How Donald Trump destroyed the Republican Party in 2015

[willyumiii]

Trump has tapped the US electorates dissatisfaction with the economic trends that have, over the past 30 or 40 years, destroyed the "American Dream". 40 years ago it was possible for a working class American to own a house, a car and put their kids through university with a minimum of financial effort and sacrifice. Now, globalization, increased population (due mainly to immigration) and the greed of bankers who are "too big to fail" have combined to make those things increasingly out of reach for the lower middle class.

It's ironic that they have turned to a member of that global economic community to save them! If Trump wins (and I would put his odds of success at about 50-50) the people who voted for him may be sadly disillusioned in the coming years.

I agree.

The downfall was started by Saint Ronald.

May the GOP rest in Pieces.

Good ridance!

[willyumiii]

Yes sir. The redneck crackers have their party.

[willyumiii]

Yes sir. The redneck crackers have their party.

And the secular "elites" have theirs...

And the real American people have their's.

Edited December 30, 2015 by willyumiii

[Scott]

Please stay on topic. If you have nothing relevant to say on the topic, please stop posting.

Save yourself a possible suspension.

[JHolmesJr]

Trump.jpg

A hell of an intelligent person

...Stephen King, that is.

Really???? I think hes a crap author who churns out 2-3 shitty novels a year.

[GaryAdriaenssens]

Deam on people. He's the man, like it or not!

[lostboy]

Trump has tapped the US electorates dissatisfaction with the economic trends that have, over the past 30 or 40 years, destroyed the "American Dream". 40 years ago it was possible for a working class American to own a house, a car and put their kids through university with a minimum of financial effort and sacrifice. Now, globalization, increased population (due mainly to immigration) and the greed of bankers who are "too big to fail" have combined to make those things increasingly out of reach for the lower middle class.

It's ironic that they have turned to a member of that global economic community to save them! If Trump wins (and I would put his odds of success at about 50-50) the people who voted for him may be sadly disillusioned in the coming years.

I do not agree with your analysis of the causation of income inequality in America. Globalisation means increased trade and trade generates wealth. Immigration has been shown to have a net positive effect on economies. Your point about the average American 'Joe' 40 years ago is more about wealth distribution than wealth generation. I agree with the analyses that point to the particular brand of voodoo known as Reaganomics as the primary causal factor in the growth of income inequality in this generation. Regulations favouring investment over labour initiated and has maintained this trend. The so-called 'banksters' are a direct result of this.

Since Trump's economic policies are as opaque and opportunistic as his political leanings, all I can see as a result of a Trump victory would be continued development of corporatist America and regulations that continue to favour the wealthy. I see no vision for an inclusive society that respects people and provides equality of opportunity for all.

edited^

You don't see globalization as corporatist? Your conclusion is disjointed from your premise. In fact, the "banksters" are the corporatists. The coporatists are the globalists. . Somewhere in the labyrinth you've lost your thread.

Thank you for your comment. I do, however believe that you have become a victim of your own ideologisation. I am surprised that a stalwart of the harsh social interpretation of the Exceptionalist Capitalist wing would follow the received wisdom of the Left in the interpretation of Globalisation as a corporatist, capitalist cabal. The propositional calculus that you tender by assuming that since corporates are a driver of Globalisation hence Globalisation is ipso facto Corporatist borders on a tautology.

While an advocate of economic liberalisation, of the Reaganomics mould (actually more Thatcherite), I am also a believer in regulation where market forces are not appropriate. Undesirable and inefficient outcomes of Globalisation, particularly in the realm of the movement of capital and the abuse of market power by large, multinational conglomerates is a failure of regulation rather than anything intrinsic to the concept. Globalisation is an ages old concept which began when the first traders brought back goods that were unobtainable domestically, primarily foodstuff which enabled more interesting diets and better nutrition. It is no coincidence that the most stable and prosperous empires historically became so through the provision of security for trade and sensible approaches to tariffs and taxes.

I fully support the multilateral approach to trade agreements as embodied in the WTO and reject the bilateralism displayed by the US under the GW regime.

However, I raised Globalisation in response to the poster's claim of this being a causal factor in income inequality. I do not make it the premise of my argument. Nor do I make my response to the Immigration issue the premise of my argument. I specifically argue that the deregulation under the Reaganomics platform initiated, maintains and exacerbates income inequality for this generation of Americans. There are still many examples of State Governors who continue to bankrupt their State economies in such deregulatory fervour. Such instances provide a stark insight into the harshness and cruelty of the conservative capitalist mind.

