pm UTC
Location: Undisclosed

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Absolute » Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:56 pm UTC

I'd like to see the Republicans start treating evagenicals the way Democrals do environmentalists, i.e. pay minor lip servise to their ideals without being seen anywhere near their ideologues, and go whichever way the wind blows on specific issues. Honestly, most hardcore christians will vote R anyway, and Pat Robertson, et. al. will relegated to running the race for third against the Greens and Libertarians. Most moderate christians find their brand of zealotry a little off-putting, but like hearing warm, fuzzy, Obama-style speeches about just how swell religion is. McCain did this to some extent, and got the evangelicals anyway, but was such a failure in every other respect that this did not help him much. I think an actual Republican could use this strategy to great effect, much like Reagan.

The other conservative policies should be kept intact, for the most part, because they resonate with the American people and are what sets them apart from Democrats. One obvious change would be a balanced budget policy of some kind, as this is a common, hard-hitting attack on Republicans. Other than that though, the script works as written. Military strength, diplomatic intransigence, small government, low/simplified taxes, vague appeals to "traditional values", etc. are desirable to most Americans and dificult to attack politically. For example, on military spending, Dems have to try hard to not look like either cowardly weaklings (Jimmy Carter e.g.) or poseurs (Michael Dukakis). Phrases such as "income inequality" are anathema and should only be answered with some form of "none of the government's business". Many other tricky issues such as religious charities, sex ed., stem cells, and school prayer could be dismissed with this or a states rights argument. This would be essentially conservative yet not scare away centrists.

Regarding question 1: I think having both on the same ticket is the way to go, like Bush/Cheney or Bush/Quayle. I'd like to see Thomas Sowell/Likable Idiot (preferably a Hispanic or Asian Woman) myself, and I don't care too much who gets top billing. Or maybe Clarence Thomas, or better yet Clarence Thomas Sowell. Fuck yeah.
"To the intransigent mind, to the inviolate truth"

I don't really have "mornings", so much as "times when I switch from booze to coffee"

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby qinwamascot » Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:10 pm UTC

What's sad is that there seems to be a large number of Republicans who think the party isn't conservative enough, and that by becoming more conservative they can win. Either that, or they're deliberately pushing an extreme agenda to move the political center to the right. This is the problem Democrats have: they have stayed basically at the same place for the past few decades, while Republicans moved the center further right. So even if the Democrats win, the Republicans are still partially getting their way. You know it's pretty bad when a progressive tax cut (basically the same thing we had during Clinton) is labeled socialism.

I hope a more moderate party prevails, but I don't see it happening. Who would they appeal to? They'd be risking losing the base to something like the Constitution party (I'm not saying it's likely, but it is possible). Right now, their base is all they have, and moderates are skeptical after the last 8 years (and should be). The Democrats lose a lot of votes in their base, yet the Republicans manage to keep most of theirs. If they stray away from that base into somewhere in the middle, they don't really have any way to gain votes. By going farther to the right, they won't lose any, and will keep the base riled up.

Edit: from a personal viewpoint, the best possible outcome is that the Republicans lose their ability to compete as a second party and are swallowed up by the Democrats. Then a more liberal party would likely emerge. But I'm quite biased against the Republicans. I'd really like to see some reform in the party, because where they're going scares me a lot right now.
Quiznos>Subway

User avatar
Absolute
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:13 pm UTC
Location: Undisclosed

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Absolute » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:03 pm UTC

qinwamascot wrote: You know it's pretty bad when a progressive tax cut (basically the same thing we had during Clinton) is labeled socialism.
You know it's bad when a tax hike is labeled a tax cut. I think that's my snark quota, I'll leave at that so I don't kill the thread.

I hope a more moderate party prevails, but I don't see it happening. Who would they appeal to? They'd be risking losing the base to something like the Constitution party (I'm not saying it's likely, but it is possible). Right now, their base is all they have, and moderates are skeptical after the last 8 years (and should be). The Democrats lose a lot of votes in their base, yet the Republicans manage to keep most of theirs. If they stray away from that base into somewhere in the middle, they don't really have any way to gain votes. By going farther to the right, they won't lose any, and will keep the base riled up.
An obvious issue here is the poor definitions of left and right. Is W a fiscal centrist because he both lowered taxes and increased spending? I think the idea of viewing the political spectrum as a plane with both an economic(left-->right) and a social (authoritarian v libertarian) axis. I think they can stay to the right as long as they move down somewhat, they should move even further towards the bottom-right corner, but it's the social authoritarianism that scares away votes. Also, I completely disagree with your "moving the center rightward" hypotheses.

Edit: from a personal viewpoint, the best possible outcome is that the Republicans lose their ability to compete as a second party and are swallowed up by the Democrats. Then a more liberal party would likely emerge. But I'm quite biased against the Republicans. I'd really like to see some reform in the party, because where they're going scares me a lot right now.
If you mean social liberalism then I'm with you all the way, but if you mean economic liberalism then that would be the dumbest thing they could possibly do. Distate for the more liberal Democrats is the only thing Republicans have going for them these days, at least in Presidential races. Hell, it's the only reason I voted for McCain, or Bush for that matter. If they lost that, they would be the party of Hoover and Nixon, whereas I'd like to see them restore the party of Lincoln and Reagan. I'd also like to see an intelligent, likeable candidate from them. Thomas Jefferson would be ideal, but if McCain was too old... Anyway, I'd settle for a candidate with more charisma than a splinter of wood. A particularly disagreeable splinter with poor communication skills and no integrity, at that.

