Why Romney is NOT electable

[Peter Grimm]

I have many concerns about Mitt Romney, and I won't deny that his religion does trouble me.

I went to another board, got bored and stopped online debating for a few months. I been doing RL for a while, but it's never gonna catch on. Sweet of you to notice.

I suspect that PG is most concerned with Romney's Mormonism than his politics, but I could be wrong.

 

[Andalublue]

But the ACLU uses the power of the collective (the legal system and the government) to empower a selected minority.

Redistribution of power/wealth in any form by a collective is still collectivism.

By your definition any form of democracy is collectivist as its sole purpose is to redistribute power, and any form of taxation, including titheing, is a form of collectivism because its sole purpose is to redistribute wealth. Anyone who participates in society is engaged in colectivist activity. Why is this the preserve of the left?

 

[Redress]

But the ACLU uses the power of the collective (the legal system and the government) to empower a selected minority.

Redistribution of power/wealth in any form by a collective is still collectivism.

Both your statements are wrong here. Using your logic conservatives are liberals since they beleive in a strong military(the collective).

 

[Redress]

I don't like the word "extreme" because it suggests that there are degrees to which one can believe in the collective or degrees to which one can believe in the individual... I for one see it as a black and white decision. Either/or.

Yes, there exist "centrists" but they simply lack the clarity, education, or decisiveness to pick which ideology they are in agreement with.

It's also a negative word... "extreme." No need for such tactics.

This has to be some of the stupiest stuff posted in awhile, which takes some doing. Stop thinking in buzzwords.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Before we go down this road... pure right-wing ideology leads to anarchy, and pure left-wing ideology leads to totalitarianism.

I'm not an anarchist. I believe in enough government to guarantee safety, stability, and infrastructure.

Likewise, I doubt that most liberals on here are outright communists.

We need to assume a certain level of common sense.

By your definition any form of democracy is collectivist as its sole purpose is to redistribute power, and any form of taxation, including titheing, is a form of collectivism because its sole purpose is to redistribute wealth. Anyone who participates in society is engaged in colectivist activity. Why is this the preserve of the left?

 

[Peter Grimm]

This post made me laugh out loud. eace

Come on.

This has to be some of the stupiest stuff posted in awhile, which takes some doing. Stop thinking in buzzwords.

 

[Peter Grimm]

This is correct. You didn't know that? A military is a government expenditure. It takes taxes. Soldiers are public-sector employees.

A strong military is very leftist.

It just happens that in the United States, the "right" is usually left on this issue, and the "left" is usually right on the issue.

But that's not the case everywhere. China is building a strong military. The Soviet Union had a strong military.

This is more a symptom of nationalism than purist political ideology.

Both your statements are wrong here. Using your logic conservatives are liberals since they beleive in a strong military(the collective).

 

[Andalublue]

Before we go down this road... pure right-wing ideology leads to anarchy, and pure left-wing ideology leads to totalitarianism.

I'm not an anarchist. I believe in enough government to guarantee safety, stability, and infrastructure.

Likewise, I doubt that most liberals on here are outright communists.

We need to assume a certain level of common sense.

Then use a degree of common sense and do away with ridiculous cover-all clichés such as collectivism=left, or pure right-wing ideology leads to anarchy. Most anarchists would position themselves on the left; the libertarian left and staunchly anti-totalitarian. Have you read any Bakunin? Or Kropotkin?

 

[Peter Grimm]

Are you actually attempting to make a point here?

How does this support your larger argument?

You are getting so caught up in definitions... and...really... a reading list?

Let me ask you this. What are you and I actually debating at this moment? Can you remember without scrolling back?

Knowing my luck, you are going to ask me to define "debate" and what "remember" really means.

Then use a degree of common sense and do away with ridiculous cover-all clichés such as collectivism=left, or pure right-wing ideology leads to anarchy. Most anarchists would position themselves on the left; the libertarian left and staunchly anti-totalitarian. Have you read any Bakunin? Or Kropotkin?

 

[Andalublue]

Are you actually attempting to make a point here?

How does this support your larger argument?

You are getting so caught up in definitions... and...really... a reading list?

Let me ask you this. What are you and I actually debating at this moment? Can you remember without scrolling back?

Knowing my luck, you are going to ask me to define "debate" and what "remember" really means.

You're right we are getting a little side-tracked, but that happens when you throw out so many wild generalisations and work on so many easily-refuted premises. I just went back and read the entire thread, pages 1 through 16. In relation to Romney's candidacy you seem to make just 4 points:

1. A candidate only wins if he strictly appeals to his party base
2. Romney has a ceiling of support amongst Reps of 25%. He cannot carry the party
3. A hard line wins more votes than a moderate one
4. There are only three positions to take on any issue, i.e. the right one, the wrong one and the wishy-washy centre ground

Point 1 is very easy to answer. A candidate only wins if s/he can fire up the base AND appeal to a wider audience. Unless you can win voters from the opposition you will forever be stuck with your own party's die-hard and they are always in a minority. Being able to appeal to both loyalists and floating voters is the key to electoral success in any even quasi-democratic system. It's what made for the politcal success of Reagan, Clinton and Obama.

Point 2 may be true. I'm no expert, but it does appear to me that none of the hard-liners in the GOP are really conecting with the base vote either. If I were a Rep I'd be feeling pretty depressed at the moment.

Points 3 and 4 are similar to Point 1, but also a clear expression of what many see as the impossibly partisan or tribal nature of modern US politics; a rejection of compromise and the idea of working together for the good of the nation. This is not limited to the right but just finds its most visceral outlet there. I think that this dualistic thinking is a real problem because it limits any solutions to those acceptable to the extreme, not to those most appropriate to the situation. You seem to see politics as merely the preserve of warring ideologies that must, by their very nature, not share ground with the opposition. Living in a country where over a dozen parties are represented in parliament, and still seems too polarised, it is very difficult to understand how the US, a nation of such size and diversity, can function politically when the two 'official' parties on the one hand appear so incredibly similar in policy terms, and yet so ridiculously polarised in their rhetoric.

 

[TurtleDude]

How do you explain the results of the midterms?

The vast right wing conspiracy?

 

[justabubba]

this is a major reason why romney is not electable. more of the same:
Romney tax plan would help the rich, hurt the poor: analysis | The Raw Story

U.S. presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s tax plan would cut revenues and increase the government’s budget deficit, while benefiting wealthy taxpayers more than others, said a report from a non-partisan think tank released on Thursday. ...

... “A Romney administration’s revenue agenda would look a lot like President George W. Bush’s, just more so,” said Howard Gleckman, resident fellow at the center, which also has analyzed the tax plans of other Republican presidential contenders, including Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Herman Cain. ...

if the republican mantra of 'cut taxes' was actually the way to achieve more employment, then where the hell are all of the jobs that were supposed to have been created

 

[Peter Grimm]

Point 1: I do concede that it is necessary to do BOTH... that is, get the base out and sway some of the independents. However, too much emphasis gets put on the independent vote when actually since so few people vote as a percentage of the population, "firing up the base" as they say is so very critical.

Additionally, a "fired up base" can be contagious. Moderates have a tendency to jump on the bandwagon when a movement is underway.


Point 2: I can't disagree with that. I think many Republicans are unhappy with the choices we have, and frankly it's bewildering. Living in a country of 300 million you would think we could find one or two more appealing candidates, particularly in such an important election cycle.


Point 3 and 4: I see politics in two dimensions... social and economic. And each dimension is very black-and-white. Socially, you either believe in abortion, or you do not. You either believe in same-sex marriage, or you do not. And there are several other issues, but you get the idea.

Economically, you either believe in the power of the individual, or in the power of the collective. Yes there are DEGREES of collectivism, but at its core you either ideologically believe that a society should be ruled by the collective or by the freedom of the individual.

I believe there is very little middle ground here, only a lot of confused people who have not thought it through yet.



