Is the battle for the direction of the Republican Party a contest between conservatism and populism?

[BradStevens]

Mike Pence thinks so:

A Time for Synthesis?

In a major speech, the former vice president sets forth sharp theoretical distinctions between populists and conservatives—but certain policies might speak to the aims of both camps.

www.city-journal.org

Some other right-leaning thinkers aren't so sure:

Pence Attacks Populism | National Review

Rich, Michael, Maddy, and Dominic discuss Pence’s views on populism, Democrats’ immigration problem, and what to do about the term ‘pro-life.’

www.nationalreview.com

Even if you're on the left, this is an important battle. It's going to define one of the two major parties for the rest of our lives.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Mike Pence thinks so:

A Time for Synthesis?

In a major speech, the former vice president sets forth sharp theoretical distinctions between populists and conservatives—but certain policies might speak to the aims of both camps.

www.city-journal.org

Some other right-leaning thinkers aren't so sure:

Pence Attacks Populism | National Review

Rich, Michael, Maddy, and Dominic discuss Pence’s views on populism, Democrats’ immigration problem, and what to do about the term ‘pro-life.’

www.nationalreview.com

Even if you're on the left, this is an important battle. It's going to define one of the two major parties for the rest of our lives.

Yes populists!! I’m in!! Trump was a counterfeit-ish and a bad messenger

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Pence is trying to draw a line of pepper while using fly shit particles. Mike needs to go home, ride his bike and take communion.

 

[ORG]

Mike Pence thinks so:

A Time for Synthesis?

In a major speech, the former vice president sets forth sharp theoretical distinctions between populists and conservatives—but certain policies might speak to the aims of both camps.

www.city-journal.org

Some other right-leaning thinkers aren't so sure:

Pence Attacks Populism | National Review

Rich, Michael, Maddy, and Dominic discuss Pence’s views on populism, Democrats’ immigration problem, and what to do about the term ‘pro-life.’

www.nationalreview.com

Even if you're on the left, this is an important battle. It's going to define one of the two major parties for the rest of our lives.

First, we have to have an agreement on what the two terms mean. That is not an easy thing to do.

 

[bailey777]

Mike Pence thinks so:

A Time for Synthesis?

In a major speech, the former vice president sets forth sharp theoretical distinctions between populists and conservatives—but certain policies might speak to the aims of both camps.

www.city-journal.org

Some other right-leaning thinkers aren't so sure:

Pence Attacks Populism | National Review

Rich, Michael, Maddy, and Dominic discuss Pence’s views on populism, Democrats’ immigration problem, and what to do about the term ‘pro-life.’

www.nationalreview.com

Even if you're on the left, this is an important battle. It's going to define one of the two major parties for the rest of our lives.N

Not much o a battle pence is at like 3 percent. Guys like me arent really republicans anymore and have not been in a long time. We dont support wars like pence does. I would never vote the moderm dem or old repub party but i might vote kennedy or a tulsi. My problem with bawlmania is he calls anyone who supports trump a nut or crazy. He just seems to have no tolerance at all period at other views. I know many liberals and i am cool with them despite politics. My mother in law is a rabid liberal who hates trump but we get along well.

 

[Baller23Boogie]

Not much o a battle pence is at like 3 percent. Guys like me arent really republicans anymore and have not been in a long time. We dont support wars like pence does. I would never vote the moderm dem or old repub party but i might vote kennedy or a tulsi. My problem with bawlmania is he calls anyone who supports trump a nut or crazy. He just seems to have no tolerance at all period at other views. I know many liberals and i am cool with them despite politics. My mother in law is a rabid liberal who hates trump but we get along well.

BDS is back!

 

[IUCrazy2]

Mike Pence thinks so:

A Time for Synthesis?

In a major speech, the former vice president sets forth sharp theoretical distinctions between populists and conservatives—but certain policies might speak to the aims of both camps.

www.city-journal.org

Some other right-leaning thinkers aren't so sure:

Pence Attacks Populism | National Review

Rich, Michael, Maddy, and Dominic discuss Pence’s views on populism, Democrats’ immigration problem, and what to do about the term ‘pro-life.’

www.nationalreview.com

Even if you're on the left, this is an important battle. It's going to define one of the two major parties for the rest of our lives.