Jefferson/Lincoln 2012
"To the intransigent mind, to the inviolate truth"

I don't really have "mornings", so much as "times when I switch from booze to coffee"

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Indon » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:13 pm UTC

In my own opinion, I think the best result is for the republican party to disintegrate, and the Libertarian party can pick up the desirable portions of the party, grab some of the fiscal conservatives who abandoned the republicans prior out of disgust, and the system would be much better off (unless the libertarians turned into the republican party, of course).
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Velifer
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:05 pm UTC
Location: 40ºN, 83ºW

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Velifer » Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:41 pm UTC

Is there really a schism in the party? It has always been very hierarchical, with elite power-brokers making decisions and sending them down to the rank-and-file. The conservative intellectuals will always have a place at the top, as the "average Joes" will be assured of their place as the glorified base.

The party will continue to support limited government, exorbitant spending on defense, privatization and deregulation of large industries, lax control over commons, and wrap it all in Christian-esque dogma, fear, and in-grouping/out-grouping pandering to intolerance. What in this document do you see changing? http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/

About the Republicans moving to the right... think back to Newt Gingrich. He was astounding. He helped the party grab the middle, and defined Democrats as the extreme leftists. This left the Democrats punch-drunk and reeling for the last decade. Now the Republicans (not due to any great strategy by the inept Democratic party) have lost the firm grip on centrist issues, and of course are starting to look more extreme. This isn't a fracture in the Republican party, it's the realization that centrists still exist.

Democrats coalesce, Republicans fall in line. They'll keep doing that.
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies have nothing to lose but their chains -Marx

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Ixtellor » Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:29 pm UTC

Velifer wrote:Is there really a schism in the party? It has always been very hierarchical, with elite power-brokers making decisions and sending them down to the rank-and-file. The conservative intellectuals will always have a place at the top, as the "average Joes" will be assured of their place as the glorified base.


This used to be the way it was prior to around 2000. The election of W, pretty much destroyed the whole top down power broker system. That and the growing power of the evangelicals. Intellectuals are almost the antithesis of evangelicals.
Since the rise and replacement of the Christian coalition, that top down Republican model has slowly been eroded. (focus on the family replaced the coalition)

Velifer wrote:The party will continue to support limited government, exorbitant spending on defense, privatization and deregulation of large industries, lax control over commons, and wrap it all in Christian-esque dogma, fear, and in-grouping/out-grouping pandering to intolerance. What in this document do you see changing? http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/


The intellectuals are arguing against the big defense spending. There was also ample evidence during the Rumsfeld years. He was downsizing the military away from big ticket items to more mobile smaller units.

The Republican Presidential campaign also took a far more moderate view on gay marriage. Even Palins famous "I tolerate gays" was far removed from the days of Falwell and Pat.

Yes the platform still looks typical, but the fact is most politicians don't handcuff themselves to the platform. (See McCain on immigration and McCain-Feingold)

Velifer wrote:... think back to Newt Gingrich. He was astounding.


He also got himself booted out of office and rejected by Republicans after his distrous shutting down of the Federal government move, in which Clinton came out looking like a champ and Gingrich got the boot.

I think Newt has done a great job of reinventing himself. I do admire his commitment to his ideals. (Aside from his crappy marriage record and personal life)

Velifer wrote:This isn't a fracture in the Republican party, it's the realization that centrists still exist.


This is my point. Half of the Republicans are arguing that they need to kick out ALL the centrists and reject ALL centrist ideas. (Obviously I can't prove its half, but the talk radio wing and the evangelical wing are strongly voicing this position)

Ixtellor

P.S. I heard a great question from Tucker Carlson "What is it about the Republican party that is holding togeather the social liberal/fiscal conservatives like Guliani with the social conservative/fiscal liberals like Mike Huckabee"

This is a great question. These two guys should not be in the same party.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby frezik » Tue Nov 18, 2008 9:38 pm UTC

Kizyr wrote:It's actually rather weird that the Republican party has focused on tying together things like free markets or low taxation with banning gay marriage and abortion. (There's a lot of other examples of odd things that they've tied together as well, but I don't want to divert the subject.) So I think that's creating another schism within the party where you have, on one end, people trend more towards being libertarian--and so want a small, non-intrusive government even in cases of religion--and on the other end people who trend more towards being reactionary--and so might not care about free market capitalism, but really want to make sure that everyone has the right to own a gun, gays don't have the right to be married, and there's little to no leeway with abortion rights.


Indeed, but note that the Democrats are actually made up of a lot more groups like that. What do anti-war protesters have to do with unionized labor, for instance? This is an inheirent problem with a two-party block. You don't see an effective party that's fiscally liberal but socially conservative, because there just isn't room.

