RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Vision of an apocalyptic future?(36 posts)

Vision of an apocalyptic future?OldEdScott
Jul 25, 2003 7:42 AM
Just had a very pleasant brunch with a Republican strategist friend of mine (leggy blonde of the exact type the GOP must breed on a special secret farm somewhere) (possibly near Roswell) (and yes I have Republican friends; I gave this gal her first job, in fact) and SHE said:

"It's a good thing you're looking toward retirement in the next ten years. We're working on the assumption that there won't even BE a Democratic Party ten or twelve years down the road. You guys are going the way of the Whigs."

I asked if she were just yanking my chain, and she said nope, that's the actual strategtic assumption within the Republican Party's inner councils, and explains some of GWB's odd lurches to the center on some issues.

Poll: Will there be a Democratic Party in 2015?

Question: If not, what will replace it?
huh?DougSloan
Jul 25, 2003 7:48 AM
That doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. It would be like Lance saying "I'm working under the assumption that Jan won't even be in the final time trial."

Even if the entire country shifted right or libertarian, some would still call themselves "Democrats" to dispute an election (and I don't believe this -- just an illustration).

Goofy puffery, IMO.

Doug
Parties have self-destructed in the past. New partiesOldEdScott
Jul 25, 2003 7:56 AM
emerge. The Republican Party was new when Lincoln was elected. Whigs, Federalists etc all passed into history. It's not unheard of at all.

This gal does work for Mitch McConnell (GOP Senate Majority Whip). Don't know if the name means much outside of Kentucky, but if you know who he is, you know he is a political genius with only one objective: Utter demoralization and destruction of the opponent. Scorched earth.

I have to believe there is a grain of truth, maybe many grains, in at least a GOP strategy of forcing the Dems to implode.
sure, but we're fairly well entrenched nowDougSloan
Jul 25, 2003 8:09 AM
This were different 150 years ago. The parties are so well entrenched that I can't see anything changing, short of a third party making some gains.

Even if Republicans won every presidential election for the next 20 years, there would still be hundreds or thousands of Democrats in the legislature, state, and local positions.

What she is saying just doesn't make sense.

Doug
Let's rephrase ...OldEdScott
Jul 25, 2003 8:16 AM
It might be better to think of it as 'the Democratic Party as we know it.' Reduced to a left/splinter remnant, the GOP having totally consolidated the Right (a process that started with Reagan, the so-called 'Reagan Democrats), and moving to incorporate huge majorities in the center.

At that point, what are we? The Democrats or the Greens? It would be interesting to see what the hard-core party activists say. "Let's cast off the shackles of the past, and move forward gloriously as the leftward pary we truly are ..."
ah, subtletyDougSloan
Jul 25, 2003 8:28 AM
Oh, I was thinking too literally, of course. That damn conservative certainty thing again.

You mean the party may not exist in it's present form. Hmm. That well could be true. Will the Democratic party need to redesign itself, or actually replace it's existing leadership with new blood to attract sufficient voters to win elections? I have no doubt that is true, as it's nearly always true for both parties. It's a dynamic battle, and if you aren't open to change, you'll probably get left behind (hehe -- the "Left Behind Party").

Still the quandry for Democrats -- co-opt Republican issues or redefine as the true "Left" and risk losing more elections? Between a rock and a hard place.

Doug
I dunno, don't you think a similar argumentsn69
Jul 25, 2003 8:34 AM
can be made about the Repub party? In the context of the fringe elements of both parties, I personally feel that the radical right is far more vocal and inflammatory (and ultimately alienating to the Party's silent mainstream majority) on a regular basis, particularly as long as it's lead by fanatical hate-mongers like Pat Robertson.

I'd say, if anything, that there might be a large societal backlash against the perception of senseless partisanship that stresses party loyalty over the custodianship of the common good. Historically and to a lesser extent, that lead to Teddy R's rise in the decades of decay that followed the War of Nothern Aggression (props for you, my old Jedi Master).