It isn't a battle so much as finding an equilibrium. In the past it was more of a balance between some natural libertarian influences in a conservative movement being balanced within the movement with social and economic conservatives. There was also the group of liberal foreign interventionists (neo-cons) that switched to the party around the time of Reagan. The populists are moderate Republicans like the neo-cons are. They represent the expansion of the party to the left in some instances to grab some folks who are natural allies on some other positions outside of strictly economics.

Politics is about creating coalitions. This is particularly the case when you basically have to get all positions basically situated under two tents. The populists represent the loss of a bunch of blue collar "I Was Born in a Small Town" former Democrats to the right who are finding common cause with a bunch of disaffected GOP voters who don't feel their own party has been responsive to them.

I don't think you see the party completely morph into something new. What you will see is that the tug for attention to certain things may expand. Frankly, I think expansion in the right places is a net positive for the party because it will give them the ability to pick up disaffected voters on the left.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

It isn't a battle so much as finding an equilibrium. In the past it was more of a balance between some natural libertarian influences in a conservative movement being balanced within the movement with social and economic conservatives. There was also the group of liberal foreign interventionists (neo-cons) that switched to the party around the time of Reagan. The populists are moderate Republicans like the neo-cons are. They represent the expansion of the party to the left in some instances to grab some folks who are natural allies on some other positions outside of strictly economics.

Politics is about creating coalitions. This is particularly the case when you basically have to get all positions basically situated under two tents. The populists represent the loss of a bunch of blue collar "I Was Born in a Small Town" former Democrats to the right who are finding common cause with a bunch of disaffected GOP voters who don't feel their own party has been responsive to them.

I don't think you see the party completely morph into something new. What you will see is that the tug for attention to certain things may expand. Frankly, I think expansion in the right places is a net positive for the party because it will give them the ability to pick up disaffected voters on the left.

Crazy…not to derail this thread, but are you typing this as you await the start of the HSE board meeting?

 

[IUCrazy2]

Crazy…not to derail this thread, but are you typing this as you await the start of the HSE board meeting?

I am typing this as I have a down moment while the kids are in the shower getting ready for school. If you usually see a flurry of posts from me around this time it is due to that.

ETA: W.r.t. the superintendent, she never should have been hired in the first place. She had issues at former positions that should have disqualified her IMO.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I am typing this as I have a down moment while the kids are in the shower getting ready for school. If you usually see a flurry of posts from me around this time it is due to that.

ETA: W.r.t. the superintendent, she never should have been hired in the first place. She had issues at former positions that should have disqualified her IMO.

I told you back when she was hired that, even overlooking her politics, I couldn't believe HSE hired her. In my professional dealings with her, I had never met anyone dumber in my career...from any realm (educational, business, political, etc.). I'm not sure how she got through the screening process, and any calls to her previous employers should have knocked her out of the running.

Thanks for the reply. Go back to getting kids ready.
Brad...back to the original topic...sorry for the interruption.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I told you back when she was hired that, even overlooking her politics, I couldn't believe HSE hired her. In my professional dealings with her, I had never met anyone dumber in my career...from any realm (educational, business, political, etc.). I'm not sure how she got through the screening process, and any calls to her previous employers should have knocked her out of the running.

Thanks for the reply. Go back to getting kids ready.
Brad...back to the original topic...sorry for the interruption.

She checked the requisite boxes that the former board was looking for at that point. Which is part of why that former board no longer exists.

I know people are all "conservative Taliban took over!!!" but a board that would have picked that superintendent wasn't doing its job.

And yes, back to regularly scheduled discussion of direction of GOP as that is actually a pretty interesting topic I would like to see discussed.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This isn't new, Ike and the populists did not get along at all. Ike ran to represent what he believed to be mainstream conservatism, and he was public enemy #1 to the populists who decried him as a communist.

Then came William F. Buckley holding the line. Buckley got both Goldwater and Reagan to sign on to not allowing the populists in, something Reagan did even though earlier in his career he had tried to win them over. But he signed onto Buckley's idea of keeping populists on the outside.