However, in having fewer such internal contridictions, Republicans are actually much more likely to create a major schisim. The various groups that make up the Democratic party are forced to get along with each other, or else they would loose all effectiveness. Putting small government and evengelicals together seems like it might work until someone with a libertarian bent asks why federal money is used to censor TV broadcasts.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Vaniver » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:20 am UTC

You see George Will as a "tackle income equality" sort instead of "small government" sort? Well.

Absolute wrote:Honestly, most hardcore christians will vote R anyway
No, they won't. Religious turnout for McCain wasn't fantastic, and imagine what it would have been if he had selected someone other than Palin.

Velifer wrote:Now the Republicans (not due to any great strategy by the inept Democratic party) have lost the firm grip on centrist issues, and of course are starting to look more extreme.
Not really; Democratic think tanks (and universities, the unspoken Democratic think tanks) have been churning out ideas for quite some time while the Republican response has been subdued at best.

I have mentioned before on these fora my hopes that a socially up,* fiscally up party will emerge and that the socially down, fiscally up Republicans will be marginalized. I'm not sure how long it'll take to make that transition, though- how long does it take to go from growing numbers of gay friends in high school to support of gay marriage? And is there any reason to believe that views on abortion will change or become marginalized?

*"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down — up to a man's age-old dream; the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order — or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course" --Ronald Reagan
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
qinwamascot
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:50 am UTC
Location: Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby qinwamascot » Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:40 am UTC

Firstly, on the topic, I'd say that the "Religious Right" as a movement is a dying thing. People realize you don't need to be conservative to be religious, which is most of the reason why the movement was ever successful. Bush's highly publicized "not going to church" contrasted with many Democrats was part of what shattered this.

@ Absolute:
I don't want to get into a prolonged argument here so I'll just point out where I disagree with you and we can leave it at that. If you really want you can refute these and I'll let you have the last word.

Absolute wrote:You know it's bad when a tax hike is labeled a tax cut. I think that's my snark quota, I'll leave at that so I don't kill the thread.


To me, a tax increase means that the average person pays more, while a tax cut means the average person pays less. Otherwise it's impossible to categorize any tax plan other than uniformly raising taxes or lowering taxes. I understand that you believe that if anyone's taxes at all are raised, this constitutes a raise. The kind of absolutism you propose is something I can't agree with.

An obvious issue here is the poor definitions of left and right. Is W a fiscal centrist because he both lowered taxes and increased spending? I think the idea of viewing the political spectrum as a plane with both an economic(left-->right) and a social (authoritarian v libertarian) axis. I think they can stay to the right as long as they move down somewhat, they should move even further towards the bottom-right corner, but it's the social authoritarianism that scares away votes. Also, I completely disagree with your "moving the center rightward" hypotheses.


My definition of the left and right are based on the modern political usages of the term. And this kind of rightward movement on the economic spectrum is exactly what I'm worried about. At least if they moved downwards, they'd be further from authoritarianism, but I consider the current economic and social policies of Republicans to be entirely too far in the upper-right area.

As for moving farther to the right, this is not something I'm going to discuss, because people who read it won't need explanation for whether they agree with it.

If you mean social liberalism then I'm with you all the way, but if you mean economic liberalism then that would be the dumbest thing they could possibly do. Distate for the more liberal Democrats is the only thing Republicans have going for them these days, at least in Presidential races. Hell, it's the only reason I voted for McCain, or Bush for that matter. If they lost that, they would be the party of Hoover and Nixon, whereas I'd like to see them restore the party of Lincoln and Reagan. I'd also like to see an intelligent, likeable candidate from them. Thomas Jefferson would be ideal, but if McCain was too old... Anyway, I'd settle for a candidate with more charisma than a splinter of wood. A particularly disagreeable splinter with poor communication skills and no integrity, at that.

Jefferson/Lincoln 2012


Lincoln died a long time ago, and frankly I think the Democrats are closer to his political legacy than the Republicans by now. Reagan is the most overhyped president in modern history. If you actually want either Lincoln or Jefferson, you should know that Lincoln was a racist (it was normal back in those times, even among abolitionists) and Jefferson actively kept slaves and favored periodic rebellion. Neither of them would work today. Perhaps I'm taking you a little too literally though, but it's hard to tell.

To be frank, the Republicans are associated with Nixon and Hoover just as much as Reagan and Lincoln. You can't pick a few heros and call the rest "non-Republicans". If you agree with the ideal, that's one thing, but parties don't hold the same ideals over time.

You didn't really give a reason why becoming more moderate economically is a bad thing, so I'm not going to give a reason why it's a good thing. I think it would be a good thing, and I think most moderates would agree with me.
Quiznos>Subway

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Gunfingers » Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:24 pm UTC

Lincoln also started a war, suspended Habeas Corpus, locked thousands of people in prison and threw away the key, threatened to arrest a justice of the supreme court for ruling against him, and burned at least one city to the ground. I'd say he's a damned good example of a republican.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:54 pm UTC

I feel that the parties have just formed around blocks of voters that they were able to grab first.

