"Good government crowd" . . .

[Sope Creek]

I had an interesting conversation at lunch the other day, with a guy who is a partner in a large law firm; he's very conservative politically, and highly informed regarding his political views by the doctrines of the Catholic church. The discussion was interesting in and of its own right, as we covered all of the GOP candidates for President quickly, but in surprising detail.

And then we got to talking about political folks we know in common, and when we happened onto discussing the recent switch of a former colleague - and current member of the GA house of representatives - from the GOP to the Democratic party, my discussion partner said "Oh, they're just a part of the good government crowd. You know, when Democrats controlled the GA legislature they were Republicans so they could be opposed to Democrats' corruption, and now that the GA house is controlled by Republicans they're appalled by and opposed to all of the corruption that occurs now."

I found this comment pretty interesting . . . in part because of the specific personalities involved, and in part because my sense is that the GOP's initial political capital started out as "good government", anti-corruption sensibilities, and then morphed for much, if not most, of the GOP into "all government is bad" as the GOP ascended into power in many states. After all, you can't be in power and run against corruption in the capitol at the same time . . . .

So now I'm left wondering how effective "good government" political capital will be in the future . . .

. . . we're seeing it play out a bit in the attempts by the GOP to tar Clinton with a "scandal" regarding her private email server. GOP presidential candidates are falling all over themselves trying to tag Trump with something scandalous, from the bankruptcy filings of 4 Trump investments to Trump's apparent misogyny, to . . . whatever, and attempts to tie Jeb to W's Iraq War II, um . . . decision . . .

. . . and we're seeing some of the candidates and other pols being very effective at slipping past the "good government" inquiries/charges . . . .

Is there a "good government crowd" in your state's politics? Are they effective, or even respected?

Is there a good government crowd in national politics? Or is "good government" just another mud-slingi. . . I mean just another campaigning tool?

Should "good government" be assumed to be a political virtue? Or is it something to be disdainful of, as it seems to be among a lot of cynical GOP and Tea Party types who are completely jaded on government altogether? Or is it that those folks are the only real "good government" folks out there, simply because they're "right" on the notion that government is inherently bad?

Curious if the board has a common ethos regarding this topic, or whether it will break along party - or some other - lines.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I had an interesting conversation at lunch the other day, with a guy who is a partner in a large law firm; he's very conservative politically, and highly informed regarding his political views by the doctrines of the Catholic church. The discussion was interesting in and of its own right, as we covered all of the GOP candidates for President quickly, but in surprising detail.

And then we got to talking about political folks we know in common, and when we happened onto discussing the recent switch of a former colleague - and current member of the GA house of representatives - from the GOP to the Democratic party, my discussion partner said "Oh, they're just a part of the good government crowd. You know, when Democrats controlled the GA legislature they were Republicans so they could be opposed to Democrats' corruption, and now that the GA house is controlled by Republicans they're appalled by and opposed to all of the corruption that occurs now."

I found this comment pretty interesting . . . in part because of the specific personalities involved, and in part because my sense is that the GOP's initial political capital started out as "good government", anti-corruption sensibilities, and then morphed for much, if not most, of the GOP into "all government is bad" as the GOP ascended into power in many states. After all, you can't be in power and run against corruption in the capitol at the same time . . . .

So now I'm left wondering how effective "good government" political capital will be in the future . . .

. . . we're seeing it play out a bit in the attempts by the GOP to tar Clinton with a "scandal" regarding her private email server. GOP presidential candidates are falling all over themselves trying to tag Trump with something scandalous, from the bankruptcy filings of 4 Trump investments to Trump's apparent misogyny, to . . . whatever, and attempts to tie Jeb to W's Iraq War II, um . . . decision . . .

. . . and we're seeing some of the candidates and other pols being very effective at slipping past the "good government" inquiries/charges . . . .

Is there a "good government crowd" in your state's politics? Are they effective, or even respected?

Is there a good government crowd in national politics? Or is "good government" just another mud-slingi. . . I mean just another campaigning tool?

Should "good government" be assumed to be a political virtue? Or is it something to be disdainful of, as it seems to be among a lot of cynical GOP and Tea Party types who are completely jaded on government altogether? Or is it that those folks are the only real "good government" folks out there, simply because they're "right" on the notion that government is inherently bad?