The unusual part of Brad's point is that the evangelical wing hasn't been the same as the conservative wing. I know Rockport will agree with that. And there have been times in discussions here with CO he has been quite willing to draw a sharp line between Christian conservatives and political conservatives, I don't know if CO still does. So Pence seeing himself as the standard bearer for old-school Edmund Burke conservatism is different.

It isn't new, this battle has raged at least since Ike and really goes back longer. But the difference is traditional conservatives have never been the ones on the outside until Trump. Democrats have similar fractures that flair up, including its own populist movement personified by Bernie.

 

[Univee2]

I am typing this as I have a down moment while the kids are in the shower getting ready for school. If you usually see a flurry of posts from me around this time it is due to that.

ETA: W.r.t. the superintendent, she never should have been hired in the first place. She had issues at former positions that should have disqualified her IMO.

The water company there must love you, given all the boys in your family, if your sons are all showering around the same time.

 

[mcmurtry66]

This isn't new, Ike and the populists did not get along at all. Ike ran to represent what he believed to be mainstream conservatism, and he was public enemy #1 to the populists who decried him as a communist.

Then came William F. Buckley holding the line. Buckley got both Goldwater and Reagan to sign on to not allowing the populists in, something Reagan did even though earlier in his career he had tried to win them over. But he signed onto Buckley's idea of keeping populists on the outside.

The unusual part of Brad's point is that the evangelical wing hasn't been the same as the conservative wing. I know Rockport will agree with that. And there have been times in discussions here with CO he has been quite willing to draw a sharp line between Christian conservatives and political conservatives, I don't know if CO still does. So Pence seeing himself as the standard bearer for old-school Edmund Burke conservatism is different.

It isn't new, this battle has raged at least since Ike and really goes back longer. But the difference is traditional conservatives have never been the ones on the outside until Trump. Democrats have similar fractures that flair up, including its own populist movement personified by Bernie.

Tough fitting everyone under two umbrellas. The intra party differences for both parties are significant

 

[IUCrazy2]

The water company there must love you, given all the boys in your family, if your sons are all showering around the same time.

6 people every day. The energy company loves us too.

 

[IUCrazy2]

This isn't new, Ike and the populists did not get along at all. Ike ran to represent what he believed to be mainstream conservatism, and he was public enemy #1 to the populists who decried him as a communist.

Then came William F. Buckley holding the line. Buckley got both Goldwater and Reagan to sign on to not allowing the populists in, something Reagan did even though earlier in his career he had tried to win them over. But he signed onto Buckley's idea of keeping populists on the outside.

The unusual part of Brad's point is that the evangelical wing hasn't been the same as the conservative wing. I know Rockport will agree with that. And there have been times in discussions here with CO he has been quite willing to draw a sharp line between Christian conservatives and political conservatives, I don't know if CO still does. So Pence seeing himself as the standard bearer for old-school Edmund Burke conservatism is different.

It isn't new, this battle has raged at least since Ike and really goes back longer. But the difference is traditional conservatives have never been the ones on the outside until Trump. Democrats have similar fractures that flair up, including its own populist movement personified by Bernie.

Define "traditional conservatives" though. I posted Ike's platform several months back and it wouldn't be viewed as "traditional conservative" today. He is the originator of the "beware the military industrial complex" saying that unites populists on both sides of the aisle today.

That is my point above, there is a push and pull within both of these parties for the ideas of the moment. However, underlying each of them is a general consensus on "This is kind of how we feel things should go." DANC and Aloha get into it but I think if you sat them down and said, "Don't talk to each other but write out your vision of the perfect union" that they would have more common ground than you would have with either of them.

That is the parties.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Define "traditional conservatives" though. I posted Ike's platform several months back and it wouldn't be viewed as "traditional conservative" today. He is the originator of the "beware the military industrial complex" saying that unites populists on both sides of the aisle today.

That is my point above, there is a push and pull within both of these parties for the ideas of the moment. However, underlying each of them is a general consensus on "This is kind of how we feel things should go." DANC and Aloha get into it but I think if you sat them down and said, "Don't talk to each other but write out your vision of the perfect union" that they would have more common ground than you would have with either of them.

That is the parties.

Stereotyping but truth and perception
Conservatives- big military. Police the world. Give tax breaks to the wealthy and corps and let it flow
Elites. Establishment.