I read with interest, actually I am quite aghast, some of your posts about Democracy being akin to mob rule. If I didn't think that you used such hyperbole to try to shock and awe the reader, I would think that you are afflicted by some End of Days syndrome; something more than just the usual grumpy old man stuff powerless to influence the progress of the world. Trump and the Trump demographic seems to be comprised entirely of similar alarmists. To me, Government is a social contract. It is, in fact very much like a corporation, which is a legal construct comprising a nexus of contracts. Original Republican belief in the nature of Government centred on the ideal of community in contrast to the ideal of the Democrat which centred on the individual. Irrespective of political leanings, at least there was some underlying social rationale to the idea of Government. Trump's corporatism has already splintered the Party. Even Reagan knew he had to bring in the Evangelicals and the old-style Southern Democrats who resisted the Johnson Civil Rights progressiveness to maintain power. Merely relying on the Corporate Capitalists is not enough. The splintering of the Reagan Grand Coalition has taken long enough and I am glad that it is happening now. Now that American has taken a big jump to the Left, if you will forgive the Rocky Horror reference, it is time to address the regulatory environment inherited from Reagan to ensure that Social Justice once again becomes central to the American polity.

Edited December 30, 2015 by lostboy

[chuckd]

Back on topic, this is an opinion piece written by a Democrat. Just another campaign advertisement.

Take it with a grain of salt.

Wikipedia summarizes the author:

"Robinson appears frequently as a liberal political analyst[2] on MSNBC cable-TV network's programs such as Morning Joe, PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton, The Rachel Maddow Show, The Ed Show, Hardball with Chris Matthews, and Countdown with Keith Olbermann. In addition, he is often a panelist on NBC's public affairs program Meet the Press."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Robinson_(journalist)

Of course he is, but that does not make him wrong.

Nor does it make him right.

[arjunadawn]

I do not agree with your analysis of the causation of income inequality in America. Globalisation means increased trade and trade generates wealth. Immigration has been shown to have a net positive effect on economies. Your point about the average American 'Joe' 40 years ago is more about wealth distribution than wealth generation. I agree with the analyses that point to the particular brand of voodoo known as Reaganomics as the primary causal factor in the growth of income inequality in this generation. Regulations favouring investment over labour initiated and has maintained this trend. The so-called 'banksters' are a direct result of this.

Since Trump's economic policies are as opaque and opportunistic as his political leanings, all I can see as a result of a Trump victory would be continued development of corporatist America and regulations that continue to favour the wealthy. I see no vision for an inclusive society that respects people and provides equality of opportunity for all.

edited^

You don't see globalization as corporatist? Your conclusion is disjointed from your premise. In fact, the "banksters" are the corporatists. The coporatists are the globalists. . Somewhere in the labyrinth you've lost your thread.

Thank you for your comment. I do, however believe that you have become a victim of your own ideologisation. I am surprised that a stalwart of the harsh social interpretation of the Exceptionalist Capitalist wing would follow the received wisdom of the Left in the interpretation of Globalisation as a corporatist, capitalist cabal. The propositional calculus that you tender by assuming that since corporates are a driver of Globalisation hence Globalisation is ipso facto Corporatist borders on a tautology.

While an advocate of economic liberalisation, of the Reaganomics mould (actually more Thatcherite), I am also a believer in regulation where market forces are not appropriate. Undesirable and inefficient outcomes of Globalisation, particularly in the realm of the movement of capital and the abuse of market power by large, multinational conglomerates is a failure of regulation rather than anything intrinsic to the concept. Globalisation is an ages old concept which began when the first traders brought back goods that were unobtainable domestically, primarily foodstuff which enabled more interesting diets and better nutrition. It is no coincidence that the most stable and prosperous empires historically became so through the provision of security for trade and sensible approaches to tariffs and taxes.

I fully support the multilateral approach to trade agreements as embodied in the WTO and reject the bilateralism displayed by the US under the GW regime.

However, I raised Globalisation in response to the poster's claim of this being a causal factor in income inequality. I do not make it the premise of my argument. Nor do I make my response to the Immigration issue the premise of my argument. I specifically argue that the deregulation under the Reaganomics platform initiated, maintains and exacerbates income inequality for this generation of Americans. There are still many examples of State Governors who continue to bankrupt their State economies in such deregulatory fervour. Such instances provide a stark insight into the harshness and cruelty of the conservative capitalist mind.

