Whole Foods Republicans?

An argument for a bigger GOP tent.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email...88792834312898-lMyQjAxMDA5MDEwNDExNDQyWj.html

 

It sounds like what he's advocating the Republican party go after is cosmopolitan libertarians. That, I think, will be difficult as long as the Republican party clings to opposition to gay marriage. If Republicans are uncompetitive in future generations, it won't be due to small government principles...I think small government principles will always appeal to enough people to be competitive in winning elections. It'll be due to embracing a big government principle that is based in bigotry...trying to prevent gay marriage.

Basically, the Republicans can't go after "progressive lifestyle people who don't have progressive politics" until they remove Big Religion from their platform. Trying to impose Christian values on everyone doesn't appeal to either those with "progressive lifestyles" or libertarians.

 

I'm probably in this demographic. I didn't vote Republican in the last two presidential elections though.

 

The compromise is to get Government out of the marriage business altogether. If you have civil unions for everyone, but make marriage only something that can be done under the aegis of religion, I think that's a good compromise. But perhaps I think that way because it's my own belief.

 

That's been my desired outcome for a while, too.

 

Yeah, this article spoke to me because I follow along a lot of these characterizations. I'm not a Republican, but I would become one if they started to put small government and equality first. In other words, it doesn't matter what your color, creed or sexual orientation is, you aren't discriminated against nor do you receive preferential treatment.

 

"Personal responsibility" is a pretty big crossover. Also, five of the last eight presidential elections were won with that coalition.

 

I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative, foreign policy libertarian, and then a mix of libertarian, liberal, and conservative (so probably an independent) domestic policy wise.

But i've been saying they need to do this for a while. For example, the "purity test" was pure bull shit. The party needs to expand and accept all types of republicans from the right-wing neo-cons to the moderates.

 

If I smell ptuli at the next RNC convention, I'm gonna be pissed...

 

It's a "Back To The Future" call to arms. Bring back the people driven away by the Bible Thumpers.

 

No offense, but I don't think you're as fiscally conservative as you think you are. At least by your posts in this insane asylum.

 

No offense, but I don't think you are as "independent" as you think you are. At least by your posts in this insane asylum.

 

Sure I am. Being independent doesn't mean being halfway between the Republicans and Democrats. I'm to the right of most Republicans on issues of the size and role of government. I'm to the left of most Democrats in terms of my position on marriage/civil unions. I side with Democrats on the death penalty. With the exception of foreign policy, I tend to be laissez-faire to the extreme, with only a minimal social safety net.

I'm interested in why you think you're "fiscally conservative". Can you cite some examples?

 

I was going to ignore this, but after reading it, I'm impressed that you didn't resort to personal attacks or condescending and passive aggressive remarks to try and belittle.

To simplify it, I'm for a balanced budget. I'm for a surplus. I know everyone is, but if I were running things (lol) I would make cuts from things like defense spending and other bills, including earmarks (for example, I'm against this 1.1TR dollar bill that I think can be cut down). I'm against supporting other countries will billions of dollars a year. For example, I'm against giving Israel so much aid. We fund both sides of the war down there, so I'd prefer we just stopped all together. It leads to a world looking for handouts from a "rich America".

At the same time, I'm absolutely for the government spending to improve education and infrastructure (I'm very much for a large increase to upgrade roads, highways, infrastructure), along with investing in medicine and new technologies such as solar, electric, hydrogen, etc... It is not government spending that I'm worried about as much as it is spending beyond what they should. I think we should reconsider what we spend our money on (if that makes sense).

For health care, pretty much, I'm for a bill that will reduce how much we spend on health care (19% per year of our GDP is it?), and cover as many or more people. I'm not for a bill that would increase government debt at all, even if it would lower premiums and cover more because I think there would obviously be other ways to approach it. I'm not thrilled about expanding government, but I'm in awe that people would call the choice of a restricted access public option a government takeover. I think expanding a current government program is a good way to go.

I could care less whichever party is the one with a good idea. I don't care what party is in office. If they are improving our country and making changes for the better, I will support them. I believe we are all on the same side. It is pretty much whatever is best for the country. It is why I supported Bush for a long time until he lost my trust. It is why I still support Obama, but was deeply disappointed in his Afghan decision which gave me a less favorable opinion of him. But from what I've gathered, it seems that (many on) the right seem happier to have America suffer during Obama's term, and then re-capture the white house and do it their way and succeed that way. It caused me to lose a lot of respect for them. I think it is a very partisan perspective, and it puts their particular political party ahead of the overall country's goals.

Another thing I disagree with Obama on (other than Afghanistan), is the amount of spending. But at the same time, you have to look at the facts and see what the budget would be with anyone in office. There was a pretty good sized debt, that was going to continue to grow with or without Obama. That was part of the article I posted when Reagan's domestic adviser talked about taxes and the debt -- he broke down the situation of American debt.

Hopefully that explains my stance. How about yourself?

 

I'm trying to be better on that account.

I want the following things to occur:

1. Any tax increase gets applied to EVERY American. I don't care if the person making $30K gets taxed $1 while the person making $800K pays an extra $40K, everyone chips in. Too much of politics has become giving people things for free by having others pay for it.

2. I'm for limiting the scope of government. Have it do less. The Federal Government shouldn't have a role in so many of the things it tries to do. If you want the government to do more, have the states do it. That way, people can more directly influence what services they can avail themselves of.

3. I want a concrete program to pay off our debt, over 50 years. Make it an extra tax, I don't care. Just have a long-term plan to eliminate it. Just the existence of the plan will ensure the dollar remains the world's benchmark currency.

4. I want a balanced budget amendment, except in case of war. And then, the only expenditure increase can be to fund that war. If you want more services, you have to

5. I want a line-item veto. Furthermore, I want a requirement that a bill can only be on one topic. That way you're not putting things like a $1B for ACORN in a troop funding bill. Too many ridiculous things are put into bills that no one would ever vote for individually.

 

Hmm, why do you feel this way? From what I can tell, most economists believe that running short-term budget deficits is important at times, especially in recessions. Economists are pretty universal in believing that Herbert Hoover made a monumental error in insisting on having a balanced budget during the recession that precipitated the Great Depression.

 

Because we can't control ourselves with our spending. What's meant to be temporary never is.

As for the "economists are pretty universal" comment, that's patently untrue. In fact, I can point to a large number of economists--including three Nobel Prize winners--who believe the opposite. There is a large segment of economists who believe that it was the policies of Roosevelt that lengthened and deepened that economic downturn. At the time, government represented only 3% of the economy. Today, its long-term amount is roughly 22% (currently 27%, because of the short-term downturn). So balancing a budget that represents 3% is much easier.

 

Repugnants really only have 2 ways they can go.

Embrace their current identity as the "Stupid and Hateful" Party, or completely change their platform and ideals to attract smarter, nicer people.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.