Populist -ordinary folks first. Not policing the world. Isolationist. Anti establishment

 

[IUCrazy2]

Stereotyping but truth and perception
Conservatives- big military. Police the world. Give tax breaks to the wealthy and corps and let it flow
Elites. Establishment.

Populist -ordinary folks first. Not policing the world. Isolationist. Anti establishment

Republican Party Platform of 1956 | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

America's trust is in the merciful providence of God, in whose image every man is created ... the source of every man's dignity and freedom.​

In this trust our Republic was founded. We give devoted homage to the Founding Fathers. They not only proclaimed that the freedom and rights of men came from the Creator and not from the State, but they provided safeguards to those freedoms.​

​

Not to belabor the point but that is the opening of Eisenhower's platform when he sought reelection in 1956. That is straight social conservative and they open with it.

On its Centennial, the Republican Party again calls to the minds of all Americans the great truth first spoken by Abraham Lincoln: "The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."​

​

That is traditional conservative to me and that closely follows the above. He hits moderates later. I just think this idea that conservatism has been a monolith isn't the case. There are some parts of it that have been back-burnered at any given time though. What we are seeing is some of the tenets that were pushed back getting another look while other parts that held more sway are losing some ground. None of them are likely to disappear, you just have a switching on what emphasis is placed where and to what degree.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Define "traditional conservatives" though. I posted Ike's platform several months back and it wouldn't be viewed as "traditional conservative" today. He is the originator of the "beware the military industrial complex" saying that unites populists on both sides of the aisle today.

That is my point above, there is a push and pull within both of these parties for the ideas of the moment. However, underlying each of them is a general consensus on "This is kind of how we feel things should go." DANC and Aloha get into it but I think if you sat them down and said, "Don't talk to each other but write out your vision of the perfect union" that they would have more common ground than you would have with either of them.

That is the parties.

In Ike's day the big difference was the US role in the world. Populists tended to be far more "fortress America" than traditional conservatives, something we see in Ukraine support today. It tends to be the populist wing wanting the US out.

Just about every candidate uses anti-elite language, some version of us vs them. Even liberals do it, Clinton was a master at it. That was the whole point of playing up Hope, AR. Trying to attract populists isn't new. But all the candidates that have done that have tacked back. No one had seriously contemplated leaving NATO, leaving the UN, shutting down the borders, and no one has gone protectionist in a very long time. Eisenhower was a very firm believer in international coalitions, after all he had led one of the great coalitions of history. Look at Reagan's quotes on immigration. Here is his last speech as president:

RONALD REAGAN: Immigrants -- 'Most important sources of America's greatness'

Tuesday, July 16, 2019 -- "Other countries may seek to compete with us; but in one vital area, as a beacon of freedom and opportunity that draws the people of the world, no country on earth comes close. This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness."

www.wral.com

Meanwhile, Trump slashed LEGAL immigration:

Trump Cuts Legal Immigrants By Half And He’s Not Done Yet

Donald Trump has reduced legal immigration by an estimated 49%, which will have a significant negative impact on U.S. economic growth.

www.forbes.com

So the biggest differences have been the role of the US in the world, and the role of immigrants in America.

 

[dbmhoosier]

The Bush/McCain/Romney wing of the party is completely dead and is never coming back. None of those people could ever win a national election today. People like JD Vance are the future.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The Bush/McCain/Romney wing of the party is completely dead and is never coming back. None of those people could ever win a national election today. People like JD Vance are the future.

@Marvin the Martian @IUCrazy2 this may be hyperbolic but i do agree if only anecdotally. i spend a fair amount of time in rural places, with factory managers and owners, and i would concur that to a person they have no use for that wing of the party

 

[CO. Hoosier]

In Ike's day the big difference was the US role in the world. Populists tended to be far more "fortress America" than traditional conservatives, something we see in Ukraine support today. It tends to be the populist wing wanting the US out.