Republicans were able to grab social conservatives due to having the precedent established by a Republican at the time, and Democrats took minority votes as a reaction.

I don't think the Republican party will escape the strangle-hold of social conservatives. They could change the platform and public stances, and yet you'd still have social conservatives to court. Why? Because the average Joe is uninformed about such intricacies, and thus resorts to the usual identity politics. The identities have already been cemented; and unless something radical happens at the leadership level, which I haven't witnessed, things will remain the way they are.

It saddens me, truly. I'm a fiscal conservative, but I can't reconcile my vote with a party that seeks to impose Christian supremacy on the legislative process. I'm pro-abortion rights, pro- gay rights.

Having the Republican party kick off the social conservatives would finally give me a chance of options and better results for gay rights as a result of competition. However, I see the issue being resolved by the SCOTUS before the Republican party even begins to shift into something besides hostility to gay people.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

janusx
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:46 pm UTC

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby janusx » Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:18 pm UTC

The problem I see in the Republican party is the same as mentioned by Lucrece and others. The fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal are left high and dry. The Republican PARTY dogma has been far too caught up in recent years with the Christian evangelical movement and both parties are plagued with the us versus them mentality.

Really I see most people who lean republican falling in two camps:

Current Republican Partiers: Cut taxes, increase spending, authoritarian, christian movement, high defense spending
Libertarian Republicans: Cut taxes, decrease spending, social libertarianism, mid to low defense spending

Personally i feel it's this schism which is really beginning to tear apart the republican party.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Vaniver » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:06 am UTC

qinwamascot wrote:To me, a tax increase means that the average person pays more, while a tax cut means the average person pays less. Otherwise it's impossible to categorize any tax plan other than uniformly raising taxes or lowering taxes. I understand that you believe that if anyone's taxes at all are raised, this constitutes a raise. The kind of absolutism you propose is something I can't agree with.
You could say that a tax cut decreases tax receipts for a given income distribution,* while a tax increase raises tax receipts for a given income distribution, and that by doing bracket-level burden comparisons you can figure out whether it becomes more progressive or regressive. So it can be a tax increase that makes for a more progressive system.

And, besides, isn't just looking at the mean (or median, or mode, or whatnot) an absolutist position?

*So we don't have to deal with the effect of taxes on growth.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Philwelch » Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:49 pm UTC

Indon wrote:In my own opinion, I think the best result is for the republican party to disintegrate, and the Libertarian party can pick up the desirable portions of the party, grab some of the fiscal conservatives who abandoned the republicans prior out of disgust, and the system would be much better off (unless the libertarians turned into the republican party, of course).


As someone who's watched the LP for years, they've resigned themselves to permanent fringe nutjob status. They don't even have the power to be a spoiler anymore.

Vaniver wrote:I have mentioned before on these fora my hopes that a socially up,* fiscally up party will emerge and that the socially down, fiscally up Republicans will be marginalized. I'm not sure how long it'll take to make that transition, though- how long does it take to go from growing numbers of gay friends in high school to support of gay marriage? And is there any reason to believe that views on abortion will change or become marginalized?

*"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down — up to a man's age-old dream; the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order — or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course" --Ronald Reagan


The model for this isn't so much Reagan as it is Reagan's ideological predecessor—Goldwater. Perhaps the first prominent conservative to speak out against the religious right.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
SJ Zero
Posts: 740
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:10 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Republican War: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby SJ Zero » Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:27 pm UTC

It has already begun. Look at the the Ronpaul Revolution. (The Revolution being simply following the stated Republican platform instead of saying one thing and doing the opposite) The the Ronpaul folks might look insane, but when one considers policies such as sound money and clawing back the powers of the federal government to give the power to the states, and eliminating the need for taxation, and places it alongside the government dominating your actions from cradle to grave and taxing you while running up massive debts on insane spending initiatives, I'd say the truly insane platform is obvious.

The Republicans aren't running on their own platform. They're trying to outDemocrat the Democrats in spending and growing government power, but doing it on a negative platform instead of a positive one. There's only so long that the Republicans can keep going "Don't you hate gay people? Our opponents hate Christmas! People from the middle east aren't really people! We're going to spend more and tax less!" and keep getting votes.

User avatar
Brian
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Brian » Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:19 pm UTC

Three things:

First - Social "conservatism" now defies the meaning of the word. I cringe every time I heal popular religion equated to conservatism.

Second - The divisions in the Republican party are between three individual sections therein:
1. "Joe the Plumber" populist, socially "conservative", morally opposed to high taxes.
2. "Ron Paul-ites", true conservatives who want to dramatically reduce government.
3. Big Business proponents, who know the destruction caused by trickle-down economics (first-hand, by now) but decide to reap the benefits anyway. Truly conservative in no way.