Will it be lasting, regardless of which party exhibits the more substantial change? Who knows, but it makes for fascinating socio-anthopological speculation.

In the short-term, however, the Dem's problem remains that which most of us seem in agreement on--lack of singular, strong leadership.

Whatever the case, these remain "my United States of whatever." Whatever. ...And yes, I'm thinking about buying that remote, unpowered cabin in the woods of Montana.

Your humble, caffiene-amped servant,
Scott
When you git that cabin,OldEdScott
Jul 25, 2003 8:38 AM
git you some Bloodhounds too. They're gentle, but they're big and they scare folks.
How is Pat Robertson a "hate-monger?"Kristin
Jul 25, 2003 8:57 AM
I'm not defending the man. I disagree with his brand of faith and his political ideology, but I'm not sure I've ever heard him promote hate. Thats a very strong word. How do you mean?
I wondered how much I was going to endsn69
Jul 25, 2003 9:03 AM
up flame-baiting with that statement, Kristin. Still, it is my personal belief that Robertson's brand of faith differs from that of the Taliban only in the physical manifestation of his hatred for those that don't subscribe to his beliefs. For example, his constant assaults on homosexuality, such as his recent bigotted, intollerant comments about the S Court's recent ruling, don't simply border on intollerance. Rather, they scream "adhere to my beliefs or you are a human being of lesser value."

The fact that he has yet to express his warped sense of "love thy neighbor" with the same inhumane, nonsensical violence of the Taliban speaks more to the fact that he has been raised in a lawful society with limits.

OK...that's extreme, but the root of the psychology is still eerily similar.

My two cents...I don't expect ANYONE to agree.
What's not to agree with?OldEdScott
Jul 25, 2003 9:10 AM
" I watched a snail crawl along the edge of a straight razor. That's my dream. That's my nightmare. Crawling, slithering, along the edge of a straight razor, and surviving. "

People get pretty nutty out there in their own private metaphysics.
That's why I stick to quantum personal metaphysics. nmsn69
Jul 25, 2003 9:21 AM
I agree....nmbicyclerepairman
Jul 25, 2003 3:08 PM
"When lawlessness is abroad in the land. . .czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 9:04 AM
". . .the same thing will happen here that happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved in Adolph Hitler were Satanists. Many of them were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together." - 700 Club, 1-21-93 (source: People for the American Way Foundation)

More: http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/robertson.html
I'm not sure I trust all those quotesKristin
Jul 25, 2003 11:15 AM
I've never heard anything so extreme come from that mans mouth. I've watched that show lots of times--in order to be informed, not because I agree with their philosophies--and I have never heard anything like those quotes. Not even once. I'm doubtful, especially since they are so old and they are credited to a third party website that does not posess those quotes anywhere. If I had ever heard that man say any one of those things, then I would agree with you that he is hateful.
Just do a simple web search. . .czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 11:28 AM
. . .you can find plenty of references Robertson inciting hatred towards Gays and non-Christians. But if you weren't convinced years ago that he is a hateful nut and a liability to Christianity, I don't know what would change your mind now.
Stop twisting my wordsKristin
Jul 25, 2003 11:32 AM
He is a liability to lots of things, including Christianity. And I never debated that. I really don't like discussing things with you. Who's a sophist? I'd take a look in the mirror.
Stop pretending that they are being twisted.czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 11:41 AM
Nobody is twisting your words -- you continue to maintain that Robertson is not a hateful person. Since we are now getting personal, I think that makes you either equally nutty and hateful or incapable of grasping a simple and obvious truth.