As a side note, I was born in Sweden and I'm a dual citizen of Sweden and the USA, so I do have some familiarity with the European form of democracy. America is my adopted home.

What I see in America is that it hasn't screwed itself up quite as bad as Europe has managed to... yet... but if it keeps electing politicians like Barack Obama then it will happen very soon.

You're right we are getting a little side-tracked, but that happens when you throw out so many wild generalisations and work on so many easily-refuted premises. I just went back and read the entire thread, pages 1 through 16. In relation to Romney's candidacy you seem to make just 4 points:

1. A candidate only wins if he strictly appeals to his party base
2. Romney has a ceiling of support amongst Reps of 25%. He cannot carry the party
3. A hard line wins more votes than a moderate one
4. There are only three positions to take on any issue, i.e. the right one, the wrong one and the wishy-washy centre ground

Point 1 is very easy to answer. A candidate only wins if s/he can fire up the base AND appeal to a wider audience. Unless you can win voters from the opposition you will forever be stuck with your own party's die-hard and they are always in a minority. Being able to appeal to both loyalists and floating voters is the key to electoral success in any even quasi-democratic system. It's what made for the politcal success of Reagan, Clinton and Obama.

Point 2 may be true. I'm no expert, but it does appear to me that none of the hard-liners in the GOP are really conecting with the base vote either. If I were a Rep I'd be feeling pretty depressed at the moment.

Points 3 and 4 are similar to Point 1, but also a clear expression of what many see as the impossibly partisan or tribal nature of modern US politics; a rejection of compromise and the idea of working together for the good of the nation. This is not limited to the right but just finds its most visceral outlet there. I think that this dualistic thinking is a real problem because it limits any solutions to those acceptable to the extreme, not to those most appropriate to the situation. You seem to see politics as merely the preserve of warring ideologies that must, by their very nature, not share ground with the opposition. Living in a country where over a dozen parties are represented in parliament, and still seems too polarised, it is very difficult to understand how the US, a nation of such size and diversity, can function politically when the two 'official' parties on the one hand appear so incredibly similar in policy terms, and yet so ridiculously polarised in their rhetoric.

 

[Andalublue]

Point 1: I do concede that it is necessary to do BOTH... that is, get the base out and sway some of the independents. However, too much emphasis gets put on the independent vote when actually since so few people vote as a percentage of the population, "firing up the base" as they say is so very critical.

I'd be very surprised if you could provide psephological data that proved your point that independent and moderate voters disproportionately abstain from voting. I just don't believe it.

Point 2: I can't disagree with that. I think many Republicans are unhappy with the choices we have, and frankly it's bewildering. Living in a country of 300 million you would think we could find one or two more appealing candidates, particularly in such an important election cycle.

Agreed.

Point 3 and 4: I see politics in two dimensions... social and economic. And each dimension is very black-and-white. Socially, you either believe in abortion, or you do not. You either believe in same-sex marriage, or you do not. And there are several other issues, but you get the idea.

Unless you've been avoiding the debates on DP, you can hardly fail to notice that there are a huge range of varying opinions on both these two topics (which seem to be particular obsessions of conservatives) that run the gamut from opposition to abortion 100% in all circumstances, including contraception, to abortion freely available up to term. I personally don't know anyone who holds either of the two most extreme positions.

Economically, you either believe in the power of the individual, or in the power of the collective. Yes there are DEGREES of collectivism, but at its core you either ideologically believe that a society should be ruled by the collective or by the freedom of the individual.

Again, those aren't the only two options. I'm quite sure you are not advocating anarchy, yet every form of government, however 'minimal' you'd like to call it, impinges upon the pure personal liberty of the individual. The issue then isn't whether you have a system of personal liberty, but the degree of submission of the individual to the collective society that you are willing to tolerate. You may say that you wish little as possible, but that's hardly a black/white choice. It's one of those shades of grey you appear to so abhor.

I believe there is very little middle ground here, only a lot of confused people who have not thought it through yet.