Third - #2 and #3 don't see eye to eye, but #2 hasn't held any sway because #3 would rather have bailouts and has much more power to play with. However, the vote lies with #1. In my opinion, the best bet for the Republican party is to redraw the battle-lines. Instead of:
Republicans: Rural, Religious, Big Business
Democrats: Minority, Urban, Gay-Rights, Green
Change it to:
Republicans: fight to take over the Civil Rights issue (true social conservatism), Fiscal Conservatism, Foreign Policy Conservatism (optional, though probably beneficial after the last 8 years)
Democrats: Left alone with Fiscal Liberalism if all goes according to plan.

phonon266737
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:41 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby phonon266737 » Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:10 pm UTC

One interesting thing about the true conservatives: you have to remember that we're talking about the FEDERAL government. For a lot of things, espcially social (bibles in school, gay rights, whatever) the Fed's aren't (shouldn't be) responsible at all for making laws, for or against. For a country as large as the US, it makes far more sense to generate laws for/against in large regions (aka states), and allow people to live among others who share those social beliefs, rather than force the entire country to go along with the majority. Personally, the best reason for doing this is simply to get it out of federal poltiics: congresspeople aren't voting day in and day out on gun rights and abortion. For the most part, they deal with economics, interstate commerce, foreign policy, etc. The fact that a candidate is chosen for their for/against vote on particular social issues totally disgregards the job they are supposedto be doing.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Philwelch » Mon Dec 01, 2008 11:08 pm UTC

A few things:

1. the Ronpaul who holds no sway over the party and never will. I don't say that to minimize his ideas (some of which are great and some of which are crazy, like any other political figure) but to point out that they are far away from what any successful political party can hold. That having been said, a moderated version of the Ronpaul's position is a bit closer to what the Republican Party needs to adopt.

Which brings us to:

2. It's not a matter of traditionalists vs. reformers. Which "tradition" are we talking about?

1. The Goldwater libertarian tradition?
2. The Nixon Southern Strategy?
3. The Reagan social-conservative/economic-libertarian tradition?
4. The G.H.W. Bush-era era internationalist take on #3?
5. Or the G.W. Bush era neoconservatism?

The only tradition all five share is a hawkish stance on foreign policy. the Ronpaul probably comes closest to a dovish form of #1, though he's also quite nativist and I'm not sure how nativist Goldwater was.

Personally, I'd rather see a moderated Goldwater-style libertarianism combined with a GHW Bush internationalist foreign policy, but that might be seen as a "reform".
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Ixtellor » Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:16 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:2. It's not a matter of traditionalists vs. reformers. Which "tradition" are we talking about?


The tradition, as I can tell, is referring to what has basically been a non-changing republican party plateform since around the time of Reagan.

The fact that Goldwater, Reagan, Nixon, and the Bush's didn't follow the platform to a T, doesn't mean there isn't a 'tradition'

Small Gov
Lower Taxes
Strong National Defense
Conservative social values.

This is what the 'traditionalists' are arguing the party needs to do to win elections.

I would love to see a party molded in the shape of Goldwater. My only criticism of his views was on civil rights, but I think that problem is very minor compared to what it was in his day. Thus I think it would be OK to do away with Affirmative Action, although I think it serves a function.


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

Lemminkainen
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:26 pm UTC

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Lemminkainen » Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:13 pm UTC

phonon266737 wrote:For a country as large as the US, it makes far more sense to generate laws for/against in large regions (aka states), and allow people to live among others who share .


But isn't something that's wrong in California also wrong in Alabama? People on both sides feel that way. If you feel that gay people should have equal rights, you will feel that they should have rights everywhere? Or if you're on the other side of the spectrum, and believe that abortion is murder, shouldn't it be illegal everywhere?

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Philwelch » Fri Dec 05, 2008 2:34 am UTC

Lemminkainen wrote:
phonon266737 wrote:For a country as large as the US, it makes far more sense to generate laws for/against in large regions (aka states), and allow people to live among others who share .


But isn't something that's wrong in California also wrong in Alabama? People on both sides feel that way. If you feel that gay people should have equal rights, you will feel that they should have rights everywhere? Or if you're on the other side of the spectrum, and believe that abortion is murder, shouldn't it be illegal everywhere?


Yeah, but maybe we're wrong about gay marriage, so it's best to let the gay folks who wanna get married live in Gay Marriage Land and the homophobes live in Homophobia City and then at least they'll stop fighting.

It's not perfect, but it's necessary to some extent. You can't convince or compel millions of people in Saudi Arabia to go along with gay marriage, but making sure we live in a different country that they do keeps us from going to war over it.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Lucrece » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:39 am UTC

What about those living in there? Should they be forced to emigrate to another state? Be uprooted from their family?

It just seems troublesome that you are getting on a carousel of relationship recognition (or lack thereof)-- marriage in MA, CU in NJ, DP's in NY, "Mutual Commitment" contracts in Salt Lake City, "nothing" in many other states? What if your job requires you to move around? Should you be forced to quit your job because it will jeopardize your family's stability? All because of the whim of people who'd rather not be associated with those wallowing in the maws of Sodom? Would heterosexuals stand such hassle?

Eventually, this disparity will be addressed on the federal level; the state determination approach is simply a façade for not having to deal with an important legal question.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:56 am UTC

By that logic Lucrece, gay marriage and unions should just be flat-out banned on the federal level until people come around their douchery. Leaving marriage laws to the states might leave some out in the rain, but better than everyone for the time being.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Philwelch » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:23 am UTC

(Mod: I'd like a "states rights" fork instead of deletion or thread closure, because I value this conversation and I know you're going to be a stickler about it.)

