Do you believe that the current GOP contributes anything of value to our political process?

[Zorra]

If you believe that they have something of value to bring to the table, any good ideas that could lead to productive policies, would you please post them and explain why you think that they are good ideas?

I honestly can't think of anything that the GOP does that is valuable or productive politically or socially, and am hoping maybe someone could post something that would make me feel better about having to deal with Republicans having so much control of our government.

Please do not use the gun control issue as an example of a productive GOP policy.

Thanks.

(On edit: spelling)

[liberal N proud]

1. Negativity is a value

[Cirque du So-What]

11. Actually, it's LESS than a value

Their actions - turning back the clock - are counterproductive and much worse than doing nothing at all. Consider where human beings could have been if they'd had the power to make end runs around every reactionary movement that ever came down the pike. All the religious dogma that stunted scientific discoveries for centuries...all the wars for empire & economics...

Everything that humans have accomplished was done *IN SPITE OF* regressives, repressives & reactionaries - and yet it's always these pricks with ears who run every fucking thing and put the brakes on progress, sometimes moving things backward.

[ChillbertKChesterton]

2. There are some intelligent conservatives who point out legitimate flaws in liberal ideology

however they are few and far in between, and their solutions to these flaws are entirely backwards.

So there is some value in the right wing in that some of them provide legitimate criticisms.

[Zorra]

3. Could you please give me some examples? Thanks! nt

[Cirque du So-What]

12. Wouldn't hold my breath until THAT transpires

I've never seen one of these flat statements of 'fact' ever pan out.

[ChillbertKChesterton]

15. The flaws, corruption, and unsustainability of the welfare state.

Conservatives are relentless in their criticisms of any sort of social welfare, and while I agree that things like welfare, unemployment benefits, and the like are better than not having these things, they aren't magic bullets.

Their arguments against bureaucracy have some legitimacy as well.

Most liberals will refuse to admit any drawbacks or limitations when it comes to multi-culturalism, a culture of 'tolerance', secularism, welfare-state supported liberal capitalism.

Liberalism ultimately ends up reinforcing conservatism.

[starroute]

17. Conservatives used to have some valid arguments about community and tradition

For example, the argument that busing was not a good way to desegregate schools because it broke up neighborhoods. Or the assertion that strong families are a necessary foundation for healthy communities.

But to the extent that these arguments have value, they've largely been adopted by the left. Progressives today have come a long way from the social-engineering liberals of the 1950's.

And at the same time, those positions have largely been abandoned by the corporate right, which is far more ruthless about destroying communities than the bureaucrats of the left ever were.

There was also a time when the Democrats were more associated with corrupt politics -- back in the days of big-city political machines and mob-infiltrated unions. But those days are long past, and the Republicans (who can't resist anything with dollar signs attached) have been doing their best to corner the market on corruption as well.

[IndyPragmatist]

19. I think you are right, but I think the flaws are because of the political system

As we have seen, compromise is a dirty word in Washington now. Large social welfare programs are a foundation of the Democratic Party, just as low regulation is a foundation of the Republican Party. Neither party wants to admit any problems with a party foundation. For a Republican to say that low regulations don't always work would be like saying his entire ideology has flaws. It would be the same for Democrats.

It's quite obvious that some people abuse the welfare system. Now, if you ask a Republican, they will tell you that most people on welfare are abusing the system and could find work if they wanted to. I disagree with that notion, but in all honesty, that cannot be proven either way. Until we perfect mindreading, we cannot know what someone else is thinking. We try our best to eliminate fraud, but because we don't want to wrongfully accuse someone who truly needs help for someone who is scamming the system, we aren't able to fully eliminate fraud. A Democrat might tell you that very few people commit welfare fraud and abuse the system. Are they right? Maybe, I obviously lean more towards the idea that few people are abusing the system, but I cannot prove that correct or incorrect.

With regulation, it is also obvious that the Republican ideal is flawed. There is no way that you can argue that we don't need regulation (especially in the financial sector), but Republicans will fight tooth and nail to defend the notion because its a core republican idea.

I personally believe that our two party system is the biggest contributor to the flaws of our nation. In nations with many parties, you have to make compromise to ensure what is best for the nation. It's very rare that a party can force things through on their own like we see in the United States. One of the first priorities whenever power changes hands in America is to change any major accomplishments of the opposition party. With Obama, he said he would repeal that patriot act and eliminate the Bush tax cuts (neither of which were accomplished), and the Republicans are promising that the first thing they will do is repeal "Obamacare." There is never any real cooperation. Our population is never well represented in our government, regardless of which party is in power. I wish we could get away from our two party system and allow more thought and ideas into politics. Now, there are only two solutions to a problem: the Democrat way and the Republican way. I think we have seen that in some cases, neither works; yet we continue to hold on to the notion that the only possible solutions are what the Democrats and Republicans can come up with. This is rarely the case in the real world, it shouldn't be the case in Washington. If we had more ideas in Washington, we wouldn't see parties holding onto platforms irrationally because they are afraid of giving in to the other party.