Don't like discussing things with me? Don't.
"When lawlessness is abroad in the land. . .OPUSsum
Jul 30, 2003 6:03 AM
I agree with you man, 110%.
Asking God to off the Supremes isn't enough evidence?cory
Jul 25, 2003 9:36 AM
Aw, come on...Robertson's been pedaling hate, fear and distrust--against gays, liberals, non-Christians--for decades. He couches it in other terms--faith, "family," "American values"--but that makes it worse, to me, than if he just came out and said what he's really saying.
Are you talking about the justices or the sisters?Kristin
Jul 25, 2003 11:05 AM
I can not find a quote where Ole Pat asked God to "off" the justices. I've read his crap peice about the supreme court, of which I assume you're referring. I've read his other articles and have heard some of his speeches, and I would not call him hateful. He is tauting is an old, religeous concept, "Love the sinner and hate the sin." Its an idea that I don't entirely disagree with. (If you are having trouble grasping the concept, think about it like this. Your son or daughter murders an innocent person. After you find out, do you completely despise your child? Probably not. You still love them; but your heart wrenches when you think about the choices they made.) That's not the same as hate, but it can look similar.

Where I differ from Mr. Robinson, and where I think he is off-base, is in his belief that government should inflict control over a person's personal morality. I wouldn't call that hate, rather an indication that the man has poor personal boundaries. He hasn't said that he thinks individuals should be killed for their bahavior, but he want's to force people to not act in certain ways that he believes are wrong. Whether the behaviors are truly wrong or not, is not the point. The God he worships has himself demonstrated a model of pursuing high personal morals while keeping good boundaries. He spoke his mind, yet never attempted to control others choices. As a matter of fact, the biblical texts about Jesus show that he usually put someone in a position where they were forced to make a choice of their own.

The Taliban is different as well. They chose to force adherance to religious policy onto their people. But they took it a step further and decided it was proper to beat and kill those who didn't "behave." They killed 3,000+ innocent, unknowing people in order to promote themselves. That's hate. Mr. Robinson hasn't gone to those extremes. Perhaps what he is could become hateful; but I don't believe he's earned that title just yet.

The left is quick to label anything that it disagrees with in the most negative terms it can muster. That's unproductive.
Isn't hating the sin stilll hate?czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 11:19 AM
So Pat Robertson can simply define those he despises as "sinners" and earn a pass on the hate that he preaches? Does it mention in the Bible that Christ was a hair-splitting sophist?

Is being a homosexual somehow parallel to murdering an innocent person!?
What?Kristin
Jul 25, 2003 11:29 AM
Did take more than 3 seconds to read my post? You completely missed the point. Not only that, you've twisted my words. And that's my que. I really need to take a break.
czar, is there *nothing* that you hate? genocide, e.g.? nmDougSloan
Jul 30, 2003 6:52 AM
There are plenty of things that I hate.czardonic
Jul 30, 2003 10:10 AM
But that hate is based on a personal view of right and wrong, not some dusty old book of tall tales.
Take a lesson...Jon Billheimer
Jul 25, 2003 9:33 AM
...from Canadian politics. Look how the Clark Tories imploded, followed by the rise of the Alliance. Since then the Canadian right has continually shot itself in the foot, is pretty much a laughingstock nationally, while the Liberals have continued to co-opt the middle, successfully being all things to all people---well, about 45% of the people.

The lesson here is that 1)it's possible; and 2) in order to do so the Repubs have to successfully define the centre (whatever that is in American politics)and then co-opt it, thereby forcing the Democratic party left in order to define itself. Given the rigid rightwing ideology of the present neocon braintrust I doubt if this will happen soon. However, if someone more centrist--and smarter--than Bush and his friends gets control of the party this scenario well could happen. If on the other hand the American public drifts further right then the current version of the Republican party could well become truly mainstream. If that happens one can kiss away any meaningful American democracy, in my opinion. Welcome to the final entrenchment of Orwellian, "benign" statism and the death of the great American experiment.
Wow JonOldEdScott
Jul 25, 2003 9:39 AM
Now I'm truly depressed.