I read with interest, actually I am quite aghast, some of your posts about Democracy being akin to mob rule. If I didn't think that you used such hyperbole to try to shock and awe the reader, I would think that you are afflicted by some End of Days syndrome; something more than just the usual grumpy old man stuff powerless to influence the progress of the world. Trump and the Trump demographic seems to be comprised entirely of similar alarmists. To me, Government is a social contract. It is, in fact very much like a corporation, which is a legal construct comprising a nexus of contracts. Original Republican belief in the nature of Government centred on the ideal of community in contrast to the ideal of the Democrat which centred on the individual. Irrespective of political leanings, at least there was some underlying social rationale to the idea of Government. Trump's corporatism has already splintered the Party. Even Reagan knew he had to bring in the Evangelicals and the old-style Southern Democrats who resisted the Johnson Civil Rights progressiveness to maintain power. Merely relying on the Corporate Capitalists is not enough. The splintering of the Reagan Grand Coalition has taken long enough and I am glad that it is happening now. Now that American has taken a big jump to the Left, if you will forgive the Rocky Horror reference, it is time to address the regulatory environment inherited from Reagan to ensure that Social Justice once again becomes central to the American polity.

Hahaha. Of course you see me as a victim of... (name the agent). In this case myself. Today, everyone is a victim. Nicely done. Your post? Love it. Does not matter one bit whether I agree or not, I just love to see a reasoned mind. It is a privileged. Really.

I am not Right or Left across the board, though clearly further Right. I will not line item response other to say Capitalism is both the flower of modernity and its bane. In this mix clearly wise management (read regulation) is required. I believe Big Government is not a necessary evil. It is evil. I believe the Federal Government should be shackled to the precise dimensions of the constitutional prison it belongs. I believe a number of these questions should be answered at the state level. I believe Banksters/corporations and the urge to globalism is both a means and an end. Globalism is hardly just an economic model/tool, it is a social/political model. I have zero use for Globalism as it is offered. I have no use for the monopoly world of the elite controlling the majority of the world's resources. I have no use for private banksters running an imaginary "Federal" Reserve, nor fiat money, fractional lending, and all the endless derivatives of usury based on it.

1. Democracy is absolutely Mob Rule. I am as equally aghast that America is refereed to as a Democracy as you apparently are that I note this absurdity, this stalking progressive horse of co-opting word meaning. Democracy is mob rule. Invariably, when the majority can act willy nilly on the minority it is Democracy. [d]emocratic mechanisms are a different story.

2. I am likely younger than the majority of posters here so old man stuff sounds... well, pointless if not biased.

3. Not sure what you mean by end of days stuff as this is primarily the fail safe eschatology of religions, and I hold to none. The world is entirely what humans make of it, notwithstanding rocks from space or the sun causing climate change.

4. I do not like Trump. I dislike Trump least. I dislike the Republican Establishment more. When you note the Rocky Horror reference, America has taken the big jump to the Left because of the complicity of the Right, not because of better ideas or representative majority- because of capitulation. The Republican Party is the secondary thing most objected to and reflected in Trump's popularity.

5. To state the regulatory Leviathan is inherited from Reagan is misleading. This started under FDR and began its real zenith under the Great Society. Besides, where it began does not matter. It has become a force of power unto its own and is contrary to anything a Representative Republic or a Democracy stands for.

Great Post. Thank you.

[Pinot]

I do not agree with your analysis of the causation of income inequality in America. Globalisation means increased trade and trade generates wealth. Immigration has been shown to have a net positive effect on economies. Your point about the average American 'Joe' 40 years ago is more about wealth distribution than wealth generation. I agree with the analyses that point to the particular brand of voodoo known as Reaganomics as the primary causal factor in the growth of income inequality in this generation. Regulations favouring investment over labour initiated and has maintained this trend. The so-called 'banksters' are a direct result of this.

Since Trump's economic policies are as opaque and opportunistic as his political leanings, all I can see as a result of a Trump victory would be continued development of corporatist America and regulations that continue to favour the wealthy. I see no vision for an inclusive society that respects people and provides equality of opportunity for all.

edited^

You don't see globalization as corporatist? Your conclusion is disjointed from your premise. In fact, the "banksters" are the corporatists. The coporatists are the globalists. . Somewhere in the labyrinth you've lost your thread.

Thank you for your comment. I do, however believe that you have become a victim of your own ideologisation. I am surprised that a stalwart of the harsh social interpretation of the Exceptionalist Capitalist wing would follow the received wisdom of the Left in the interpretation of Globalisation as a corporatist, capitalist cabal. The propositional calculus that you tender by assuming that since corporates are a driver of Globalisation hence Globalisation is ipso facto Corporatist borders on a tautology.

