The GOP and Its Discontents

[kpt018]

That's largely a scholarly myth promoted by the likes of Thomas Frank and books such as "What's the Matter with Kansas."

Oh really? So when people who benefit from social welfare programs vote for candidates who want to cut these programs, they are voting for their own interests? Or when they vote for candidates who want to cut educational spending or implement flat tax programs that raise taxes on everyone but the rich, this is in their own best interests? When they consistently fight to repeal Obamacare with no replacement other than the way it was, are all the people who lose coverage voting for their own benefit?

Please enlighten me, because it seems to me that flat taxes, removing regulations, removing the estate tax, zero taxes on capital gains, repealing Obamacare, you know, the shit Republicans want, only helps rich guys.

 

[panamaican]

Oh really? So when people who benefit from social welfare programs vote for candidates who want to cut these programs, they are voting for their own interests? Or when they vote for candidates who want to cut educational spending or implement flat tax programs that raise taxes on everyone but the rich, this is in their own best interests? When they consistently fight to repeal Obamacare with no replacement other than the way it was, are all the people who lose coverage voting for their own benefit?

Please enlighten me, because it seems to me that flat taxes, removing regulations, removing the estate tax, zero taxes on capital gains, repealing Obamacare, you know, the shit Republicans want, only helps rich guys.

I get what you're saying but it requires that you limit someone's principles to their economic interests. You could be against the estate tax and capital gains on principle. They both require additional taxation of something that was presumably taxed once already. Obamacare is an example of the government forcing more regulation of private behavior and on a massive scale. A principled conservative should be against it, even as they abide by it. Regulations can be a burden on private business and private interests. These are solid principles for people who believe in a smaller, more efficient government and solutions that rely on private behavior over government policy.

One things the Dem's never cease to do is pit policy as rich against poor. As if a policy that benefits the rich and the poor is automatically negative because the rich also benefit.

 

[Cold Front]

Oh really? So when people who benefit from social welfare programs vote for candidates who want to cut these programs, they are voting for their own interests? Or when they vote for candidates who want to cut educational spending or implement flat tax programs that raise taxes on everyone but the rich, this is in their own best interests? When they consistently fight to repeal Obamacare with no replacement other than the way it was, are all the people who lose coverage voting for their own benefit?

Please enlighten me, because it seems to me that flat taxes, removing regulations, removing the estate tax, zero taxes on capital gains, repealing Obamacare, you know, the shit Republicans want, only helps rich guys.

Were these things happening, they would be true. But they're not happening.

For example, the repeal of the estate tax would benefit perhaps the top two percent of American estates. That's clearly the very top of the economic pyramid.

But no one is voting based on that issue. Find me a broad swath of Republican voters who claim the estate tax is what drives them to the polls. You won't find them.

Yes, the GOP donor base tried to expand public support for repealing the death tax, and they probably did so among the upper-middle class. Many of those people will not actually be affected by the tax, but believe they might be affected by it now based on their present earnings or savings (but probably won't be by the time they die, after they have spent a lot of their present savings and income on their advanced years).

These people, however, did not become Republicans because of the death tax. They are people who are already Republicans and who reasonably might believe themselves to be affected by a very narrow tax.

 

[kpt018]

I get what you're saying but it requires that you limit someone's principles to their economic interests. You could be against the estate tax and capital gains on principle. They both require additional taxation of something that was presumably taxed once already. Obamacare is an example of the government forcing more regulation of private behavior and on a massive scale. A principled conservative should be against it, even as they abide by it. Regulations can be a burden on private business and private interests. These are solid principles for people who believe in a smaller, more efficient government and solutions that rely on private behavior over government policy.

One things the Dem's never cease to do is pit policy as rich against poor. As if a policy that benefits the rich and the poor is automatically negative because the rich also benefit.

Dems are simply pointing out the reality of the differences between Rs and Ds. They have very different positions on taxes and the economy. Of course Rs are going to say that Ds are "pitting policy as rich against poor", how else can they spin it? They literally want to reduce taxes for rich folks and eliminate spending that helps poor people. They can call it a war, or divisive, or whatever, but it's reality.

 

[Cold Front]

Here's another example.

We all know that social conservatives vote Republican, right?