I'm going to let it play out, actually.

-Az



Lucrece wrote:What about those living in there? Should they be forced to emigrate to another state? Be uprooted from
their family?


Up to them. They're not "forced" any more than anyone else, but they don't get the same legal benefits they might get in other states, just like the rest of us. More later.

Lucrece wrote:It just seems troublesome that you are getting on a carousel of relationship recognition (or lack thereof)-- marriage in MA, CU in NJ, DP's in NY, "Mutual Commitment" contracts in Salt Lake City, "nothing" in many other states? What if your job requires you to move around? Should you be forced to quit your job because it will jeopardize your family's stability? All because of the whim of people who'd rather not be associated with those wallowing in the maws of Sodom? Would heterosexuals stand such hassle?


We already do. My parents moved to Washington because Oregon taxes were too high. My grandparents moved to Oregon because the farming in Wisconsin dried up. If I'm Muslim and I want to marry four women instead of just one I've gotta move to a country that respects Muslim law, or I have to assimilate to the dominant monogamist culture in my country. If I want to have guns in my house I probably don't want to live in California or New York. If I want a prenuptual agreement I'm better off in some states than others. If I want to run a small business there are better states for that than others.

I never said it was a perfect system. But it provides some benefits and respects true diversity in a way that you'll never achieve by shoving the same set of laws down everyone's throat.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Lucrece » Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:26 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:By that logic Lucrece, gay marriage and unions should just be flat-out banned on the federal level until people come around their douchery. Leaving marriage laws to the states might leave some out in the rain, but better than everyone for the time being.


I introduce you to the repeated failure of the FMA.

Philwelch wrote:(Mod: I'd like a "states rights" fork instead of deletion or thread closure, because I value this conversation and I know you're going to be a stickler about it.)

Lucrece wrote:What about those living in there? Should they be forced to emigrate to another state? Be uprooted from
their family?


Up to them. They're not "forced" any more than anyone else, but they don't get the same legal benefits they might get in other states, just like the rest of us. More later.

Lucrece wrote:It just seems troublesome that you are getting on a carousel of relationship recognition (or lack thereof)-- marriage in MA, CU in NJ, DP's in NY, "Mutual Commitment" contracts in Salt Lake City, "nothing" in many other states? What if your job requires you to move around? Should you be forced to quit your job because it will jeopardize your family's stability? All because of the whim of people who'd rather not be associated with those wallowing in the maws of Sodom? Would heterosexuals stand such hassle?


We already do. My parents moved to Washington because Oregon taxes were too high. My grandparents moved to Oregon because the farming in Wisconsin dried up. If I'm Muslim and I want to marry four women instead of just one I've gotta move to a country that respects Muslim law, or I have to assimilate to the dominant monogamist culture in my country. If I want to have guns in my house I probably don't want to live in California or New York. If I want a prenuptual agreement I'm better off in some states than others. If I want to run a small business there are better states for that than others.

I never said it was a perfect system. But it provides some benefits and respects true diversity in a way that you'll never achieve by shoving the same set of laws down everyone's throat.


The difference being that everyone in those states-- outside of homosexuals-- enjoys the same benefits and drawbacks.

Taxes were applied equally to everyone. They sought improvement, not equal protection under the law. How do you suggest homosexuals assimilate to the dominant heterosexual marriages? Engage in one themselves? I'm sure you're aware how that resolves.

By shoving laws down someone's throat, you mean the awful trauma some people will have to suffer when they're told that they should find something more worthwhile to do other than establishing inferiority of homosexual relationships to heterosexual ones?

What I'm wondering, though, is how the Full Faith and Credit clause plays into this. If states were meant to have diversity, why do we have something that runs counter to that idea? Why did the SCOTUS get to segregate schools, instead of letting the black students emigrate to states that offered desegregated schools?
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Philwelch » Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:14 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:The difference being that everyone in those states-- outside of homosexuals-- enjoys the same benefits and drawbacks.


Not true. Ask a gun owner. Ask a polygamist. Ask a small business owner. Ask someone who wants a common law marriage.

Lucrece wrote:Taxes were applied equally to everyone.


Taxes are never applied equally to everyone. Ask a homeowner, business owner, or independent contractor.

Lucrece wrote:How do you suggest homosexuals assimilate to the dominant heterosexual marriages? Engage in one themselves?


There's nothing illegal about holding a wedding ceremony, sharing property, naming each other as beneficiaries on your life insurance policies, opening a joint bank account, or cohabiting. Many states, including California, have very strong equal-to-marriage domestic partnership laws, which homosexuals could avail themselves of. Or they could do what an increasing number of heterosexual couples are doing and just not get married.

Lucrece wrote:By shoving laws down someone's throat, you mean the awful trauma some people will have to suffer when they're told that they should find something more worthwhile to do other than establishing inferiority of homosexual relationships to heterosexual ones?


The fact is, we live in a democracy with these people.