[Zorra]

25. Thanks -

But most of those examples appear to be mythical, or else seem to be good things in the estimation of most Democrats.

I'm a flaming, bleeding heart, puppy saving liberal myself, and I don't believe that social welfare, unemployment benefits, and the like are magic bullets at all, and don't know anyone that does.

Bureaucracy:

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

Big government gets bigger

George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.

Not since World War II, when the nation mobilized to fight a global war against fascism and recover from the Great Depression, has government spending played as large a role in the economy as it does today.
snip---
“We have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society,” said Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate vying to replace Mr. Bush in the White House, during the first presidential debate.

That, in fact, was an understatement. No president since FDR — who offered a New Deal to pull the nation out of the Great Depression and then fought World War II — has presided over as rapid a growth in government when measured as a percentage of the total economy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/?page=all

I'd say that the actual general performance of republicans while in office pretty much shoots down the myth that conservatives are, in practical reality, sincerely in favor of reining in bureaucracy.

"Most liberals will refuse to admit any drawbacks or limitations when it comes to multi-culturalism, a culture of 'tolerance', secularism, welfare-state supported liberal capitalism."

Well, yeah, I agree, most liberals, actually the majority of Democrats, pretty much agree that tolerance, separation of church and state, and multiculturalism are generally good things. But, maybe because they really are, in reality, generally, very good things.

What are the specific limitations that liberals refuse to admit to with regard to when it comes to multiculturalism, a culture of 'tolerance', secularism, and welfare-state supported liberal capitalism?

What is an example of welfare-state supported capitalism, and where does welfare-state supported capitalism exist?

These seem to me to be vague concepts, and not concrete ideas or solutions that can improve our government and the lives of our people. You are right - personally, as a liberal I don't give much of a rat's ass about a few moochers taking pennies from taxpayer dollars if it means that people who really need help can get it. Yes, it is wrong to mooch like that if you don't need help, but it is less than chicken feed compared to what gets spent on conservative supported unjustifiable wars. Or is hand3d out in welfare payments to super wealthy corporations...

Is welfare-state supported liberal capitalism one that provides taxpayer funded welfare payments to incredibly wealthy corporations, as posted in the example below? It has always been my impression that conservatives were overwhelmingly in favor of giving welfare payments to corporations, even though the corporations are wealthy beyond imagination.

Subsidies considered excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by lobbying are often called corporate welfare. The label of corporate welfare is often used to decry projects advertised as benefiting the general welfare that spend a disproportionate amount of funds on large corporations, and often in uncompetitive, or anti-competitive ways. For instance, in the United States, agricultural subsidies are usually portrayed as helping honest, hardworking independent farmers stay afloat. However, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs actually goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland, as they own a considerably larger percentage of production.<5>

According to the Cato Institute, the U.S. federal government spent $92 billion on corporate welfare during fiscal year 2006. Recipients included Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, and General Electric.<6>

Alan Peters and Peter Fisher have estimated that state and local governments provide $40-50 billion annually in economic development incentives,<7> which many critics characterize as corporate welfare.

Some economists consider the recent bank bailouts in the United States to be corporate welfare.<8><9> U.S. politicians have also contended that zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve System to financial institutions during the global financial crisis were a hidden, backdoor form of corporate welfare.<10>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare

peace

[louslobbs]

23. Yeah, me too......some examples please....thanks as well. n/t

Lou

[sakabatou]

4. B & D

[tridim]

5. In a sane world they would be voted out of existence.

They are completely worthless to the progress of human kind.

[kctim]

6. The main value

is to keep the far-left in check, much as our main value is to keep the far-right in check.

[starroute]

18. Have you really seen any conservatives warding off the evil commies lately?

Or for that matter, do you really believe that the chief value of liberals is to man the barricades against a resurgence of fascism?

That one doesn't quite seem to add up.

[Aerows]

7. No

And the conservatives I live around in the Deep South don't think so, either. They still despise Democrats, though, and they would vote for a influenza covered handkerchief labeled "President Hay Fever Snotrag" before they would vote for a Democrat.