Just about every candidate uses anti-elite language, some version of us vs them. Even liberals do it, Clinton was a master at it. That was the whole point of playing up Hope, AR. Trying to attract populists isn't new. But all the candidates that have done that have tacked back. No one had seriously contemplated leaving NATO, leaving the UN, shutting down the borders, and no one has gone protectionist in a very long time. Eisenhower was a very firm believer in international coalitions, after all he had led one of the great coalitions of history. Look at Reagan's quotes on immigration. Here is his last speech as president:

RONALD REAGAN: Immigrants -- 'Most important sources of America's greatness'

Tuesday, July 16, 2019 -- "Other countries may seek to compete with us; but in one vital area, as a beacon of freedom and opportunity that draws the people of the world, no country on earth comes close. This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America's greatness."

www.wral.com

Meanwhile, Trump slashed LEGAL immigration:

Trump Cuts Legal Immigrants By Half And He’s Not Done Yet

Donald Trump has reduced legal immigration by an estimated 49%, which will have a significant negative impact on U.S. economic growth.

www.forbes.com

So the biggest differences have been the role of the US in the world, and the role of immigrants in America.

Hijack alert.

Trump increased legal employment based immigration by 60%. . He reduced legal immigration by cutting refugee programs, chain migration, and asylum abuse. In other words, he reshaped immigration towards our national interests. He wasn’t finished. Immigration should serve our interests. Just cuz some immigration is good doesn’t mean more immigration is better.

 

[dbmhoosier]

@Marvin the Martian @IUCrazy2 this may be hyperbolic but i do agree if only anecdotally. i spend a fair amount of time in rural places, with factory managers and owners, and i would concur that to a person they have no use for that wing of the party

You have to win one of the 3 rust belt swing states as a Republican to win the WH. It's just not possible otherwise and only Trump is competitive there. Baris has Desantis, Haley, Christie, etc getting destroyed by Biden there. OH and Iowa would be toss ups whereas Trump will likely win them by double digits.

 

[mcmurtry66]

You have to win one of the 3 rust belt swing states as a Republican to win the WH. It's just not possible otherwise and only Trump is competitive there. Baris has Desantis, Haley, Christie, etc getting destroyed by Biden there. OH and Iowa would be toss ups whereas Trump will likely win them by double digits.

trump has zero chance in the general. zero. even the guys who don't like the old guard i deal with are so over trump they can't stand to hear his name. to a person they think he's a moron at this point. on the rural roads all the trump signs are long gone

 

[CO. Hoosier]

In Ike's day the big difference was the US role in the world.

Ike was pragmatic. During his 8 years, our role in the world was necessitated by the Soviets. Ike’s ’ pro-alliance efforts were a more of a reaction, than a policy.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Hijack alert.

Trump increased legal employment based immigration by 60%. . He reduced legal immigration by cutting refugee programs, chain migration, and asylum abuse. In other words, he reshaped immigration towards our national interests. He wasn’t finished. Immigration should serve our interests. Just cuz some immigration is good doesn’t mean more immigration is better.

The Story Of How Trump Officials Tried To End H-1B Visas

Members of the Trump administration waged war behind the scenes against companies and foreign-born scientists and engineers.

www.forbes.com

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Ike was pragmatic. During his 8 years, our role in the world was necessitated by the Soviets. Ike’s ’ pro-alliance efforts were a more of a reaction, than a policy.

It may have been, but his tool was multi-party agreements such as SEATO. Trump, as an example, opposed multi-party treaties.

Ike didn't want to fall back to Fortress America. There has been a strain that wants to do that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

@Marvin the Martian @IUCrazy2 this may be hyperbolic but i do agree if only anecdotally. i spend a fair amount of time in rural places, with factory managers and owners, and i would concur that to a person they have no use for that wing of the party

I don't doubt it, rural America has a longstanding anti-elite nature about it. It is one of the many great divides between urban and rural.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The Bush/McCain/Romney wing of the party is completely dead and is never coming back. None of those people could ever win a national election today. People like JD Vance are the future.

There are no “wings“ to party politics. There are only people.

Trump was much closer policy wise to Bush/McCain/Romney/ than Ramaswamy or even DeSantis.

​

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Trump, as an example, opposed multi-party treaties.

As far as NATO is concerned, Trump saw the problem we all should see. We paid the bills but we don’t have the commensurate authority. I don’t think Ike would have allowed NATO to evolve as it did.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Mike Pence thinks so:

A Time for Synthesis?

In a major speech, the former vice president sets forth sharp theoretical distinctions between populists and conservatives—but certain policies might speak to the aims of both camps.

www.city-journal.org

Some other right-leaning thinkers aren't so sure:

Pence Attacks Populism | National Review

Rich, Michael, Maddy, and Dominic discuss Pence’s views on populism, Democrats’ immigration problem, and what to do about the term ‘pro-life.’

www.nationalreview.com

Even if you're on the left, this is an important battle. It's going to define one of the two major parties for the rest of our lives.

Populism should be a part of our policy foundation. It gets more attention now because so much of our policy-making apparatus is in the hands of those who think the are smarter, more moral, and better than the rest of us. In other words in the hands of elites. As a result we get force- fed electric cars, men who menstruate, justices who refuse to say what a woman is, unrestricted illegal immigration, and large parts of great cities that are unlivable. No polling data supports any of the policies that cause these results, yet those who think they are smarter than the rest of us proceed.

Crazy shit.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The Story Of How Trump Officials Tried To End H-1B Visas

Members of the Trump administration waged war behind the scenes against companies and foreign-born scientists and engineers.

www.forbes.com

Good.

H-1b isn’t legal immigration. It’s a hand out to corporate interests.

 

[Bloom.]

Mike Pence thinks so:

A Time for Synthesis?

In a major speech, the former vice president sets forth sharp theoretical distinctions between populists and conservatives—but certain policies might speak to the aims of both camps.

www.city-journal.org

Some other right-leaning thinkers aren't so sure:

Pence Attacks Populism | National Review

Rich, Michael, Maddy, and Dominic discuss Pence’s views on populism, Democrats’ immigration problem, and what to do about the term ‘pro-life.’

www.nationalreview.com

Even if you're on the left, this is an important battle. It's going to define one of the two major parties for the rest of our lives.

Pence certainly pandered to it enough to increase his standing. I'm quite most of it is stuff he agrees with and doesn't realize how harmful his religious views can be to others. However, he also saw what Trump going full in meant too, and it wasn't a slippery slope. It was a big giant leap downward.

 

[Bloom.]

My problem with bawlmania is he calls anyone who supports trump a nut or crazy.

I have zero problem with anyone who voted for Trump in 2016, not that you asked or referenced. I start to really question them if they voted for him in 2020. Those who outright defend him at every turn...nah...done with them at least for the time being.

Part of this too has coincided with the Red Pill, alpha bros among my friend base, who almost to a man support Trump. Just had to separate myself from their behavior, likely lost some friends over it.

 

[snarlcakes]

Mike Pence thinks so:

A Time for Synthesis?

In a major speech, the former vice president sets forth sharp theoretical distinctions between populists and conservatives—but certain policies might speak to the aims of both camps.

www.city-journal.org

Some other right-leaning thinkers aren't so sure:

Pence Attacks Populism | National Review

Rich, Michael, Maddy, and Dominic discuss Pence’s views on populism, Democrats’ immigration problem, and what to do about the term ‘pro-life.’

www.nationalreview.com

Even if you're on the left, this is an important battle. It's going to define one of the two major parties for the rest of our lives.

The party needs to move towards Bitcoin. You can’t have conservatism in the current monetary environment. You just end up with a Democrat Lite party. So, they’ll choose populism instead.

 

[larsIU]

DANC and Aloha get into it but I think if you sat them down and said, "Don't talk to each other but write out your vision of the perfect union" that they would have more common ground than you would have with either of them.

I'm a liberal. Pretty centrist but I 100% believe MFA or some version of single payor system is how we'll pay for healthcare within my lifetime (I'm almost 50). I'm persona non grata in the Republican party based on that alone, not to mention a million other things.

But, if the questions were so high level, I bet DANC/Aloha and I agree on a great many things. The devil's in the details. Pesky little details.

"Should Americans have access to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay?" I bet most on this board would answer yes. I think we're all waiting on the Republican plan to do that. Their problem is that there truly is only one way to accomplish this with any sense of efficiency. And that's a single payor system. They'll wrap themselves in knots trying NOT to make single payor system. Which is, of course, inefficient.

I like ideas and I like people who can follow through on an idea. But I also love consensus. Why Republicans can't accept a single payor system (well, at least not until they're 65) baffles me.