But by many measures African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are as socially conservative as they come. Do they vote Republican?

It's a myth that most people don't understand their own interests and have been lulled by clever political strategists into going against their own interests by issues like abortion and prayer in school.

 

[kpt018]

Were these things happening, they would be true. But they're not happening.

For example, the repeal of the estate tax would benefit perhaps the top two percent of American estates. That's clearly the very top of the economic pyramid.

But no one is voting based on that issue. Find me a broad swath of Republican voters who claim the estate tax is what drives them to the polls. You won't find them.

Yes, the GOP donor base tried to expand public support for repealing the death tax, and they probably did so among the upper-middle class. Many of those people will not actually be affected by the tax, but believe they might be affected by it now based on their present earnings or savings (but probably won't be by the time they die, after they have spent a lot of their present savings and income on their advanced years).

These people, however, did not become Republicans because of the death tax. They are people who are already Republicans and who reasonably might believe themselves to be affected by a very narrow tax.

It's more like 0.2% that are effected by the estate tax. It's not a voting issue for regular people but it's a perfect example of the GOP's agenda of reducing taxes for the wealthy.

It's also interesting that you didn't comment on the flat tax, capital gains, Obamacare, and all the other examples I mentioned that do effect regular people.

 

[Cold Front]

Dems are simply pointing out the reality of the differences between Rs and Ds. They have very different positions on taxes and the economy. Of course Rs are going to say that Ds are "pitting policy as rich against poor", how else can they spin it? They literally want to reduce taxes for rich folks and eliminate spending that helps poor people. They can call it a war, or divisive, or whatever, but it's reality.

The reality is that most of the differences between Democrats and Republicans, when governing, are pretty small. If a Democrat gets into the White House in 2017, he or she will not raise taxes by that much, and if a Republican gets into the White House, he won't cut them by much.

 

[Cold Front]

It's more like 0.2% that are effected by the estate tax. It's not a voting issue for regular people but it's a perfect example of the GOP's agenda of reducing taxes for the wealthy.

They must have recently increased the exemption, which means Obama signed it into law. Take it up with him.

It's also interesting that you didn't comment on the flat tax, capital gains, Obamacare, and all the other examples I mentioned that do effect regular people.

It's the same thing. I used the estate tax because it's clearly something that would affect only the wealthiest individuals and families, whereas the flat tax would have a more broadly beneficial effect among Republicans.

 

[kpt018]

They must have recently increased the exemption, which means Obama signed it into law. Take it up with him.

That was a provision that Republicans wanted included in a bigger deal, remember? It was a point of contention for Dems too, they thought he was giving up too much.

Anyway, he's talked about raising taxes on estates ever since.

And the estate tax has only ever effected a very small percentage of the country.

It's the same thing. I used the estate tax because it's clearly something that would affect only the wealthiest individuals and families, whereas the flat tax would have a more broadly beneficial effect among Republicans.

You have it backwards, though (unless you are only referring to rich Republicans who make up a minority). A flat tax would do one of two things, depending on the rate used. No matter what it raises taxes on the poor. But if the level is set low enough to lower taxes on the middle class it will create a revenue shortfall. Rs solution to that is to cut programs that help the poor, of course.

Or, you set a rate that doesn't reduce the taxes on the middle class at all or even raises it. Either way a flat tax is regressive and a major negative for everyone not rich.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Here's another example.

We all know that social conservatives vote Republican, right?

But by many measures African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are as socially conservative as they come. Do they vote Republican?

It's a myth that most people don't understand their own interests and have been lulled by clever political strategists into going against their own interests by issues like abortion and prayer in school.

I tend to think you're right on this. People have a pretty good idea of what they consider to be their interests, typically when you get someone saying anyone is voting against their interests what it actually means is 'they are voting against what I think their interests should be'. Poor Republicans voting for welfare cuts are a good example. It might be true that they stand to lose public assistance as a result of their votes, but if they perceive their interests to be less about immediate personal gain and more about either a future state in which they hope to be better off or just generally they feel that government shouldn't be in the public assistance business (rugged individualist types) then they are voting in their own interests. You can argue that their perception of their interests is wrongheaded or that their deluded to think they will be better off in the future, but I'm sure they're well aware that the Republican is not going to vote for Headstart funding.