Suppose I want to own guns. I could get all pissed and butt-hurt about my constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and demand that all my hippie liberal neighbors in San Fransicso stop making more stupid laws and regulations for me to deal with, or I can just move to Texas or Washington and let my stupid, paranoid neighbors rest in peace instead of getting into shouting matches with them over how they're treating me like a child. I think there's something to be learned from my example: it's better for everyone involved if we can find a peaceful separation from our enemies rather than living next to them so we can pour scorn on each other all day.

Lucrece wrote:What I'm wondering, though, is how the Full Faith and Credit clause plays into this. If states were meant to have diversity, why do we have something that runs counter to that idea?


That's so you can't sign a contract in Deleware, run off to Maryland, and then welch on the deal.

Lucrece wrote:Why did the SCOTUS get to segregate schools, instead of letting the black students emigrate to states that offered desegregated schools?


SCOTUS didn't segregate schools, it just allowed the segregation that was already happening to continue. On the same note, SCOTUS desegregated schools using the fourteenth amendment.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:50 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:I introduce you to the repeated failure of the FMA.

What, do five states offer unions or marriage to gay couples? The FMA failing doesn't really mean anything outside of the fact that federal legislators don't believe it's a federal issue, whereas you do- by your logic, people like John McCain should have voted for it due to their support for gay marriage bans on a state level.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Dec 05, 2008 5:04 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:What I'm wondering, though, is how the Full Faith and Credit clause plays into this. If states were meant to have diversity, why do we have something that runs counter to that idea?


Full Faith and Credit has many exceptions. States are allowed to make 'reasonable distinctions' between residents and non-residents. Including several exceptions for marriage and divorce. (polygamy, age of consent, siblings, etc)


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Lucrece » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:06 pm UTC

I think you know better than to just quote an entire post like that.

-Az


- Gun laws affect everyone equally. Nobody can bear them under x conditions; there's no exception for civilians. All small business owners are treated like other small business owners under the law; there's no discrimination among types of small business owners. Polygamists require thorough changes to the structure, whereas same-sex marriage simply involves letting two people of the same sex marry; there is no financial impact.

- I meant taxes applied to each group. I'm aware of different treatment for different entities. What I said was that someone earning 100k a year is getting taxed the same as other single people earning 100k a year. Gay couples, however, have to pay more taxes and receive less benefits just because their partner happens to be of the same sex; there's no other condition justifying the discrepancy.

- How about bi-national couples? Heterosexual guy can bring wife from Russia and make her a citizen smoothly, gay guy needs to be separated in airport entrance, unable to qualify as "spouses". What about protections for their children? Many states' alternatives, including California, offer alternatives that have been acknowledged as inferior for no other reason than the person being of the same sex. The California Supreme Court identified nine ways in which DP's were inferior to marriage. There needs to be a compelling reason for the difference; and so far, not one has been offered that manages to stand examination.

-Or, you can fight for your rights, as forbears have done, and make a difference for those who care. Take it to the courts, and hopefully get a decision that will put your hippie neighbors in a position for having some sense; they need to respect your rights.

- It's a clause that says that states must honor others' contracts, essentially. Is marriage a contract?

- It was appealed to SCOTUS for a reason; they would have some impact in taking the change to a federal level. I'm quite sure the fourteenth amendment has been used for the same-sex marriage argument. Why make an exception for "separate is not equal"?

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
Lucrece wrote:I introduce you to the repeated failure of the FMA.

What, do five states offer unions or marriage to gay couples? The FMA failing doesn't really mean anything outside of the fact that federal legislators don't believe it's a federal issue, whereas you do- by your logic, people like John McCain should have voted for it due to their support for gay marriage bans on a state level.


No, it just so happened that politicians didn't have the votes to put discrimination on the federal Constitution. If they hadn't believed it was a federal issue, you wouldn't have seen so many Republicans--ironically enough-- voting for the measure.

By the way, John McCain actually said that if any more courts went the way of California, he would support the FMA. Sarah Palin supports the FMA. Thus why the LCR has caught the heat from the community due to their obvious partisan misrepresentation of the McCain campaign in sad hopes of actually gaining some access to hgih party officials.

Ixtellor wrote:
Lucrece wrote:What I'm wondering, though, is how the Full Faith and Credit clause plays into this. If states were meant to have diversity, why do we have something that runs counter to that idea?


Full Faith and Credit has many exceptions. States are allowed to make 'reasonable distinctions' between residents and non-residents. Including several exceptions for marriage and divorce. (polygamy, age of consent, siblings, etc)


Ixtellor


Has there been any decision at the federal level concerning the FFC clause and same-sex marriage?
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Philwelch » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:40 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Gun laws affect everyone equally. Nobody can bear them under x conditions; there's no exception for civilians. All small business owners are treated like other small business owners under the law; there's no discrimination among types of small business owners.


Likewise, marriage laws affect everyone equally. Every man has the right to marry a consenting woman, and vice versa.

My argument is flawed for the same reason your argument is flawed.

Lucrece wrote:Polygamists require thorough changes to the structure, whereas same-sex marriage simply involves letting two people of the same sex marry; there is no financial impact.


Bullshit. Polygamy only requires that you can enter into more than one marriage at a time. That's actually easier than the alternative.