While an advocate of economic liberalisation, of the Reaganomics mould (actually more Thatcherite), I am also a believer in regulation where market forces are not appropriate. Undesirable and inefficient outcomes of Globalisation, particularly in the realm of the movement of capital and the abuse of market power by large, multinational conglomerates is a failure of regulation rather than anything intrinsic to the concept. Globalisation is an ages old concept which began when the first traders brought back goods that were unobtainable domestically, primarily foodstuff which enabled more interesting diets and better nutrition. It is no coincidence that the most stable and prosperous empires historically became so through the provision of security for trade and sensible approaches to tariffs and taxes.

I fully support the multilateral approach to trade agreements as embodied in the WTO and reject the bilateralism displayed by the US under the GW regime.

However, I raised Globalisation in response to the poster's claim of this being a causal factor in income inequality. I do not make it the premise of my argument. Nor do I make my response to the Immigration issue the premise of my argument. I specifically argue that the deregulation under the Reaganomics platform initiated, maintains and exacerbates income inequality for this generation of Americans. There are still many examples of State Governors who continue to bankrupt their State economies in such deregulatory fervour. Such instances provide a stark insight into the harshness and cruelty of the conservative capitalist mind.

I read with interest, actually I am quite aghast, some of your posts about Democracy being akin to mob rule. If I didn't think that you used such hyperbole to try to shock and awe the reader, I would think that you are afflicted by some End of Days syndrome; something more than just the usual grumpy old man stuff powerless to influence the progress of the world. Trump and the Trump demographic seems to be comprised entirely of similar alarmists. To me, Government is a social contract. It is, in fact very much like a corporation, which is a legal construct comprising a nexus of contracts. Original Republican belief in the nature of Government centred on the ideal of community in contrast to the ideal of the Democrat which centred on the individual. Irrespective of political leanings, at least there was some underlying social rationale to the idea of Government. Trump's corporatism has already splintered the Party. Even Reagan knew he had to bring in the Evangelicals and the old-style Southern Democrats who resisted the Johnson Civil Rights progressiveness to maintain power. Merely relying on the Corporate Capitalists is not enough. The splintering of the Reagan Grand Coalition has taken long enough and I am glad that it is happening now. Now that American has taken a big jump to the Left, if you will forgive the Rocky Horror reference, it is time to address the regulatory environment inherited from Reagan to ensure that Social Justice once again becomes central to the American polity.

Hahaha. Of course you see me as a victim of... (name the agent). In this case myself. Today, everyone is a victim. Nicely done. Your post? Love it. Does not matter one bit whether I agree or not, I just love to see a reasoned mind. It is a privileged. Really.

I am not Right or Left across the board, though clearly further Right. I will not line item response other to say Capitalism is both the flower of modernity and its bane. In this mix clearly wise management (read regulation) is required. I believe Big Government is not a necessary evil. It is evil. I believe the Federal Government should be shackled to the precise dimensions of the constitutional prison it belongs. I believe a number of these questions should be answered at the state level. I believe Banksters/corporations and the urge to globalism is both a means and an end. Globalism is hardly just an economic model/tool, it is a social/political model. I have zero use for Globalism as it is offered. I have no use for the monopoly world of the elite controlling the majority of the world's resources. I have no use for private banksters running an imaginary "Federal" Reserve, nor fiat money, fractional lending, and all the endless derivatives of usury based on it.

1. Democracy is absolutely Mob Rule. I am as equally aghast that America is refereed to as a Democracy as you apparently are that I note this absurdity, this stalking progressive horse of co-opting word meaning. Democracy is mob rule. Invariably, when the majority can act willy nilly on the minority it is Democracy. [d]emocratic mechanisms are a different story.

2. I am likely younger than the majority of posters here so old man stuff sounds... well, pointless if not biased.

3. Not sure what you mean by end of days stuff as this is primarily the fail safe eschatology of religions, and I hold to none. The world is entirely what humans make of it, notwithstanding rocks from space or the sun causing climate change.

4. I do not like Trump. I dislike Trump least. I dislike the Republican Establishment more. When you note the Rocky Horror reference, America has taken the big jump to the Left because of the complicity of the Right, not because of better ideas or representative majority- because of capitulation. The Republican Party is the secondary thing most objected to and reflected in Trump's popularity.

5. To state the regulatory Leviathan is inherited from Reagan is misleading. This started under FDR and began its real zenith under the Great Society. Besides, where it began does not matter. It has become a force of power unto its own and is contrary to anything a Representative Republic or a Democracy stands for.

Great Post. Thank you.

Wait...what? Surrealism meets political discourse. Huh?

Anyone get what's going on here?

"Camptown racers sing this song...do da, do da."

I'm really, really confused by the above post.

Entertaining, yet confusing...

No confusing isn't the right word. Someone help me. Stimied?