 

[Uchi Mata]

They involve heavy denials of reality, and unlike the Republican positions they have actually become a major part of federal policy.

All one has to to do is to politely say that perhaps the races don't have equal abilities to learn and that this fact, if true, has obvious implications for education policy - and watch how the shit flies.

Climate change is a huge threat to the planet and denialism coming almost solely from the GOP is making it impossible for the US to tackle it. I agree that science denialism isn't directly a threat to the country, though the general anti-intellectualism of the Republican party has undermined our status as the world leader in generating scientific knowledge, which has an indirect but huge impact on our overall economic growth prospects.

 

[Uchi Mata]

But he (or she) will be bad. In some ways, he will be worse. Because he forecloses criticism of positions the party would typically criticize were one of their own not in office. He also forces you to defend bad positions on the less-bad reasoning.

For example, the GOP didn't criticize Bush's big government spending just because he was a Republican. Whereas a Democratic president would have come in for heavy criticism from the GOP on spending, and we would have likely ended up with less spending.

So if you care about spending, what was better?

Another dirty little secret is that Republicans would've been going apeshit if Al Gore had done what George W. Bush did in Iraq. They would've been going absolutely batshit crazy. Nation building ! No belief in victory ! Quagmire ! But instead, with Bush in office, they defended the indefensible. How was that ultimately good for the party?

Well, that kind of approach to politics - the "less bad" approach - will eventually bite you and the party in the ass. Just as it did us Republicans.

Why say that you would rather support someone who puts us in five feet of shit rather than ten feet of shit when ultimately you will still get blamed for putting the country in shit? And what your political opponents would have done in office remains speculative to most in the public?

I see what you're saying, but I'd think you'd want a balance between ideological purity and pragmatism. Look at the Green or Libertarian parties. Both advocate for relatively extreme positions that are unpopular with most of the public, and they both stick to their guns pretty faithfully. Neither can win an election above maybe the county or state level and never have been able to. What's your purity of thought worth if you never get to put it into action. Not to mention that most people are more or less moderates, so the idea that having moderate policy positions and moderate government is somehow a betrayal of the popular will that will get you in trouble in the long term is incorrect. I think it's pretty clear from the politics we have that the vast majority of people are pretty okay with very little change. At the very least, the nation has few things they can agree upon in terms of sweeping changes to government and as such both sides would rather see the status quo maintained than the other side get their way. Do you disagree with that?

 

[D Train]

I'm in the same boat. I habitually voted Republican, but I couldn't vote for McCain in 2008, and I won't vote for an establishment guy this time around. (I also won't vote for the non-establishment candidates who don't reflect my views, like Huckabee and Paul.)

At some point, we have to ask, "What are you giving us? We have views about how the country should be ran and you're not supporting them. So why should we support you?"

Exactly. I'm not just going to vote for whoever I'm "supposed" to vote for. Give me a genuinely conservative Republican and I'll consider it.
I like Libertarian because they are really the only "small government" party out there. I don't agree with everything they stand for and I know they have kooks like the two big parties, but I like their philosophy.

 

[kpt018]

I tend to think you're right on this. People have a pretty good idea of what they consider to be their interests, typically when you get someone saying anyone is voting against their interests what it actually means is 'they are voting against what I think their interests should be'. Poor Republicans voting for welfare cuts are a good example. It might be true that they stand to lose public assistance as a result of their votes, but if they perceive their interests to be less about immediate personal gain and more about either a future state in which they hope to be better off or just generally they feel that government shouldn't be in the public assistance business (rugged individualist types) then they are voting in their own interests. You can argue that their perception of their interests is wrongheaded or that their deluded to think they will be better off in the future, but I'm sure they're well aware that the Republican is not going to vote for Headstart funding.

The term "voting against your own (economic) interests" is really just shorthand for your last sentence.

I think it's noble that one would vote to hurt themselves in the short term (and potentially permanently) if they believe that it would benefit society, but it doesn't change the fact that they can hurt themselves financially (and it's pretty slimy of politicians to make the claims without good evidence).

 

[Uchi Mata]

The term "voting against your own (economic) interests" is really just shorthand for your last sentence.

I think it's noble that one would vote to hurt themselves in the short term (and potentially permanently) if they believe that it would benefit society, but it doesn't change the fact that they can hurt themselves financially (and it's pretty slimy of politicians to make the claims without good evidence).

I don't know that I've ever seen a Republican actually say that cutting public assistance will be good in the near term for poor people. I'd say in most if not all cases of people voting against their immediate interests it is an ideological matter such that they agree more with the anti-government party than the pro-government one. The fact that they also agree with the former party on abortion, gun rights, etc. is because they have similar ideological stances across the board, not because they agree on the social issues and are thereby tricked into voting against themselves on economic ones. My guess is that if you asked most of the people Thomas Frank things vote against their interests they'd probably tell you that they vote that way at least partially in hopes of being wealthier in the future, but that if they're not then it's probably their own fault and not the fault of the system. Most conservatives I know tend to view economic matters much more through a lens of individualism than as a function of the collective economy. I largely disagree with that view, but if that's how you view your own economic success or failure then voting Republican makes a lot of sense.

 

[Cold Front]

That was a provision that Republicans wanted included in a bigger deal, remember? It was a point of contention for Dems too, they thought he was giving up too much.

Anyway, he's talked about raising taxes on estates ever since.

Yes, he's trolling Republicans to keep their agenda off the books only now that they are in charge of both houses of Congress.

Obama was still for raising the estate tax exemption before he was against it.

And the estate tax has only ever effected a very small percentage of the country.

I agree. That's why I focused on it. Unlike some of the other issues you raised, the estate tax affects at most a small minority of Republicans.

But you still haven't provided any evidence that the estate tax rallies GOP voters to the polls at election time.

You have it backwards, though (unless you are only referring to rich Republicans who make up a minority). A flat tax would do one of two things, depending on the rate used. No matter what it raises taxes on the poor.

Yeah, but the poor don't vote Republican, if they vote at all. You started off this discussion by saying that these issues fool downscale voters into voting Republican against their own interests.

By and large, that's bullshit.

But if the level is set low enough to lower taxes on the middle class it will create a revenue shortfall. Rs solution to that is to cut programs that help the poor, of course.

So? The chronically poor don't vote Republican. And budgetary shortfalls won't necessarily fall on Republicans alone, so it's still not necessarily against the interest of Republicans to want lower taxes via a flat tax that creates budget shortfalls.

You keep dodging or forgetting your main point. You told me that there are people out there who vote Republican when it's not in their interest to do so. But just because Republicans want things which are in their interest, but not in the interest of the poor, doesn't prove that.

Or, you set a rate that doesn't reduce the taxes on the middle class at all or even raises it. Either way a flat tax is regressive and a major negative for everyone not rich.

Well, I agree. But for that reason we will never see a flat tax which raises taxes on the middle class. And if we did get one, you can be sure that counter to your claim the middle class would promptly abandon the GOP.

 

[Cold Front]

I tend to think you're right on this. People have a pretty good idea of what they consider to be their interests, typically when you get someone saying anyone is voting against their interests what it actually means is 'they are voting against what I think their interests should be'. Poor Republicans voting for welfare cuts are a good example. It might be true that they stand to lose public assistance as a result of their votes, but if they perceive their interests to be less about immediate personal gain and more about either a future state in which they hope to be better off or just generally they feel that government shouldn't be in the public assistance business (rugged individualist types) then they are voting in their own interests. You can argue that their perception of their interests is wrongheaded or that their deluded to think they will be better off in the future, but I'm sure they're well aware that the Republican is not going to vote for Headstart funding.

There's also the problem of measurement bias.

Many Republican voters have incomes which bounce around. One year they might earn next to nothing and the next they might earn a great deal. If you happen to look at one of their down years, you might believe that their low to middling income doesn't fit with the profile of a Republican voter. But of course that's because you caught them in a down year.

There's also the problem of the upwardly mobile young families, which you so to allude to. My two best friends in high school got a computer science degree and an engineering degree. They went off and got decent jobs, but they started off with pretty average salaries, not much higher than that of a teacher. Were they wrong to be Republicans based on the expectation that they will surely rise? Because that's what they did.

 

[Cold Front]

Climate change is a huge threat to the planet and denialism coming almost solely from the GOP is making it impossible for the US to tackle it. I agree that science denialism isn't directly a threat to the country, though the general anti-intellectualism of the Republican party has undermined our status as the world leader in generating scientific knowledge, which has an indirect but huge impact on our overall economic growth prospects.

You segue between different elements of climate change alarmism without relating it back to politics.

1) Is anthropogenic climate change real?

2) If true, how catastrophic will it be? If at all?

3) If catastrophic, how much control does humanity have over mitigating the results in a controlled and predictable fashion?

4) If we humans do have some control, how much of a role will US politics matter to these projections?

5) Finally, how far out into the future do these projections go?

You're only dealing with question #1, but many Republicans, such as myself, think that is the least relevant political question.

And so climate change denialism, to me at least, is less about believing in the issue of anthropogenic climate change itself and more about disbelieving the projections and heavy skepticism about our role in changing them to our benefit through public policy.

In talking to many Republicans, I believe that is where their skepticism is heaviest. They simply don't believe that you have any idea about the possible results or how to control them with any finesse. So they simply deny it. All of it.

California under the faux-Republican Terminator passed SB32, which was a stupid bill designed to make environmentalists in the state feel good about themselves, but it didn't do a Goddamn thing about global warming. How could it? It only affected California, which is far too marginal to the increase in global carbon to matter.

This is climate change in action. Feel-good stupidity piled on top of feel-good stupidity.

 

[kpt018]

Yes, he's trolling Republicans to keep their agenda off the books only now that they are in charge of both houses of Congress.

Obama was still for raising the estate tax exemption before he was against it.


I agree. That's why I focused on it. Unlike some of the other issues you raised, the estate tax affects at most a small minority of Republicans.

But you still haven't provided any evidence that the estate tax rallies GOP voters to the polls at election time.

I didn't say it did rally voters. For most people it's a complete non-issue, so why are you asking me to provide evidence to the contrary?

Yeah, but the poor don't vote Republican, if they vote at all. You started off this discussion by saying that these issues fool downscale voters into voting Republican against their own interests.

By and large, that's bullshit.

Um, we are talking about the ones who do vote Republican. Obviously I don't take issue with poor folks voting Democrat!

And you are mental if you think most poor white southerners vote Democrat.

So? The chronically poor don't vote Republican. And budgetary shortfalls won't necessarily fall on Republicans alone, so it's still not necessarily against the interest of Republicans to want lower taxes via a flat tax that creates budget shortfalls.

You keep dodging or forgetting your main point. You told me that there are people out there who vote Republican when it's not in their interest to do so. But just because Republicans want things which are in their interest, but not in the interest of the poor, doesn't prove that.

Are you intentionally ignoring my points? I am saying that poor and middle class Republicans vote for candidates that support policies that will hurt them financially in the short run (guaranteed) and in the long run (in my opinion). I can't state it any clearer.

Of course, if you think giving the poor less benefits and believe that people losing healthcare coverage are good things for them, make the case. If you think cutting the capital gains tax and top tax brackets will create jobs, make the case. Otherwise it just sounds like you're whining about my characterization, calling it bullshit but can't make an argument against it.

Well, I agree. But for that reason we will never see a flat tax which raises taxes on the middle class. And if we did get one, you can be sure that counter to your claim the middle class would promptly abandon the GOP.

What? My claim is that flat taxes are horribly regressive. They benefit the rich, are slightly beneficial to upper middle-class/lower upper-class, are neutral or hurt the middle class and have very negative consequences for the poor, who also happen to be the most vulnerable.

Again, make the case that flat taxes help the middle class and poor, but I am seriously skeptical. And if you do attempt to explain it, remember to include spending cuts that would accompany revenue shortfalls. If you have a revenue neutral flat tax, I think you're a total jackass to be honest.

 

[Cold Front]

Exactly. I'm not just going to vote for whoever I'm "supposed" to vote for. Give me a genuinely conservative Republican and I'll consider it.
I like Libertarian because they are really the only "small government" party out there. I don't agree with everything they stand for and I know they have kooks like the two big parties, but I like their philosophy.

I hate libertarians, but I've thrown them my vote in a couple of elections (one presidential, one midterm) because I just couldn't stomach the GOP, but I still wanted to vote to register my disapproval.