Lucrece wrote:What I said was that someone earning 100k a year is getting taxed the same as other single people earning 100k a year.


Untrue. Compare employees to independent contractors and small business owners. Compare homeowners to renters.

Lucrece wrote:How about bi-national couples? Heterosexual guy can bring wife from Russia and make her a citizen smoothly, gay guy needs to be separated in airport entrance, unable to qualify as "spouses". What about protections for their children?


Which makes it fantastic that we have gay marriage in at least one state, because now you can fly them into Logan and handle the citizenship papers while residing in Boston.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Lucrece » Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:07 pm UTC

To reiterate:

Azrael wrote:A second third warning, because you may not have seen the last two yet: Stop quoting entire length posts like that. Quote specifically relevant material and respond. This is a written medium, what was said is *right there*, readily accessible. We don't need you to recap it in it's entirety.


-Az

-Except it doesn't apply to reality. Everyone is not treated equally. No gay man will realistically seek marriage with a woman.
-Wouldn't polygamy require that ALL your spouses receive the benefits and company healthcare packages?
- Let me clarify, for it seems I'm not explaining myself well enough: Individuals from the SAME block. All renters (in a particular area) are taxed equally, are they not?
- Time for more introductions, it seems. Meet DOMA. Being able to marry in MA is of little relevance to a federal matter.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:34 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Has there been any decision at the federal level concerning the FFC clause and same-sex marriage?


No.
To my knowledge no suit has been brought forth yet.
A gay couple could not even file, unless they did receive a gay marriage in cal/mass/hawaii and then moved and was denied in the new State.

Additionaly, a federal court could state stare decisis if they didn't want to get involved.

In knowledgable circles (still technically hearsay) the belief is that the SCOTUS doesn't want to address the issue. I imagine they won't take up the issue until one of the States grants gay marriages and appears to stick by the decision. (unlike Mass and Cal - who are still infighting).
In which case you would still need a plantiff.

I would be interested to hear if anyone knows what gay rights groups are thinking.

Do they sue based on FFC clause and push the issue for nationalized gay marriage, or do they just enjoy a 1 State victory and attempt not to push their luck.

Looking at the makeup of the court today, I would wager with some confidence, they would rule that gay marriage qualifies as a 'reasonable' distinction. With Kennedy being the deciding vote.
I highly doubt (informed speculation) that the court will apply FFC to gay marriage unless scalia or thomas retires and is replaced with a very liberal judge. (roberts and alito are too young to worry about replacing)


Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Philwelch » Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:35 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Except it doesn't apply to reality. Everyone is not treated equally. No gay man will realistically seek marriage with a woman.


Likewise no hoplophobe is going to seek to own firearms, and no renter will pay property tax. That's the parallel I was pointing out.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Lucrece » Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:36 pm UTC

I'm counting this as Warning 3.2

-Az

All predicted replacements are to be liberal. Only one conservative is a possible replacement.

And, yes, there's no way in hell that gay rights organizations will take chances with a court that still harbors individuals who wanted to keep homosexuality criminalized.

Philwelch wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Except it doesn't apply to reality. Everyone is not treated equally. No gay man will realistically seek marriage with a woman.


Likewise no hoplophobe is going to seek to own firearms, and no renter will pay property tax. That's the parallel I was pointing out.


All those boil down to being a transitory status. If you want to pay property tax, you can become X to do so. If you want to own firearms, you can overcome your fear of them. If you want to be married to the person you've been with for years, but you're gay, you can't become straight to do so.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

peevo
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:11 pm UTC

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby peevo » Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:13 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
All those boil down to being a transitory status. If you want to pay property tax, you can become X to do so. If you want to own firearms, you can overcome your fear of them. If you want to be married to the person you've been with for years, but you're gay, you can't become straight to do so.

Some would argue that you can become straight. Have any studies been done on sexuality being a choice or not?
"Yeah I can break necks with my mind." Tristan, Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Version, Episode 31.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Lucrece » Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:01 pm UTC

And 3.3

-Az


Check the literature. The APA among other medical associations have condemned "reversal" for something that is not a disease( and thus not needing "treatment") as highly damaging to gays and lesbians.

Such is the consensus in the scientific community that the only programs that aim to modify sexuality are unsurprisingly religion-based ones.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Republican Party: Traditionalist v Reformers

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:00 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:No, it just so happened that politicians didn't have the votes to put discrimination on the federal Constitution. If they hadn't believed it was a federal issue, you wouldn't have seen so many Republicans--ironically enough-- voting for the measure.

By the way, John McCain actually said that if any more courts went the way of California, he would support the FMA. Sarah Palin supports the FMA. Thus why the LCR has caught the heat from the community due to their obvious partisan misrepresentation of the McCain campaign in sad hopes of actually gaining some access to hgih party officials.

Let's back up a bit - you originally came out against allowing states take care of gay marriage because some states will forbid it for some time, the federal government must be to one's to write the rules. If people like John McCain subscribed to this logic when they voted for the FMA, then it would have passed. The concept of state rights is a boon to the GLBT movement, not a detriment.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests