It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well.
It’s hard to overstate just how destructive these sort of baseless attacks on an entire party’s patriotism are. They contribute absolutely nothing to the debate but hatred. I understand wanting to attack the other party — that’s what politics is. But let’s make those attacks actually substantive, rather than just broad allegations that they must “hate America.”
I mean, there are plenty of legitimate gripes we could level against Republicans: they have a weak grasp on policy issues; they cater to a small, extremist base; and they favor some really nasty campaign strategies. All of that makes them unlikeable. But does it mean they’re “rooting against the country?” No. They legitimately want the country to succeed; they’re just wrong on the issues.
On MNSBC Morning Joe on Thursday July 9th Waxman climbed down from that comment, and to paraphrase loosely he ‘was over the top and no, they don’t want the country to fail.’ I’m sure you can find the interview somewhere out there.
Yeah, that’s it, isn’t it. We’re all good patriots, except one party wants to help the middle class more.
If it’s us against them, we’re all in it together, though.
Comments like that don’t make any sense. Republicans won’t be going away anytime soon, so we should probably not purposefully destroy relationships.
Us against them being us Americans vs. “them” (whoever them is). We’re all Americans.
I agree, Republicans aren’t going away (although it does seem there is major party chaos, and parties have changed dramatically in the past).
We need a balance of power. We need at least two, strong parties.
Problematic. As a general rule attacks on the patriotism of political opponents are a fail moment, but the sad reality is there are indeed people out there who are partisan before they are American, and they want success only if their partisans are there to take credit for it. It appears that some prominent right wingers fall into this category.
I only read your quote, but it nowhere in it does it say that Waxman accused Republicans of hate.
It is quite reasonable to say that Republicans are rooting against the country when their policy is to roadblock everything, just to make the other party look bad.
Some Republicans talk openly about Secession. One talk show host wished that the people who engineered the Coup in Honduras would come here and take down our government. The Repubs, including the WSJ, have consistently lied about the Franken/Coleman case. They know full well that no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing was brought forward, and that the count and recount process was open, bipartisan, controlled by law. This falsely undermines confidence in our electoral process, the foundation of democracy.
I believe that the Republican party today does NOT love the country that the founding fathers envisioned. They love the country the way a dragon loves its hoard of gold. They want a country that allows open exploitation of resources and requires a particular Religious devotion.
And most importantly, they want to be In Charge. They are willing to sacrifice a few years, even decades of success for average citizens if it will increase their chance of being elected.
Grover Norquist famously said he wants to shrink government to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub.
What is “The country” besides government? In the absence of Government, it is just Property. Privately owned and privately ruled feudal regions from Sea to Shining Sea.
The GOP today wants a return to Feudalism, and that is Anti Country, and if we are afraid to name it, we will lose.
You really believe that? You may want to go back and read the declaration of independence Bobt. I’m with you all the way on the sliminess of power hungry politicians (sorry, Republicans don’t have a corner on that market) but to say a country is nothing without it’s government shows a pretty thin grasp on the framers intentions for this government - or at the very least, on what conservatives understand those intentions to be.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
-That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and
to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Or
We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
What part of that do you think republicans dislike? Which articles or ammendements to the constitution do you think they dislike? You are making the charge so please name names and give examples?
I’d like you to tell me what a country IS without a government. Somalia perhaps? Afghanistan? Is Minnesota + Wisconsin a Country? How about “The North Shore” Is that a country?
Here’s a few things many Repubs would like to be rid of:
1. “Establish Justice” That’s gotta go. Justice for the poor is out the window. Providing lawyers and expert witnesses for the poor is too expensive. Just look at the hostility directed to the ACLU and ACORN.
2. “Promote the general welfare” Repubs hate this one.
3. “Pursuit of happiness” They don’t like this one either, unless they can interpret “Happiness” to mean “Private Property”
I’m not going to name names and give examples. They are easy to find on your own. Just listen to Palin or Limbaugh or Coulter, Hannity, or Glenn Beck. Go browse around at Redstate.com if you can stand it.
The shouldn’t ACT like it then. Honest dealings would help.
A commitment to facts instead of ideology at all costs. A few do have that.
So give me a return to RATIONAL parties. It just doesn’t seem like its possible now from the right.
They’ve made their beds with some odd people & they have alienated most everyone else.
Don’t group hug with people who want to stab you in the back.
Until Republicans can prove themselves - why?
Lloyd,
I believe they actively oppose promoting the general Welfare - if you want my honest opinion. They support promoting the Welfare of their well-connected friends, and are unconcerned/ambivilant about the impact to the middle-class, and with it, to the country as a whole. If this were untrue, they’d have never supported the idea of Most Favored Nation status for China, NAFTA, and the predatory practices employed by businesses since the 1970’s to gradually erode the Fair Labor Standards Practices Act to essentially be meaningless at this point.
To be sure, there were plenty of Dems who have gone along, but it has been the Republicans who have time and again vehemently opposed any attempt to try to even out the distribution of profits (which have skyrocketted as productivity skyrocketted - since the 1970s). Labor gets a far lower share of profits today than in 1995, let alone 1975. The claim is that any attempt is class warfare, yet there HAS been class warfare upon the middle-class (which Warren Buffet has said that the rich have won). Each time there is any attempt at redress we hear cat-calls and screaming about how this is ‘making war on prosperity’ and ‘endangering our way of life’ - when in fact it has been a progressive erosion of the middle-classes buying power which has brought us to our current economic calamity.
So, Lloyd, personally, I don’t believe Republicans stand four-square behind one of the essential elements of our Constitution, they seem more interested in makeing the wealthy even more wealthy, regardless of the effect upon the ability of our society to sustain itself and function. In short, they are unconcerned if trickle-down actually works, and mostly just want campaign contributions.
Most certainly the largest argument to be had over the constitution is what exactly “promote the general Welfare” means. If we can agree to disagree on the definition than we can each allow the other to be right (or at least be wrong without being evil). Under my definition, I’m certain you would agree, the liberal approach to promote the general welfare runs counter to establishing justice, insure domestic tranquility and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Under your definition, I have no doubt that my approach would seem to run counter to those same things. We understand justice, welfare, tranquility and the most basic of all rights, liberty differently, but that only makes us seem wrong to one another when in fact there is no truly “right” answer.
With that said, you won’t be shocked to learn that I find the same fault with Democrats as you do with Republicans. That is, that they care more about protecting the wealthy and powerful than they do in allowing the middle class to become wealthy and powerful. What you may be shocked to learn is that I see the same problem with Republicans too. It’s the nature of politics and power which is precisely why I advocate so strongly for a limited government - the smaller the governments role, the less the politicians of whatever stripe can do to protect their friends and prevent us from doing.
Would you consider that a fair viewpoint or would I still be considered one actively opposed to promoting the general welfare?
This is more likely an impulsive statement, meant more to point out the right’s hypocrisy on patriotism, rather than an accusation. I’m guilty of this myself, as I’m sure many others are.
Lloyd,
I certainly didn’t mean the accusation personally.
I agree that BOTH parties work to enhance their standing with the rich and powerful. I disagree that the baseline position of the Democratic party has been anti-labor and/or anti-middle-class which I consider to be essentially part and parcel of the same thing.
We moved millions of jobs offshore on a false promise (and premise), a false promise of better paying and more numerous onshore built on a premise that such jobs would materialize here (in the US) rather than there (China, Mexico, India, etc..). Such a premise was a fool’s game at best, you’d have to be virtually an idiot to think that the Chinese lack intelligent enough people to manage their own staff, and that it would be more efficient and less costly to employ people here to do what you can pay someone LESS there to do. The upshot of this Laissez-faire approach was the gutting of the american labor pay base.
While I think Dems have been participatory in approving things like NAFTA, they don’t often yell and scream that any restraint on maximizing personal return to ownership is tantamount to communism, and they NORMALLY even will vote for labor protections - in that, they are not the same as the Republicans.
That said, your reply was extraordinarily cordial, and for that I thank you. The question now is, how do you reasonably protect the american worker, and how do we bring back into line the split of profits between labor and ownership?
Yes. Exactly. To me this is the heart of “to promote the general Welfare”. First some things we can agree on.
1.) The Labor Movement was essential to balancing the power of the corporation over the worker. I support the labor movement, work stopages, boycotts, strikes, sick-ins, sit ins, etc. The right to do so is essentuial to liberty and protection of it must be assumed at every level of government.
2.) Just as Labor absolutely MUST have the right to refuse its services for fair compensation, Employers MUST absolutely have the right to replace those excercising those rights. The employees may be providing the labor but the employer is providing the capital. One can’t exist without the other and a certain level of detante (based on mutually assured destruction) should be understood.
3.) The Democratic Party has stood solid for Organized Labor and Labor has responded in kind. Back when america built and shipped things you could find no greater, more powerful lobby than the labor movement. (I’ve been in the UAW headquarters in the president’s office and I define you to find a more oppulent working man’s office.)
4.) The Republican Party has tended to side with the employer in many labor disputes and many many many small businessmen and chambers of commerce have responded with their votes and money.
5.) The outsourcing of american jobs is despicable and has already proven to be disastrous to both employers and employees. Labor loses out big when there isn’t any work to do, companies lose customers because they dont have work and people lose exposure to knowledge gained through building, making and doing (the next model t or airplane wont be invented in the united states).
6.) Major corporations are responsible for this shift to outsourcing.
Where we will have to disagree is what the role of government has had in protecting the major corporations (as they are quite generous to both parties) and what roadblocks government places on companies maintaining there manuafacturing in this country. I believe that “to promote the general Welfare” would mean that the government maintain a climate where business can flourish which includes competetive tax rates, competetive environmental restrictions, competetive infrastructure and things of that nature. I also think that the establishment of Justice would require the government to be an impartial arbiter of labor and business disputes. The unions were successful before ever getting in bed with political parties and business would never be able to monopolize without the protection of government. Justice, therefor in my view, would dictate an agnosticism (or equal protection) of each party, not an advocacy or judgement of the value of one over the other.
As reasonable as that probably sounds to many, all it would take to blow up is someone to say “we’re all fried but business is great”. Unfortunately reason has as little use in combatting the religious zealots on the left as it does on the right.