Immigration and Healthcare should be two problems Dems and Pubs could find enough common ground on to find and present, in a unified way, solutions. But they don't. And that's b/c Congress is no longer an instrument of governance. To borrow from Trump, it's a swamp. It's devoid (mostly) of problem solvers. We've all been put in a room with others at some point in our lives and been forced to come up with a soultion to a problem. Maybe we didn't get our way but we came up with a solution.

Compromise is dead. And, if we don't fix that, so soon will our Union be.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I'm a liberal. Pretty centrist but I 100% believe MFA or some version of single payor system is how we'll pay for healthcare within my lifetime (I'm almost 50). I'm persona non grata in the Republican party based on that alone, not to mention a million other things.

But, if the questions were so high level, I bet DANC/Aloha and I agree on a great many things. The devil's in the details. Pesky little details.

"Should Americans have access to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay?" I bet most on this board would answer yes. I think we're all waiting on the Republican plan to do that. Their problem is that there truly is only one way to accomplish this with any sense of efficiency. And that's a single payor system. They'll wrap themselves in knots trying NOT to make single payor system. Which is, of course, inefficient.

I like ideas and I like people who can follow through on an idea. But I also love consensus. Why Republicans can't accept a single payor system (well, at least not until they're 65) baffles me.

Immigration and Healthcare should be two problems Dems and Pubs could find enough common ground on to find and present, in a unified way, solutions. But they don't. And that's b/c Congress is no longer an instrument of governance. To borrower from Trump, it's a swamp. It's devoid (mostly) of problem solvers. We've all been put in a room with others at some point in our lives and been forced to come up with a soultion to a problem. Maybe we didn't get our way but we came up with a solution.

Compromise is dead. And, if we don't fix that, so soon will our Union be.

I think the worry in the single payer system comes from stuff like this:

UK court rules critically ill teen seeking experimental treatment cannot make own medical decisions

‘I want to die trying to live’ the 19-year-old told doctors.

www.google.com

 

[larsIU]

I think the worry in the single payer system comes from stuff like this:

UK court rules critically ill teen seeking experimental treatment cannot make own medical decisions

‘I want to die trying to live’ the 19-year-old told doctors.

www.google.com

Apropos to nothing you've posted here, but it cracks me up when on the one hand we talk about American exceptionalism and, then, on the other we talk about how this would never work. Baffling to me.

Are we not the most advanced, successful, not ot mention good looking, nation the world has ever seen. Then let's ****ing act like it.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Apropos to nothing you've posted here, but it cracks me up when on the one hand we talk about American exceptionalism and, then, on the other we talk about how this would never work. Baffling to me.

Are we not the most advanced, successful, not ot mention good looking, nation the world has ever seen. Then let's ****ing act like it.

I think our system is exceptional, not us.

 

[snarlcakes]

I'm a liberal. Pretty centrist but I 100% believe MFA or some version of single payor system is how we'll pay for healthcare within my lifetime (I'm almost 50). I'm persona non grata in the Republican party based on that alone, not to mention a million other things.

But, if the questions were so high level, I bet DANC/Aloha and I agree on a great many things. The devil's in the details. Pesky little details.

"Should Americans have access to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay?" I bet most on this board would answer yes. I think we're all waiting on the Republican plan to do that. Their problem is that there truly is only one way to accomplish this with any sense of efficiency. And that's a single payor system. They'll wrap themselves in knots trying NOT to make single payor system. Which is, of course, inefficient.

I like ideas and I like people who can follow through on an idea. But I also love consensus. Why Republicans can't accept a single payor system (well, at least not until they're 65) baffles me.

Immigration and Healthcare should be two problems Dems and Pubs could find enough common ground on to find and present, in a unified way, solutions. But they don't. And that's b/c Congress is no longer an instrument of governance. To borrower from Trump, it's a swamp. It's devoid (mostly) of problem solvers. We've all been put in a room with others at some point in our lives and been forced to come up with a soultion to a problem. Maybe we didn't get our way but we came up with a solution.

Compromise is dead. And, if we don't fix that, so soon will our Union be.

Short version to your answer. Money. Governments are inefficient and our deficit is out of hand. To close the current fiscal gap we would have to raise taxes 40%. Is there ever a level of debt that will make you rethink the size of our government?