Senate The Future of the Republican Party

Except I don't think he's representing the state's form of government at all. Louisiana is set up under its constitution much like the US Federal government is. The executive branch, ie the "governor" can't levy taxes on its own. The governor can either approve or veto bills sent to him by the legislature. If it's vetoed, the legislature can either then modify the bill, or attempt to override the veto (with a 2/3 vote) So yeah, if the legislature presents a bill raising taxes, and the governor signs it into law, I guess the governor "raised taxes" in a matter of speaking, but it's obviously more complicated than that. The reverse is also true.

The governor doesn't directly control the budget either(except those direct cabinet positions). The budget falls to the legislature. Under its constitution, Louisiana has a specific organization set up to handle its state sponsored educational system. The Board of Regents. The governor outlines his intent, and the board can go along with it or assign other areas, which are then proposed to the legislature to enact. Once the legislature does so, the governor either approves or vetoes it, to which see above....

I don't think this system (maybe with minor differences here and there) is that different than the system that any other state, or the fed uses.

 

Well, you certainly have a point about the structure of government. On the other hand, though, there is nothing stopping Jindal from proposing tax increases in the same way he proposed budget cuts, and requested the $150 million from the university finances specifically. Regardless of how much of it makes it into law, he can still get credit/blame for the personal vision of the state that he chose to articulate as a solution to the state's problems.

 

On the elliptical - hard to type on my phone. Go through the links, Wocky.

 

After watching quite a few speeches at the 2012 Republican Convention, here's how I grade those speeches:

I'd say the rising stars are that could decide the future of the Republican Party are: Rice, Martinez, Haley, Ryan, Christie, Rubio.

Maybe throw in Jindal, Santorum, McDonnell. Pawlenty is done, I think.

 

Laura Ingraham: the Republican Party is a failure and should be shut down

 

Ouch. She's dead-on about the same people, though.

 

The problem is, most people truly understand that "Obama's record" is also the Republican congressional record, and that whatever his political failings are, the Republican congress helped them along. Everyone knows this is true. The Republican house has been running a two-year negative ad campaign against a Romney administration, maybe the biggest policy miscalculation in modern political history. "This is the Great Recession, But Our Number One Goal Is Ousting Obama."

Also, the ideology at the heart of the modern Republican platform is soulless and fundamentally anti-Christian, which makes things tough for moderate Christians whose faith structure isn't resting on a sandy foundation of homophobia and second class status for women. Jesus and Ayn Rand are like matter and anti-matter.

Finally, the demographics problem is not going away for the party. Eventually, the pendulum of centrist politics will swing back leftward. The forty-year swing to the right is losing its momentum quickly. Reagan gets too much credit for creating the modern conservative movement. Nixon did that. Reagan just salvaged its integrity and dehumanized its domestic policy platform.

 

No, Nixon didn't create the modern conservative movement either. Goldwater did. He reorganized the constituencies along the southern strategy lines(even though he lost before that realignment was complete).

You have to remember that while Nixon perfected that southern strategy, he was just as secure to expand the Great Society than dismantle it(with the creation of OSHA, EPA, etc).

He also practiced a large dose of foreign policy realism with Henry Kissinger(who was a part of the Brennan realist school).

So it's not really accurate to call Nixon the founder of the modern conservative movement. Being Eisenhower's VP for many years influenced his thinking, especially regarding foreign policy.

Nixon was more of a last of the old first of the new blend.

And I wouldn't hold your breath for a swing back away from the new-new right, especially regarding foreign policy.

When you have a democratic president in a love affair with armed drones, largely keeping the two war strategy in place(despite what Romney claims), and signing the NDAA, then I wouldn't hold my breath for a swing to the left.

No, not any time soon.

 

Except that your definition of "left" is Jimmy Carter. A Democratic President launching wars...





and ordering assassinations
is hardly unusual.

 

Boba, how do you think your observation fits in with Jabba's post though? The US will never have a left-leaning foreign policy. (well, I won't say "never," but it won't for the forseeable future)Johnson's foreign policy was in-line with GWB's, 40 years before the fact. JFK's foreign policy (especially with regards to the cold war) laid the foundation for Reagan's. Again, 20 years before the fact. Pick any President, from Eisenhower on forward, from either party, including Obama, and you get a very small deviation away from the "right" side of the foreign policy spectrum. Carter probably mucked up the US's relation with the Middle East more than any, from the fiasco with the Shah, the Iranian revolution, and the Sinai, all of which are still being felt today. The elder Bush was probably the most neutral in this regard, if one sets aside Desert Storm. (which still had tremendous bi-partisan and international support)

There is still some room for party- pendulum swings with regards to internal social issues, but those are quickly being exhausted as well. The 2nd Amendment issue is all but decided within the US. The same sex marriage issue has one more high court case left, which will come within the next couple of years, and then it will be decided as well. The remaining issues are pretty much state-based which will bring small differences among the union. There are not a lot of issues left that are going to allow large swings by either party. As a result, the question isn't "what is the future of _____ party," but rather, how are both parties going to adapt to become stewards of all sorts of smaller variations.