One of the best posts of the year. No, decade.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Pinot

[howbri]

Trump has tapped the US electorates dissatisfaction with the economic trends that have, over the past 30 or 40 years, destroyed the "American Dream". 40 years ago it was possible for a working class American to own a house, a car and put their kids through university with a minimum of financial effort and sacrifice. Now, globalization, increased population (due mainly to immigration) and the greed of bankers who are "too big to fail" have combined to make those things increasingly out of reach for the lower middle class.

It's ironic that they have turned to a member of that global economic community to save them! If Trump wins (and I would put his odds of success at about 50-50) the people who voted for him may be sadly disillusioned in the coming years.

The Republican party NEEDED to be blown up! No difference between the two when the commie muslim gets everything he wants. American people are FED UP with having their country torn apart by a Saul Alinsky wanna-be and watching their cities being burned down by thugs with no consequences. Whatever happens if Trump wins will be vastly superior to what we Americans have now. Personally, I want Cruz to win. Watch the fireworks then!

[Johpa]

Deam on people. He's the man, like it or not!

The "man"for whom? Trump may disappear once Hillary is dutifully anointed by the Dems and he is no longer needed to distract the attention away from the message of Bernie Sanders. Trump is "the man" for those whose mission it is to divide and conquer the masses in the imagined democracy of the USA. The ideas of Edward Bernays still hold sway over American politics. It is not that much different than politics in Thailand, just a whole lot more subtle in the U.S.

[NeverSure]

Hahaha. Of course you see me as a victim of... (name the agent). In this case myself. Today, everyone is a victim. Nicely done. Your post? Love it. Does not matter one bit whether I agree or not, I just love to see a reasoned mind. It is a privileged. Really.

I am not Right or Left across the board, though clearly further Right. I will not line item response other to say Capitalism is both the flower of modernity and its bane. In this mix clearly wise management (read regulation) is required. I believe Big Government is not a necessary evil. It is evil. I believe the Federal Government should be shackled to the precise dimensions of the constitutional prison it belongs. I believe a number of these questions should be answered at the state level. I believe Banksters/corporations and the urge to globalism is both a means and an end. Globalism is hardly just an economic model/tool, it is a social/political model. I have zero use for Globalism as it is offered. I have no use for the monopoly world of the elite controlling the majority of the world's resources. I have no use for private banksters running an imaginary "Federal" Reserve, nor fiat money, fractional lending, and all the endless derivatives of usury based on it.

1. Democracy is absolutely Mob Rule. I am as equally aghast that America is refereed to as a Democracy as you apparently are that I note this absurdity, this stalking progressive horse of co-opting word meaning. Democracy is mob rule. Invariably, when the majority can act willy nilly on the minority it is Democracy. [d]emocratic mechanisms are a different story.

2. I am likely younger than the majority of posters here so old man stuff sounds... well, pointless if not biased.

3. Not sure what you mean by end of days stuff as this is primarily the fail safe eschatology of religions, and I hold to none. The world is entirely what humans make of it, notwithstanding rocks from space or the sun causing climate change.

4. I do not like Trump. I dislike Trump least. I dislike the Republican Establishment more. When you note the Rocky Horror reference, America has taken the big jump to the Left because of the complicity of the Right, not because of better ideas or representative majority- because of capitulation. The Republican Party is the secondary thing most objected to and reflected in Trump's popularity.

5. To state the regulatory Leviathan is inherited from Reagan is misleading. This started under FDR and began its real zenith under the Great Society. Besides, where it began does not matter. It has become a force of power unto its own and is contrary to anything a Representative Republic or a Democracy stands for.

Great Post. Thank you.

Wait...what? Surrealism meets political discourse. Huh?

Anyone get what's going on here?

"Camptown racers sing this song...do da, do da."

I'm really, really confused by the above post.

Entertaining, yet confusing...

No confusing isn't the right word. Someone help me. Stimied?

One of the best posts of the year. No, decade.

I am not at all surprised that his well thought out and articulate post confused you.

Cheers.

[NeverSure]

The topic is about Trump destroying the Republican Party. I don't disagree. The Republic Party bigwigs are suddenly on the sidelines after doing all they could to stop Trump. Even Fox News and its owner tried to stop him until they realized they needed him to get any ratings.

Yes, the Republican Party has been shot between the eyes by Trump and it won't be the same again in my lifetime. The entrenched good ole boys have lost their grip on the party and the people. Trump sneaked in and stole their ice cream cones.

What happens from here I don't know. I just know that the entrenchment of the old brigade is destroyed. The name Bush, for instance, doesn't mean crap anymore after the Party had anointed him as the Next Big Deal^TM.