Sadly, the MSM would make the handkerchief look like a winning alternative if they thought it would sell more eyeballs watching their respective stations.

[warrior1]

8. You really should have a

selection for:

Hell No!

[Bluenorthwest]

9. From the title, I did not expect a poll....

assumed it was a rhetorical question. They bring less than nothing.

[Zorra]

13. Yes. Far less than zero.

I think most of us here would agree with that. Less than zero.

Yet (apparently, because there is no way at present we can know for sure due to widespread electronic voting methods) roughly one half of the voters in this country vote republican.

This (seeming) fact makes any possibility of significant constructive progressive change though the political process almost impossible as things stand right at this moment.

I'm wondering what else we can possibly do to keep these crazies from sooner or later destroying most or all life on this planet, among all the other destructive actions that they take to make life more miserable for themselves and everyone else.

Because, in real time, the only thing slowing them down right now is pretty much just us.

Instead of effecting significant change, we are fully engaged in simply struggling to keep the conservative wolves from the door.

[iamthebandfanman]

10. they bring the truth...

of who they really are and what they represent ;)

CRAZY.

might not be a bad thing that everyone is getting to see their bottom of the barrel

[Zorra]

14. _^_

[RufusTFirefly]

16. Although I've always been a Democrat, I used to respect the old-fashioned Republican role

That was to say, "Hold on! Not so fast!" and "What's all this going to cost?"

I found it annoying and often obstructionist, but I still had a begrudging respect for it.

And yet even when the GOP had a liberal bloc (seems unimaginable now, but it did), I never personally voted Republican.

Since then, the Republican Party has absorbed the most despicable wing of the old Democratic Party (the Dixiecrats) and moved to a spot on the political spectrum that was once occupied by the John Birch Society when I was a kid. Now the prospect of voting for any of these looney tunes is utterly unthinkable.

Sadly, not long after the Republicans acquired the so-called Reagan Democrats, the Democrats took a page from the Republican playbook and started courting corporations at the expense of their labor and minority base.

If I woke up from a 30-year nap and took a look at the current political landscape, I'm sure I'd be very, very disoriented. And depressed.

[Fire Walk With Me]

20. They write the cautionary tale with which we should familiarize ourselves.

[Permanut]

21. There was a time when they brought some relevant ideas

to the table, e.g., Eisenhower and the MIC, Hatfield and his support for higher education and the Marine Science Center in Oregon, but they have nothing useful to bring now.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. the current Republican Party serves as a barometer reflecting the moral deterioration of a society

Old style Republicans - even ones who would have been considered conservative and scrappy like Bob Dole at least believed in principle that those who are in genuine need should be helped.

Old style Republicans seemed to genuinely believe that their pro-business stance would ultimately benefit the poor as well as the prosperous.

Old style Republicans were frequently religious people, but understood the principle of separation of church and state and understood that excessive mixing of politics and religion was not appropriate for a democracy.

Old style Republicans understood that those who they disagree with the most on politics and who came from the opposite end of the political spectrum could be decent human being and loyal patriotic Americans.

New style Republicans seem to hold a sociopathic view that the world only has room for winners.

New style Republicans don't seem to even pretend that their politics of selfishness will benefit anyone except themselves.

New style Republicans cannot even distinguish the difference between right-wing ideology, their religious beliefs and loyalty to America. They are loyal right-wing extremist first, last and always. Religious belief and patriotic loyalty is always sublimated to ideological loyalty. New style Republicans only see religion and patriotic loyalty as a manipulative tool to advance their depraved agenda.

As society as a whole becomes less compassionate, more selfish, more materialistic and more ruthless - the Republican Party's decent into total and absolute cultural and intellectual depravity and moral turpitude serves as a weather vain on the sad direction society has taken.

[bluestate10]

24. No. Absolutely not. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

26. 30 years ago I might have been able to think of something, not anymore

Not a damn thing

[pitohui]

27. are you serious? you asked the wrong person, i think they should all be in prison

there are many on this very site who think me too conservative or too odd but at the end of the day i come back to DEMOCRATIC underground because i recognize the fundamental truth that the republican party is a fucking gang of thieves that need to be stopped

there may be individual thieves who are democrats but the GOP is an organized crime company, period, full stop, end of sentence

we have outliers, poor people made good like clinton, even the first black president from an iffy background made good, we offer hope to people who work hard and dream -- EVERYONE in the GOP is either a stupid-ass blockhead figurehead or a frank about it thief, there is no dream to that party, it is all about theft and looting our nation and cheating others of their dreams