It strikes me that may not have thought it through either.

What I see in America is that it hasn't screwed itself up quite as bad as Europe has managed to... yet... but if it keeps electing politicians like Barack Obama then it will happen very soon.

I'd suggest that your native Sweden has evolved one of the most civilised, prosperous, creative and, the big one for me, peaceful societies that has ever existed. Not without its problems, but with far fewer than perhaps your adopted home suffers from. I'd be very proud to call myself a Swede.

 

[Thunder]

The vast right wing conspiracy?

more like too many country-folk doing meth.

 

[Peter Grimm]

I'd be very surprised if you could provide psephological data that proved your point that independent and moderate voters disproportionately abstain from voting. I just don't believe it.

Suffice it to say, at this point on a Friday evening, that to me it seems logical to assume that hard-line left wingers or right wingers are going to be more passionate about politics in general (which is why, logically, they have formed hard-lined opinions to begin with)... and I would say that people who feel passion for politics are more likely to vote.

We can agree to disagree tonight, and perhaps I can do some research when time permits.

Unless you've been avoiding the debates on DP, you can hardly fail to notice that there are a huge range of varying opinions on both these two topics (which seem to be particular obsessions of conservatives) that run the gamut from opposition to abortion 100% in all circumstances, including contraception, to abortion freely available up to term. I personally don't know anyone who holds either of the two most extreme positions.

I can use your abortion example to illustrate my point. I am opposed to abortion in all instances. Now think about it... why would somebody be opposed to abortion? What would the philosophical reason be?

People who are pro-life, as they say, believe that life begins at conception... and therefore an abortion is actually killing a baby.

Now, if you fundamentally believe this, why would you EVER make an "exception" to this rule? Incest, rape, etc are terrible things. But, if you really believe you are killing a baby... does anything really justify that?

I'm not saying that there are not people out there who have the "I disagree with abortion except...." mindset.

But it's just because they haven't thought the problem through the whole way. You either believe a fetus is a baby, or you don't.

Again, those aren't the only two options. I'm quite sure you are not advocating anarchy, yet every form of government, however 'minimal' you'd like to call it, impinges upon the pure personal liberty of the individual. The issue then isn't whether you have a system of personal liberty, but the degree of submission of the individual to the collective society that you are willing to tolerate. You may say that you wish little as possible, but that's hardly a black/white choice. It's one of those shades of grey you appear to so abhor.
It strikes me that may not have thought it through either.

I did say there is a degree of collectivism in any government, I'm not sure if you saw that. But what isn't "gray" is the underlying ideologies... collectivism or the power of the individual.

You either believe that you have the responsibility to provide for yourself and your family... or you believe that society has the responsibility to provide for you.

These are choices we just can't escape. They are tough, ideological questions that each of us, if we are honest, must answer for ourselves.

I'd suggest that your native Sweden has evolved one of the most civilised, prosperous, creative and, the big one for me, peaceful societies that has ever existed. Not without its problems, but with far fewer than perhaps your adopted home suffers from. I'd be very proud to call myself a Swede.

The problem with Sweden, as it is with all of Europe, is that there is such a large portion of the population that simply feel entitled to things they have not earned.

Swedes just do not work hard. Neither do the Spanish. Compared to Americans, Europeans are (speaking in generalities) much more lazy.

Swedes have universal healthcare. But the quality of care is a joke! In fact, I refuse to go to the dentist when I am back in Sweden because they have no idea what they are doing. Compared to American dentists... it's night and day.

And American liberals have no idea about this. They see universal health care as a good thing.. but if they actually had to use it they might change their minds.

Sweden also have like 60% upper tax bracket, so what happens? The smartest, and best Swedes move away to Norway and other countries! And Sweden is left with the lazy entitled Swedes.

Sweden once had the highest per capita GNP in the world. Today, it is sinking like a rock. That is thanks to the Social Democrats. The politicians just promise people more and more handouts... money that Sweden doesn't have.... but they will say whatever they have to to get elected and power.