Cheers.

[lostboy]

I do not agree with your analysis of the causation of income inequality in America. Globalisation means increased trade and trade generates wealth. Immigration has been shown to have a net positive effect on economies. Your point about the average American 'Joe' 40 years ago is more about wealth distribution than wealth generation. I agree with the analyses that point to the particular brand of voodoo known as Reaganomics as the primary causal factor in the growth of income inequality in this generation. Regulations favouring investment over labour initiated and has maintained this trend. The so-called 'banksters' are a direct result of this.

Since Trump's economic policies are as opaque and opportunistic as his political leanings, all I can see as a result of a Trump victory would be continued development of corporatist America and regulations that continue to favour the wealthy. I see no vision for an inclusive society that respects people and provides equality of opportunity for all.

edited^

You don't see globalization as corporatist? Your conclusion is disjointed from your premise. In fact, the "banksters" are the corporatists. The coporatists are the globalists. . Somewhere in the labyrinth you've lost your thread.

Thank you for your comment. I do, however believe that you have become a victim of your own ideologisation. I am surprised that a stalwart of the harsh social interpretation of the Exceptionalist Capitalist wing would follow the received wisdom of the Left in the interpretation of Globalisation as a corporatist, capitalist cabal. The propositional calculus that you tender by assuming that since corporates are a driver of Globalisation hence Globalisation is ipso facto Corporatist borders on a tautology.

While an advocate of economic liberalisation, of the Reaganomics mould (actually more Thatcherite), I am also a believer in regulation where market forces are not appropriate. Undesirable and inefficient outcomes of Globalisation, particularly in the realm of the movement of capital and the abuse of market power by large, multinational conglomerates is a failure of regulation rather than anything intrinsic to the concept. Globalisation is an ages old concept which began when the first traders brought back goods that were unobtainable domestically, primarily foodstuff which enabled more interesting diets and better nutrition. It is no coincidence that the most stable and prosperous empires historically became so through the provision of security for trade and sensible approaches to tariffs and taxes.

I fully support the multilateral approach to trade agreements as embodied in the WTO and reject the bilateralism displayed by the US under the GW regime.

However, I raised Globalisation in response to the poster's claim of this being a causal factor in income inequality. I do not make it the premise of my argument. Nor do I make my response to the Immigration issue the premise of my argument. I specifically argue that the deregulation under the Reaganomics platform initiated, maintains and exacerbates income inequality for this generation of Americans. There are still many examples of State Governors who continue to bankrupt their State economies in such deregulatory fervour. Such instances provide a stark insight into the harshness and cruelty of the conservative capitalist mind.

I read with interest, actually I am quite aghast, some of your posts about Democracy being akin to mob rule. If I didn't think that you used such hyperbole to try to shock and awe the reader, I would think that you are afflicted by some End of Days syndrome; something more than just the usual grumpy old man stuff powerless to influence the progress of the world. Trump and the Trump demographic seems to be comprised entirely of similar alarmists. To me, Government is a social contract. It is, in fact very much like a corporation, which is a legal construct comprising a nexus of contracts. Original Republican belief in the nature of Government centred on the ideal of community in contrast to the ideal of the Democrat which centred on the individual. Irrespective of political leanings, at least there was some underlying social rationale to the idea of Government. Trump's corporatism has already splintered the Party. Even Reagan knew he had to bring in the Evangelicals and the old-style Southern Democrats who resisted the Johnson Civil Rights progressiveness to maintain power. Merely relying on the Corporate Capitalists is not enough. The splintering of the Reagan Grand Coalition has taken long enough and I am glad that it is happening now. Now that American has taken a big jump to the Left, if you will forgive the Rocky Horror reference, it is time to address the regulatory environment inherited from Reagan to ensure that Social Justice once again becomes central to the American polity.

Hahaha. Of course you see me as a victim of... (name the agent). In this case myself. Today, everyone is a victim. Nicely done. Your post? Love it. Does not matter one bit whether I agree or not, I just love to see a reasoned mind. It is a privileged. Really.

I am not Right or Left across the board, though clearly further Right. I will not line item response other to say Capitalism is both the flower of modernity and its bane. In this mix clearly wise management (read regulation) is required. I believe Big Government is not a necessary evil. It is evil. I believe the Federal Government should be shackled to the precise dimensions of the constitutional prison it belongs. I believe a number of these questions should be answered at the state level. I believe Banksters/corporations and the urge to globalism is both a means and an end. Globalism is hardly just an economic model/tool, it is a social/political model. I have zero use for Globalism as it is offered. I have no use for the monopoly world of the elite controlling the majority of the world's resources. I have no use for private banksters running an imaginary "Federal" Reserve, nor fiat money, fractional lending, and all the endless derivatives of usury based on it.

