The General US Politics Thread

Not Communist, but Bush's brand of Neoconservatism (or Compassionate Conservatism) is the mirror image of the "New Democrats" or Third-Way folks. The Third Way is about reaching left-wing goals through neoliberal means: the ACA is a big example of that, a hugely market-oriented way to achieve the longtime liberal dream of universal health care. Compassionate/Neoconservatism is about reaching right-wing goals through the use of the state: instead of reducing the scope and reach of government to reach their ends, acknowledge the reality of big government and use it to achieve those ends.

We've gone back to the "Don't Tread on Me" style of conservatism, but it'll be interesting to see, if the Republicans take the presidency in 2016, whether that style will endure.

So, any help on my EPA question?

So Compassionate/Neoconservatism, instead of deregulating an industry, will regulate it specifically to help big players and block new entrants?

Yes, because neocons love big business. And I mean love love. "Champagne room" love.

edited 22nd Nov '14 2:56:00 PM by Fighteer

Something I found interesting- two related things about this speech Ted Cruz gave paraphrasing Cicero- This shows the text of Cruz's speech versus Cicero's original and this discusses the speech.

The dogwhistle would be clever if it wasn't so despicable. Basically, Cruz's speech is deliberately closely based on Cicero's against Cataline, and while it takes out the parts in which Cicero called Cataline a murderer and traitor and called for his execution, it cleverly conveys that sentiment against Obama by omission.

edited 22nd Nov '14 3:02:24 PM by Hodor

So he's plagiating on top of being a dick? Oh, wow.

Not plagiarizing I don't think. I think Cruz basically said that what Cicero said about Cataline was relevant to his feelings against Obama and that's why he quoted/paraphrased it in his speech.

Edit- Yeah, Cruz starts out by saying how Cicero is relevant before delivering his spiel.

edited 22nd Nov '14 3:14:33 PM by Hodor

Next from Ted Cruz, he'll retell the story of Jesus in the desert, only with him in place of Jesus, Obama in place of Satan, and "all the kingdoms of the world" replaced with "universal healthcare".

edited 22nd Nov '14 3:19:06 PM by RavenWilder

Don't give him ideas!

I think the worst thing about it and another dog whistle is that as noted in the Atlantic article, Cicero was an elected representative and Cataline a rebel trying to overthrow the government.

It doesn't work as an analogy toward Obama unless Cruz is trying to imply Obama wasn't legitimately elected (which he probably is).

It would make a lot more sense as an analogy if Cruz was instead quoting (for example) Cicero's criticism of Mark Antony, in which Cicero was criticizing an elected leader for overreach. Of course, it doesn't have the "benefit" of allowing Cruz to call Obama a scumbag and imply he should be executed for treason.

Also, Cruz probably wouldn't want anyone to bring up what happened to Cicero after he spoke against Mark Antony.

edited 22nd Nov '14 3:30:22 PM by Hodor

There is a certain visceral satisfaction to the idea that Obama could have his political enemies guillotined and their heads impaled on pikes on the White House lawn, but one would like to imagine that we've moved beyond that sort of thing.

edited 22nd Nov '14 3:52:51 PM by Fighteer

True. I didn't (mostly) mean to imply a supportive attitude toward that. More that Cicero defeated Cataline and lead to his death which is why Cruz would favor that analogy versus my proposed anti-Mark Antony one (or similarly Seneca against Nero) where the speaker is a Doomed Moral Victor, even though it would be a more accurate analogy.

I'll also admit that maybe it's unfair of me to assume that Cruz means to imply those sentiments against Obama. I mean yes, he's the guy who chose to make the speech, but he's also calling Obama an Emperor, which doesn't at all fit with the Cataline comparison.

edited 22nd Nov '14 3:50:38 PM by Hodor

I imagine a lot of the commentators would be a lot less vocal if that had happened to OBL.

Plus it would shut the conspiracy nuts up.

On the flip side you have to balance that against the religious desecration argument though.

And yet everyone says Republicans are the violent ones

edited 22nd Nov '14 3:59:25 PM by JackOLantern1337

I'll bet that there hasn't been a single chief executive who hasn't privately wished that they could have some of the people who oppose them jailed or executed. They control the army and the police, after all. But that remains a pure fantasy for the most part, because those executives understand that by doing so they would set a precedent for future executives to do the same thing.

edited 22nd Nov '14 4:05:45 PM by Fighteer

Bah, don't assume us liberals all squishy hippies. How's the Glorious Worker's Revolution ^TM supposed to happen without a little violence?

There are plenty of folks on the political left who advocate revolution. I don't discount that. But most of us don't embrace violence, preferring populism-driven political reform as a first option. In fact, the reason we strive so hard for reform is that we recognize, in contrast to many on the right, that violent revolution can and will occur all by itself, without anyone agitating for it, in response to sufficient hardship. Also, there's no guarantee with revolutions that they'll result in a system that's better than what we have now.

The policies of the political right would inevitably lead to the conditions for said revolution, which is why we steadfastly oppose them.

edited 22nd Nov '14 7:37:06 PM by Fighteer

@Fighteer: That didn't stop Lincoln, of course (who indeed took extra-constitutional measures to preserve the Union, even though there was no consensus that the Union ought to stay together). But you're right that you can't take such extreme measures to prevent a possible crisis, only once the train has well and truly crashed.

And he paid for it with his life, which is another risk you run when taking unpopular, unilateral political actions.

Anyone else just a little worried some idiot is going to try and waste Obama?

Honestly, no. I feel like we've already had six years for the radical right to attempt an assassination, and with only two more to go and a Republican-controlled Congress, there's no real incentive to take him out early.

Which is not to say that some lone crazy might not get lucky; that's always a risk for any President.

edited 22nd Nov '14 9:04:21 PM by Fighteer

I've worried about that since he was president-elect.

You've got to wonder what societal consequences there might be if Obama did get shot.

But it's highly unlikely due to Biden, but I'm knocking on wood, just in case.

Biden or no Biden, there's just no perceived gain. Nothing is won by killing him. No terrible personal wrong is avenged. We had six years for the racially motivated whackjobs to attempt it, which was the greatest risk. But he hasn't done anything to directly harm people in a way that might trigger someone to take a shot.

"OMG, he gave people healthcare!!" "OMG, he refuses to deport those immigrants!" No matter how Fox News frames it, his supposed crimes against the Constitution and Freedom aren't translated into direct personal harm to any individual.

edited 22nd Nov '14 9:09:12 PM by Fighteer

U.S. Presidential assassins are rarely strategically motivated. Booth was planned as a last-ditch attempt to derail the war effort, but he acted too late and so was really just killing Lincoln for spite. Charles Guiteau had a SORT OF logical motive: he wanted to preserve the spoils system, and Vice President Arthur was for the system while Garfield wanted a meritocracy, but Guiteau also was insane and had the idea that he could get a job from Arthur by killing Garfield. Csolgosz and Oswald were both radical leftist nuts, killing Kennedy and Mc Kinley simply for being US president and not for any overarching reason (being the wrong kind of president or anything).

Solidly-based democracies rarely have too many assassinations, and yet more rarely are those assassinations meant to accomplish anything.

Random tangent, but it's funny with Guiteau how school books tend to report his motivation as being tied to the spoils system in the sense that he was passed over for a job, whereas in reality he was just some nut who prior to the assassination wrote crazy, vaguely threatening letters demanding a government job.

There's nothing you can do about the random nuts other than have good general security. That's a universal risk. I was addressing risks specific to Obama himself.

edited 22nd Nov '14 9:28:49 PM by Fighteer