Finally, since Sweden is so socially liberal... women do not have children in Sweden anymore. The population is actually shrinking, as it is in most of northern Europe. So what do they do? They bring in refugees from Iran and Africa. But they do not let them work, because Sweden has such strict labor laws.

So now we have more crime, more people looking for handouts, and Sweden loses its identity as a people.

In contrast, America just works. You can come here, succeed, make money, and the government will not bother you.

I just hope it stays that way!

 

[Andalublue]

Suffice it to say, at this point on a Friday evening, that to me it seems logical to assume that hard-line left wingers or right wingers are going to be more passionate about politics in general (which is why, logically, they have formed hard-lined opinions to begin with)... and I would say that people who feel passion for politics are more likely to vote.

We can agree to disagree tonight, and perhaps I can do some research when time permits.

Reading back on the thread I see that proof that moderates and independents do indeed get out and vote has already been provided, so don't worry.

I can use your abortion example to illustrate my point. I am opposed to abortion in all instances. Now think about it... why would somebody be opposed to abortion? What would the philosophical reason be?

I'm sure there must be a degree of comfort in seeing the world in pure black-and-white terms, I suspect that must derive from your adherence to Judaeo-Christian dualistic morals. While I know you're not alone in such thinking, I think it's a fairly minoritarian position, and one normally taken by those whose philosophical take on life is driven by a fundamentalist religious fervour.

I did say there is a degree of collectivism in any government, I'm not sure if you saw that. But what isn't "gray" is the underlying ideologies... collectivism or the power of the individual.

You either believe that you have the responsibility to provide for yourself and your family... or you believe that society has the responsibility to provide for you.

Except that you clearly do not understand and cannot conceive of the complexity of the political spectrum which is not linear from left to right, but like a cloud - clearer at the edges but with an up, down, left, right, centre and extreme.

These are choices we just can't escape. They are tough, ideological questions that each of us, if we are honest, must answer for ourselves.

The choice is to divide the world into us and them, over-simplifying, caricaturing and using flawed logic while resting back on ideas of faith and acceptance when you cannot deal with natural complexities.

The problem with Sweden, as it is with all of Europe, is that there is such a large portion of the population that simply feel entitled to things they have not earned.

Swedes just do not work hard. Neither do the Spanish. Compared to Americans, Europeans are (speaking in generalities) much more lazy.

Swedes have universal healthcare. But the quality of care is a joke! In fact, I refuse to go to the dentist when I am back in Sweden because they have no idea what they are doing. Compared to American dentists... it's night and day.

And American liberals have no idea about this. They see universal health care as a good thing.. but if they actually had to use it they might change their minds.

Sweden also have like 60% upper tax bracket, so what happens? The smartest, and best Swedes move away to Norway and other countries! And Sweden is left with the lazy entitled Swedes.

Sweden once had the highest per capita GNP in the world. Today, it is sinking like a rock. That is thanks to the Social Democrats. The politicians just promise people more and more handouts... money that Sweden doesn't have.... but they will say whatever they have to to get elected and power.

Finally, since Sweden is so socially liberal... women do not have children in Sweden anymore. The population is actually shrinking, as it is in most of northern Europe. So what do they do? They bring in refugees from Iran and Africa. But they do not let them work, because Sweden has such strict labor laws.

So now we have more crime, more people looking for handouts, and Sweden loses its identity as a people.

In contrast, America just works. You can come here, succeed, make money, and the government will not bother you.

I just hope it stays that way!

Sweden still has one of the highest GDPs in the world, is seen as being one of the very least corrupt societies and has one of the best health systems in the world. Crime does seem to be a growing problem, but way, way below the level of the problem in the USA. I think you should give your nation the benefit of some credit for these considerable achievements. You'll forgive me if, as someone with a completely different philosphical take on life to you, clearly, I don't see the ability to succeed at making money as the touchstone of what makes a country a good place to live. To me a place where you can achieve a good work/life balance, enjoy a relatively unspoilt natural environment, enjoy participating in a peaceful and cooperative community, and somewhere that values of tolerance, co-existence, and creativity are valued above material riches, that is a good place to settle. In short, a lower incidence of affluenza infection is something to appreciate.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Reading back on the thread I see that proof that moderates and independents do indeed get out and vote has already been provided, so don't worry.