1. Democracy is absolutely Mob Rule. I am as equally aghast that America is refereed to as a Democracy as you apparently are that I note this absurdity, this stalking progressive horse of co-opting word meaning. Democracy is mob rule. Invariably, when the majority can act willy nilly on the minority it is Democracy. [d]emocratic mechanisms are a different story.

2. I am likely younger than the majority of posters here so old man stuff sounds... well, pointless if not biased.

3. Not sure what you mean by end of days stuff as this is primarily the fail safe eschatology of religions, and I hold to none. The world is entirely what humans make of it, notwithstanding rocks from space or the sun causing climate change.

4. I do not like Trump. I dislike Trump least. I dislike the Republican Establishment more. When you note the Rocky Horror reference, America has taken the big jump to the Left because of the complicity of the Right, not because of better ideas or representative majority- because of capitulation. The Republican Party is the secondary thing most objected to and reflected in Trump's popularity.

5. To state the regulatory Leviathan is inherited from Reagan is misleading. This started under FDR and began its real zenith under the Great Society. Besides, where it began does not matter. It has become a force of power unto its own and is contrary to anything a Representative Republic or a Democracy stands for.

Great Post. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment and kind remarks. I suspect that if we continue the debate, then we would end up agreeing more than we disagree.

However, I clearly do not subscribe to the statement that Democracy is Mob Rule. I see this as a stalking horse for the radical right. Quotations from and references to various Leaders of the early United States, i.e. the Founding Fathers are, I believe, taken out of historical context. It would seem logical to assume that since no government system had then been established that included universal suffrage, which is a defining principle of modern perceptions of democracy, that their concept of governance would not extend to fully enfranchise all citizens. The property qualifications in most states disenfranchised more than half of white men, women had no vote and there is the notorious Three Fifths compromise regarding Blacks in the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

I interpret the use of the word 'republican' by the Founding Fathers as meaning 'non monarchy'. After all, they were in rebellion against the British Monarch and needed to provide legal justifications for this act and ensure that the National and State Constitutions protected citizens from its recurrence. I do not see the term 'Republic' as meaning 'non Democracy'.

The history of industrialising societies in the 19th century is not just a socio-economic history but a political history in which the voting franchise was extended, ultimately to all persons including women in the first decades of the 20th Century and, some would argue to African Americans not until the 1960's in all States. The Founding Fathers were clearly a produce of the Age of Rationalism but they were also a product of their historical context in terms of attaching merit to people of wealth, 'breeding' and education. Clearly they were as concerned about the Great Unwashed as the other Elites.

So I now categories the phrase, Democracy is Mob Rule, in the same way that I deal with the phrases, Republic is not a Democracy and Global Warming, as being political and ideological and not historically representative. There is no point in trying to debate or elucidate and elaborate detail as this is not the purpose of such definitions. So I think I will leave that one alone.

To circle back around to the OP, I do, however, believe that you correctly identify that Trump represents the latest attempt to capture and define the soul of the Republican Party. Dissatisfaction with the Establishment is certain a major factor in Trump's appeal. However, despite your statement that you are actually a younger guy than I assume, I do believe that ignoring the generational factor is dangerous. I think there is a Trump Type which I call the Trump Demographic. I do not believe that the values of the new generation, the so-called Millenials, are captured by the Trump Type. The new generation may well be as dissatisfied with the Establishment as the Trump Types but I do not believe their solutions, priorities and concerns coincide. We will see who is correct as the nomination process and the general election proceeds.

Edited December 31, 2015 by lostboy

[chuckd]

<<snip>>

So I now categories the phrase, Democracy is Mob Rule, in the same way that I deal with the phrases, Republic is not a Democracy and Global Warming, as being political and ideological and not historically representative. There is no point in trying to debate or elucidate and elaborate detail as this is not the purpose of such definitions. So I think I will leave that one alone.

<<snip>>

There is a difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

For your edification...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b ) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

Read more here: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

[lostboy]

<<snip>>

So I now categories the phrase, Democracy is Mob Rule, in the same way that I deal with the phrases, Republic is not a Democracy and Global Warming, as being political and ideological and not historically representative. There is no point in trying to debate or elucidate and elaborate detail as this is not the purpose of such definitions. So I think I will leave that one alone.