But I cheer myself with a truism: The inevitable drift of American history has been to the Left. Even the right wing is now stuck with positions that were hopelessly progressive 40 years ago. So there's hope.
Wow JonJon Billheimer
Jul 25, 2003 9:50 AM
For the sake of America--which at a deep level I truly love--and for the sake of the world I hope you're right. But the confluence of communication and surveillance technology and the fear-driven, power-loving mentality of the right wing does not augur well for the survival of true political pluralism.
Top party in 2015: The All-Night Partymohair_chair
Jul 25, 2003 8:02 AM
Give me a break. Even if the Democratic Party were to disappear, which is highly unlikely, there will be some other opposition party to take its place. Hell, maybe they'll even call it the Whigs. Or does your leggy blonde friend think there will ONLY be a Republican party?

What a delusional thing to say. If the inner councils of the Republican Party really believe it, they are beyond stupid, and it is the GOP that may not exist in 2015.
The assumption is, of course, that another party will emerge.OldEdScott
Jul 25, 2003 8:10 AM
I don't think even Republicans believe they can impose a one-party system on America, much as they might like to.
Scarily close to something I've been worrying about....cory
Jul 25, 2003 8:29 AM
I can't see the party disappearing, exactly, but it's become so ineffective (or maybe the Repubs, unhampered by conscience as they are, have become so effective) that further losses seem inevitable.
I've been watching politics in California (home state) and Nevada (where I live now) on a semi-pro basis since the early '70s, and I'm still surprised at the depths to which the GOP has gone in the last six or eight years. They'll apparently do ANYTHING to gain power. And they're so good at making it palatable (and voters in general are so G*****N apathetic and gullible) that even real, documented offenses don't seem to have any consequences.
No need for many examples--either you agree and you already know them, or you disagree and you think they're somehow justified. I have a few friends, people I've worked with over the years, who are reporting now for the news services or big papers in Washington, and even the conservatives are beginning to worry about things the Bush League is doing.
"Why don't you write about it?" I ask 'em. Shrug, embarrassed grin, little shuffle of the feet: "People don't want to read it...." And there's your liberal media at work, doing the conservatives' bidding.
Maybe we all look at things from angles that make them...94Nole
Jul 25, 2003 12:04 PM
what we want them to be, but I see the Dems as the party that will do anything to gain power and cry cry cry. Look at them now, every time you turn on the news, they are talking out of both sides of their mouths, all without a care for what they say. 5 years ago, WMD was a big deal because the then President, whom they supported, said it was and those that supported him are the same ones acting now like they never existed.

Aren't the Repubs kind of quiet right now? Seems that they are.

It really reminds me of the rivalry between my alma mater, FSU and the University of FL. We hate the Gators. Passionately. From an FSU standpoint, we are the quiet victors and say relatively nothing after winning because the victory in and of itself is sweet enough, we don't need to say anything and we've been there. THey never stop talking. If they win, they are in our faces for an entire year. I kind of see the Repubs as the quiet victors and the Dems as the poor losers. And I am afraid it will get worse before it gets better, reference Charles Rangel of NY.
two words that refute that analysisrufus
Jul 25, 2003 3:39 PM
newt gingrich.
I could see it happening.czardonic
Jul 25, 2003 8:29 AM
Is anyone (outside the GOP) happy with the Democrats anymore?

On the other hand, I honestly believe that the Republican's recipie for the future is going to be a flop. If the Democrats become a non-entity and the GOP starts to pay dividends to the social-authoritarian and plutocratic wings, the middle of the roaders who have viewed it as a lesser evil than the Democratic Circus will rebel.

The next party to emerge will be focused on solving the economic and environmental problems that the GOP will fail to solve or perhaps directly create. Conservativism has been in control of this country in the past, and the tremendous social injustice and economic crisis that inevitably follows is fertile ground for the re-embrace of liberalsm.
Works out nice in the long run. nm.Sintesi
Jul 25, 2003 7:11 PM
KOO KOO nm.Sintesi
Jul 25, 2003 7:10 PM