OK, that's your opinion. No need to visit the issue any further then.

I'm sure there must be a degree of comfort in seeing the world in pure black-and-white terms, I suspect that must derive from your adherence to Judaeo-Christian dualistic morals. While I know you're not alone in such thinking, I think it's a fairly minoritarian position, and one normally taken by those whose philosophical take on life is driven by a fundamentalist religious fervour.

All I see here is unwarranted condescension, and no evidence or supporting arguments to back up any sort of position that I can make out.

The closest thing resembling a point that I can glean from your comment is that since I may hold a minority position, it is therefore wrong. That is, of course, ridiculous.

Except that you clearly do not understand and cannot conceive of the complexity of the political spectrum which is not linear from left to right, but like a cloud - clearer at the edges but with an up, down, left, right, centre and extreme.

The choice is to divide the world into us and them, over-simplifying, caricaturing and using flawed logic while resting back on ideas of faith and acceptance when you cannot deal with natural complexities.

Again, you are trying hard to prove that you are intelligent (by falsely claiming I can't grasp complexities) while not supporting your argument. Simplicity in itself is not a bad thing - it is desirable. Seeking out the simplest solution to a problem is the best strategy for getting something accomplished.

Sweden still has one of the highest GDPs in the world, is seen as being one of the very least corrupt societies and has one of the best health systems in the world. Crime does seem to be a growing problem, but way, way below the level of the problem in the USA. I think you should give your nation the benefit of some credit for these considerable achievements. You'll forgive me if, as someone with a completely different philosphical take on life to you, clearly, I don't see the ability to succeed at making money as the touchstone of what makes a country a good place to live. To me a place where you can achieve a good work/life balance, enjoy a relatively unspoilt natural environment, enjoy participating in a peaceful and cooperative community, and somewhere that values of tolerance, co-existence, and creativity are valued above material riches, that is a good place to settle. In short, a lower incidence of affluenza infection is something to appreciate.

Sweden is nothing like it used to be. Quality of life has deteriorated considerably in the last 30 or so years... and for you to claim otherwise only shows how little regard you have for practical experience - such as actually having lived in Sweden.

The health care system is an absolute joke. Once again, this is first-hand experience. The waiting list to have surgery is months, where an American can walk right in to the hospital. A doctor in the USA needs twice as much schooling as a doctor in Sweden, and believe me it shows. Swedish doctors are amateurs. I can't tell you how many incorrect diagnoses, botched jobs, and goof-ups I have personally seen at the hands of incompetent Swedish doctors.

And really it makes sense. When a doctor in the United States can earn 3 times or more as much as a doctor in Sweden, it's going to attract a more capable individual to be a doctor in the United States.

Not to mention that Sweden's best doctors are practicing in Norway due to pay and lower taxes.

Of course crime is lower than in the USA, Sweden is smaller with much smaller cities, and Swedes are peaceful people with beautiful women and we don't have a need for crime. However, it is getting worse thanks to all the immigrants the Social Democrats are letting in.

Yes, Sweden is great if you are a student, on welfare, or a single mother. You will get a free apartment, and spending money for free. Nobody will pressure you to get a job.

Sweden does a good job of taking care of the helpless in society, I will give them credit for that.

But it is not a good place to live if you are ambitious, and working to better yourself and your family.

 

[solletica]

McCain lost because he was a cranky old bastard who admitted to knowing nothing about economics, sucked in the debates, and selected a dimwit as his running mate.

That's the standard GOP strategy, and it usually works.

 

[joko104]

Best line I heard about Romney is that Republicans have been speed dating their candidates but they will end up with who their parents picked for them.