DiscussMormonism.com

Dick Tuck, a political nemesis of Richard Nixon, once ran for Congress and was soundly defeated. He gave one of the most honest and succinct political concession speeches ever made:

"Well, the people have spoken....the bastards!"

Kinda sums up what many in the GOP are feeling today. In a hotly contested election between 2 distinctly different visions for America, many conservatives felt confident of victory. Some even predicted a Republican landslide. It is understandable that they would feel disheartened and discouraged.

But many of the election post-mortems exhibit a strain of profound pessimism not only about losing an election, but about democracy in general.

For some in the GOP, the 2012 election is what happens when democracy gets overrun by the riff-raff:

Bill O'Reilly: "It's a changing country. ... It's not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it. And he ran on it."

Donald Trump made an aborted call for revolution.

Secession petitions have been filed at the White House web site by residents of 12 states. We've fought the Taliban and Al Qaeda for 12 years, but the re-election of Obama evidently means it's time to give up on the idea of the United States. Sunshine Patriots, indeed.

But Ted Nugent's prediction that he will be dead or in jail by April is, I'm afraid, just wishful thinking.

In 2012, for the first time in United States history, recorded births of minority babies exceed those of white babies. After nearly 3 centuries of having the upper hand, white men are seeing the beginning of the end of their majority.

Clifton Chadwick, in The American Thinker, is worried:

A thing isn't good or legitimate just because the majority wants it. Democracy and freedom aren't synonyms, but most people associate democracy with freedom. The theory of modern democracy asserts that having a large enough number of supporters -- a majority of the population -- makes a government and its policies legitimate and just. This simply is a variation of the idea "might makes right."

The word for this is "populism," the name for movements that charge elite groups (the "1%") with having betrayed the public interest. It gathers followers in the hopes of gaining large enough numbers for its claims to speak on behalf of "the people" to be taken seriously. It pushes for more "fairness." Successful populism is the "tyranny of the majority," which Alexis de Tocqueville warned the Americans about in the 19th century.

What if the majority wants something evil? What if they want to oppress a minority? What if they want to tax the rich to give to the poor (which is currently happening)? Should they be allowed to?"

Not exactly what white men were saying when 'populists' were enslaving black men and pushing Native Americans off their own land. It's very touching to see white men developing a sensitivity to the plight of minorities. It's also very understandable, given our own past behavior.

You get the feeling that democracy was a game they were happy to play only when the dice were loaded in their favor.

As far as taxing the rich to give to the poor, this is is not an idea that Obama originated. I'll quote someone Mr. Chadwick may have heard of:

Adam Smith wrote:The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

So the idea of progressive taxation didn't begin with Karl Marx.

Politics seems to be trapped in the land of extremism. Every election cycle Means the survival of the country; a great victory or a catastrophe. There is no sense of balance. The ship of state tacks to the right, then to the left. It seems a bit disingenuous to claim we are the greatest country in the history of the world, and the next moment say that all is lost.

$250k/year is a lot more than I make right now, possibly ever. I won't be shedding any tears if their tax rates go up.

ajax18 wrote:$250k/year is a lot more than I make right now, possibly ever. I won't be shedding any tears if their tax rates go up.

Instead of crying, I suspect most would prefer that you think about the impact this will have on the economy.

I'm not saying raising their rates won't have a net benefit, but your response indicates your opinion would be dictated by the degree of "tears" you shed. As long as people are using that as a basis for their political (and fiscal) views, I'm not sure we're going to get the best choices made.

Instead of crying, I suspect most would prefer that you think about the impact this will have on the economy.

I'd prefer the Republicans adopt the idea of tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and no tax increase on those making less than $250k/year. That line is what is winning elections, whether it's what legislators actually do in the end or not. Mitt Romney campaigned on this promise even though nobody was listening and I believe he would have accomplished that.

Why do you want to save the economy Cinepro? If the Republicans obstruct this tax hike on the wealthy, it's only going to provide the Democrats a scape goat in the coming elections. Most of us in the party do not make more than $250k/year. I for one, am not very happy that stopping tax hikes on the rich is what the party holds onto most tightly above every other conservative principle, even if it means taking a beating at the elections like we're taking, and forfeiting everything else we wanted. They're talking like becoming soft on immigration (not sure how it could be more soft) is going to win the Republicans the next election. It won't.

This needs to be about the working mans party vs. the welfare party, not this stubborn protection of the plutocrats over a trickle down economic policy that the voters are not buying. If trickle down really is the truth, than it needs to step back and let the economy fail until the voters change their minds.

ajax18 wrote: I for one, am not very happy that stopping tax hikes on the rich is what the party holds onto most tightly above every other conservative principle ...

Wow. Well said.

Eric wrote:

ajax18 wrote: I for one, am not very happy that stopping tax hikes on the rich is what the party holds onto most tightly above every other conservative principle ...

Wow. Well said.

To be clear, I don't think taking money from one man and giving it to another is right. I just don't think stopping that injustice should be the number one and only priority for the Republican party at the expense of every other thing we had hoped for.

ajax18 wrote:I just don't think stopping that injustice should be the number one and only priority for the Republican party at the expense of every other thing we had hoped for.

I think you're right.

Eric wrote:

ajax18 wrote:I just don't think stopping that injustice should be the number one and only priority for the Republican party at the expense of every other thing we had hoped for.

I think you're right.

I never thought me and you would agree on anything. I'm not sure which of us is more surprised.

cinepro wrote:Instead of crying, I suspect most would prefer that you think about the impact this will have on the economy.

So after all the wailing and moaning for four years about the debt, the Right is going to complain about the one measure that is going to help pay down the deficit? That's pretty telling. It just goes to show that they were never really serious about their professed convictions to begin with.

There is simply no evidence to suggest taxing the rich will harm the economy. None. The Right Wing has scared people away from supporting this by deceptively equating them -taxpayers making more than $250k- with "job creators." They then deceptively claim that taxing them more, no matter how modestly, would somehow change their minds about hiring more people and lead to the destruction of our economy, etc etc. It was all a smoke and mirror job funded by corporations who were paying the "think tanks" to come up with these pseudo-economic propaganda hit pieces. The kinds of things Droopy and bcspace read on a daily basis.

the Right is going to complain about the one measure that is going to help pay down the deficit? That's pretty telling.

80 billion dollars hardly does anything to help the debt Kevin. I know you don't agree but IMHO spending is still out of control.

There is simply no evidence to suggest taxing the rich will harm the economy. None. The Right Wing has scared people away from supporting this by deceptively equating them -taxpayers making more than $250k- with "job creators." They then deceptively claim that taxing them more, no matter how modestly, would somehow change their minds about hiring more people and lead to the destruction of our economy, etc etc. It was all a smoke and mirror job funded by corporations who were paying the "think tanks" to come up with these pseudo-economic propaganda hit pieces.

That part I'm starting to agree with. And if it's wrong, why keep obstructing it in Congress to "save" the economy. Let the economy fail so that people come calling back for conservatism.

I'm surprised you still read my posts given that we're such mortal enemies.