Curious if the board has a common ethos regarding this topic, or whether it will break along party - or some other - lines.

I believe we may be witnessing a serious fracture in the Republican Party. The base is finally waking up to the fact that their emotions have been played for 30+ years. Look at all the flack Eric Erickson and Fox "News" are catching. When republicans go after the guy from red state, something ain't right in paradise.

They woke up and said "Roe vs Wade hasn't been overturned", "brown people are still coming across the border", "national debt continues to skyrocket", "Obamacare is here to stay", "now the gays is gettin' married and we gotta treat 'em like people", "Christianity still ain't the official religion of the United States"...."hey y'all, we been lied to!!!".

Why else would all the non-political candidates be doing so well? Trump, Carson, Fiorina?

 

[IU1]

I had an interesting conversation at lunch the other day, with a guy who is a partner in a large law firm; he's very conservative politically, and highly informed regarding his political views by the doctrines of the Catholic church. The discussion was interesting in and of its own right, as we covered all of the GOP candidates for President quickly, but in surprising detail.

And then we got to talking about political folks we know in common, and when we happened onto discussing the recent switch of a former colleague - and current member of the GA house of representatives - from the GOP to the Democratic party, my discussion partner said "Oh, they're just a part of the good government crowd. You know, when Democrats controlled the GA legislature they were Republicans so they could be opposed to Democrats' corruption, and now that the GA house is controlled by Republicans they're appalled by and opposed to all of the corruption that occurs now."

I found this comment pretty interesting . . . in part because of the specific personalities involved, and in part because my sense is that the GOP's initial political capital started out as "good government", anti-corruption sensibilities, and then morphed for much, if not most, of the GOP into "all government is bad" as the GOP ascended into power in many states. After all, you can't be in power and run against corruption in the capitol at the same time . . . .

So now I'm left wondering how effective "good government" political capital will be in the future . . .

. . . we're seeing it play out a bit in the attempts by the GOP to tar Clinton with a "scandal" regarding her private email server. GOP presidential candidates are falling all over themselves trying to tag Trump with something scandalous, from the bankruptcy filings of 4 Trump investments to Trump's apparent misogyny, to . . . whatever, and attempts to tie Jeb to W's Iraq War II, um . . . decision . . .

. . . and we're seeing some of the candidates and other pols being very effective at slipping past the "good government" inquiries/charges . . . .

Is there a "good government crowd" in your state's politics? Are they effective, or even respected?

Is there a good government crowd in national politics? Or is "good government" just another mud-slingi. . . I mean just another campaigning tool?

Should "good government" be assumed to be a political virtue? Or is it something to be disdainful of, as it seems to be among a lot of cynical GOP and Tea Party types who are completely jaded on government altogether? Or is it that those folks are the only real "good government" folks out there, simply because they're "right" on the notion that government is inherently bad?

Curious if the board has a common ethos regarding this topic, or whether it will break along party - or some other - lines.

There is very little difference in parties entrenched in the Washington establishment. Obama was once opposed to raising the debt ceiling, etc. for the most part it's a dance between lobbyists and the career congressmen and the executive branch. They flip flop on issues after each election cycle which is why anti-establishment candidates are so popular right now.

On Hillary. This isn't a political issue it's become an investigation because there is sufficient evidence to launch an investigation. We'll see how the investigation goes but there was no reason for her to have a private email server not secured by the government. Clearly she thinks she's above the law and that question will be answered after an investigation either exhonorates her or she is prosecuted.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

There is very little difference in parties entrenched in the Washington establishment. Obama was once opposed to raising the debt ceiling, etc. for the most part it's a dance between lobbyists and the career congressmen and the executive branch. They flip flop on issues after each election cycle which is why anti-establishment candidates are so popular right now.

On Hillary. This isn't a political issue it's become an investigation because there is sufficient evidence to launch an investigation. We'll see how the investigation goes but there was no reason for her to have a private email server not secured by the government. Clearly she thinks she's above the law and that question will be answered after an investigation either exhonorates her or she is prosecuted.

People voting against raising the debt ceiling is a political trade-off that is made year after year after year after year.