<<snip>>

There is a difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

For your edification...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a pop ular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b ) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

Read more here: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Thank you Chuck although you are giving away some of your secret sources that allow you such perspicacity on constitutional issues. I am not so pleased that you used the word edification instead of information. The piece that you reference coming from a 1976 book called the American Ideal of 1776 written by one Hamilton Abert Long neither improves my intellect nor adds to any debate on the issues. It is political writing. Apart from continuing the fetishisation of the Found Fathers, it contains no central thesis nor is it structured to explain, defend and critique such a thesis. Extract you provide merely keeps telling us what is important to know and makes assertions without telling us why. The extended except referenced is the same and I would imagine the whole book would also be a political rant.

I do not argue the virtues of Republicanism. I do not try to diminish the Great Experiment of the US Constitution. I fully support its ideals and hope for continued success. However this is not the point I made. I argued that the historical context of the Founding Fathers and their perceptions of human merit informed their view of what would constitute a proper voting franchise. Universal Suffrage was a century away in the future and the idea of full enfranchisement would be contrary to their socially and economically determined bias. The quote from Madison in Federalist 55 in the extended excerpt speaks directly to that point. He did not believe in universal suffrage because he thought that there was "a degree of depravity in mankind" (your link). I do not interpret this as any way arguing against democracy but of universal suffrage.

You may simplify this to say that Republicans believe in that individuals are fundamentally bad while Democrats believe that individuals are fundamentally good. You add some evangelical religious fundamentalism to this and you have the Tea Party of today.

I have made my argument. Your link does not persuade me otherwise. How could I take any argument on this subject seriously when there is absolutely no reference to Kant http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/358 who establishes the rationality and sovereignty of the individual and builds on Rousseau http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_rousseau.html who establishes the individual's self authority. Madison, Jefferson, Adam et al did not exist in a vacuum although to read some of the drivel that people try to pass of as edification, you would think that the Age of Reason started and ended in 1787 in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention (I would post a picture of me sitting in one of the delegate's seats in Independence Hall in Philadelphia but I suppose the mods won't allow it).

I am happy to debate and argue the conceptual basis of Republicanism and its similarities and differences to other forms of Democracy but am unwilling to wade through reams of politicalise pap generated by fetishers of the Founding Fathers in pursuit of maintaining some hubristic notion of Exceptionalism.

Edited December 31, 2015 by lostboy

[stevenl]

The topic is about Trump destroying the Republican Party. I don't disagree. The Republic Party bigwigs are suddenly on the sidelines after doing all they could to stop Trump. Even Fox News and its owner tried to stop him until they realized they needed him to get any ratings.

Yes, the Republican Party has been shot between the eyes by Trump and it won't be the same again in my lifetime. The entrenched good ole boys have lost their grip on the party and the people. Trump sneaked in and stole their ice cream cones.

What happens from here I don't know. I just know that the entrenchment of the old brigade is destroyed. The name Bush, for instance, doesn't mean crap anymore after the Party had anointed him as the Next Big Deal^TM.

Cheers.

Agree with you here. I think the Teaparty destroyed the Republican party. The 'old garde' should start anew and try to get the right wing of the Democrats in.

[Ace of Pop]

I rather liked Boss Hog in the Dukes of Hazard he seemed to represent all US Leaders ,devious.

[impulse]

I rather liked Boss Hog in the Dukes of Hazard he seemed to represent all US Leaders ,devious.

I'm liking Al Swearingen of "Deadwood" even better as a representation of today's so called leaders. Boss Hog without the limits imposed by prime time censorship...

Devious, profane, and completely sociopathic They'll do whatever they can to hold on to power, no matter how much it damages the country. Both sides of the aisle.

That's why Trump is so appealing. He represents the "none of the above" lever in the voting booth.

[grumpyoldman]

=

[boomerangutang]

Republicans created the monster that is the Republican party. The genie is out of the bottle and it ain't pretty. I heard a report today that the Rep party is trying to address concerns of poor people. Maybe it just found out that poor people vote also. It will do the minimum it can to court the poor peoples' votes, maybe even lessen tax shelters, for super rich, ....naw, just kidding, they wouldn't go that far. Republicans have the redneck vote, and guess who appeals to the most rednecks? Yup: Trump. Now Republicans are slowly realizing there are many other social groups in the US besides rednecks and very rich selfish bastards. The election results will probably be more lopsided than the defeats of McCain and Romney - regardless of who they put up to lose against Hillary. They've painted themselves in to a corner. The brown spot on their undershorts is showing. Their dogma is going to get run over by karma.

[boomerangutang]

DonaldTrumpBadHairDay.jpg

=

Donkey-ass.jpg

That could be offensive to the donkey ass contingent.

[Pinot]

Post deleted

Edited January 10, 2016 by Pinot

[Scott]

A post violating fair use policy has been removed.