 

FWIW, social "issues" will never truly be solved, IMO. I mean, seriously-Roe Vs. Wade was 40 years ago and there's still lawmakers trying to curtail its effect, at least on a states level. Ditto with voting-the last significant change to that was women's suffrage, in the 1910s, and now there's new voter ID laws.

That being said, foreign policy is a whole different game. Barring a vastly different United States-and I don't mean "neocon in charge", I mean no longer being what we think of as this country-other countries do not have to go along with us. Wrapping yourself (figuratively) in the flag, or at the other end of the spectrum, trying to be everyone's BFF for life, don't have a place there, and it's been demonstrated to both parties plenty of times.

I think hope that we'll eventually see a breakup of our two major political blocs. Far-rightists and what far-lefts are still in the Democrats can go off and sit in their troll caves while the cores of what remains of both parties can get actual work done. I don't think it'd have much of an effect on foreign policy, as Congress in general actually has very little control over that, but I think it'd be pretty ideal for domestic issues-keep the fringe from affecting the main.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I think the first two especially are relevant to voter ID laws. *cough*

 

You gotta keep 'em separated...

 

Taft republicans are known as the Old Right(Taft, Coolidge, etc). I dont think Nixon can be squarely pegged into old right or new right. He's the transitional figure much like Ike was.

 

I didnt say it was. In fact, most Democrats of the last century were the real warmongers: Wilson, Truman, JFK, LBJ.

But Vietnam and the civil rights movement realigned the parties.

So Nixon was not, by the very definition, the founder of the new right. He wasn't a member of the Old Right Taft-wing either. He was a pragmatist like his former boss Ike.

 

Well, that could be said about plenty of politicians. I just cant see Nixon as a New Right person. And in practice he was not and Old Rightist either.

 

Ehh...Vietnam didn't have nearly the affect on the party you're thinking it did. For Carter and Dukakis, yeah, but both of them were lame ducks to say the least. The next Democratic President (Clinton) was considerably more warlike-Kosovo and Serbia were easily wars we didn't have any particular reason to get into besides it being the right thing to do. Ditto Somalia. If anything, Carter was the exception, not the rule. The Democrats have always been willing to wage wars of idealism and national necessity.

 

Yes, the "Democrats-as-peaceniks" meme has precious little validity. Apart from George McGovern, I can't recall any Democratic nominee who was staunchly anti-imperialist.

In fact, I think I'll write McGovern's name in come Election Day. It beats voting for Obomb'em.

 

The Tea Partiers are willing to vote for Romney, so you should vote for Obomb'em.

I'm not kidding either, if this election were between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, I'd be more than happy to vote for the former.

 

Explain that to Humphrey(who lost) and McGovern(who lost).

But back to the larger question: you're making the point of my original post. The dems are just as far to the right when it comes to militancy as the republicans with a few exceptions(noted above).
And this isnt going to change any time soon, despite Jabba's assertions. There is zero evidence for a foreign policy swing back to a less-hawkish stance.

And who said anything about Jimmy Carter? The guy raised defense spending and, as someone who studied defense procurement for a few years, I can say the guy had plenty of advanced weapons systems approved on his watch.

 

Sure, but he also carved the bejesus out of the non-advanced stuff, including letting the Army wither on the vine. Which was sortof a big deal at the time.

And that was my original point about Democrats not being traditionally warlike.

But Vietnam and the civil rights movement realigned the parties.-you

 

Letting the army wither on the vine? M1Abrams entered service in............................what year? Did the peanut farmer put a stop to it?

Who said the dems werent traditionally warlike? My point was Obama was right wing when it came to war and that there wouldn't be a swing back away from that. When both parties are wedded to virtually the same policy, a swing back isn't coming any time soon.
Vietnam created the potential success of Eugene McCarthy and McGovern, both of whom ran on an anti-Vietnam platform. So it certainly did impact the dems at the time. It also damaged the dem PR for a generation about how they were perceived as "soft" on defense(which really wasn't the case. They just weren't as aggressive as they used to be and as the GOP had become).