Once they know they have enough votes to raise the ceiling they tell someone "Ok, since I voted against it last time it's your turn to vote against it so you can look fiscally responsible this time."

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

....morphed for much, if not most, of the GOP into "all government is bad"

I'm not sure I've ever come across anybody who believes this. That seems like a pretty obvious (and common) strawman.

Saying that government should be limited in scope, as envisioned by our founders, is not at all the same thing as saying that "all government is bad." Our government is too large and too powerful. Pointing this out is not advocating for anarchy.

 

[Univee2]

I had an interesting conversation at lunch the other day, with a guy who is a partner in a large law firm; he's very conservative politically, and highly informed regarding his political views by the doctrines of the Catholic church. The discussion was interesting in and of its own right, as we covered all of the GOP candidates for President quickly, but in surprising detail.

And then we got to talking about political folks we know in common, and when we happened onto discussing the recent switch of a former colleague - and current member of the GA house of representatives - from the GOP to the Democratic party, my discussion partner said "Oh, they're just a part of the good government crowd. You know, when Democrats controlled the GA legislature they were Republicans so they could be opposed to Democrats' corruption, and now that the GA house is controlled by Republicans they're appalled by and opposed to all of the corruption that occurs now."

I found this comment pretty interesting . . . in part because of the specific personalities involved, and in part because my sense is that the GOP's initial political capital started out as "good government", anti-corruption sensibilities, and then morphed for much, if not most, of the GOP into "all government is bad" as the GOP ascended into power in many states. After all, you can't be in power and run against corruption in the capitol at the same time . . . .

So now I'm left wondering how effective "good government" political capital will be in the future . . .

. . . we're seeing it play out a bit in the attempts by the GOP to tar Clinton with a "scandal" regarding her private email server. GOP presidential candidates are falling all over themselves trying to tag Trump with something scandalous, from the bankruptcy filings of 4 Trump investments to Trump's apparent misogyny, to . . . whatever, and attempts to tie Jeb to W's Iraq War II, um . . . decision . . .

. . . and we're seeing some of the candidates and other pols being very effective at slipping past the "good government" inquiries/charges . . . .

Is there a "good government crowd" in your state's politics? Are they effective, or even respected?

Is there a good government crowd in national politics? Or is "good government" just another mud-slingi. . . I mean just another campaigning tool?

Should "good government" be assumed to be a political virtue? Or is it something to be disdainful of, as it seems to be among a lot of cynical GOP and Tea Party types who are completely jaded on government altogether? Or is it that those folks are the only real "good government" folks out there, simply because they're "right" on the notion that government is inherently bad?

Curious if the board has a common ethos regarding this topic, or whether it will break along party - or some other - lines.

I should send you The Kid Down the Hall's Law Review note (I believe they call it), Merit Pay and Pain, which boiled down to making a case that all elected officials should be compensated/bonused (if that's a word, now)/penalized based on a defined set of compensation points relative to the Board, municipality, county, state, federal level. "Make your numbers", you get your compensation; fail, you might have to return your compensation. Beat your number(s) and you might even achieve a bonus.

Big and long, and heavily footnoted, and the concept would obviously be a sea change and massively difficult to implement. But the idea of attracting more highly-qualified and intelligent people to government, where they can enjoy merit compensation programs that reward someone for reducing spending by X% or by reducing the homeless population by Y%, for example, if that's what the voters in that particular jurisdiction have agreed are the most important factors in their unique area, could bring out some interesting ideas and get more people enthused about improving government rather than looking at it as the rat-hole a lot of us think it has become.

Some areas can look to reduce government and spending; others can have goals such as a cleaner environment or a reduction in crime. Some might set "conservative" goals; some might set "liberal/progressive" goals. It all depends upon what the area in question regards as "good government". Hold the officials' feet to the fire and compensate them appropriately if they achieve the desired results. "Fine" them (reduce their compensation) if they fail. Make it all more objective; attract more qualified and non-risk averse people. Let's get some objectivity rather than the same ol', same ol'.

Here in Montgomery, I'd look for a goal of reducing the damn deer population by 85%. On a federal level, COHoosier and I would both agree that the elected officials who can rid us of the scourge of the Designated Hitter definitely deserve a bonus .....