You make some very substantive points and I mostly agree. 1) Both parties do indeed have incentive to ensure there is not another party. I think your second point was addressed in my original post. You are correct that historically our politics have operated sort of on a pendulum; when one party got too much power and took things too far in their direction they would face a public backlash and the pendulum would swing in the other direction. My fear is that when the democrats win a few more national elections and start trying to enact a strict party agenda, if the Republicans are not offering something of substance then that historical trend might not apply. Believe it or not, and this might floor some members around here, but I would genuinely like to see the Republican party start acting like adults again and start offering some alternatives to: Obamacare, Immigration, etc. So far, I hear a lot of "No" but nothing about an alternative. If they want the American people to listen, they have to present an alternative idea that appeals to a larger swath of the electorate.
The Republicans offered several compromise bills when Obamacare was being debated. They offered market based reforms such as making it easier for people to get HDHPs and HSAs, they offered tort reform. All of their bills were killed in committee. The watered down ineffective bill that was passed was not because no viable alternatives were offered. And remember the Democrats had to do a great deal of internal political rangling to get the more moderate and conservative Democrats on board. Very late in the game many Democrats *cough* Mary Landreiu* cough were the ones saying no. And when the current system is working for 85% of Americans, sometimes, simply saying no is the right alternative.
This is most likely the most absurd thing I can say, however I think there is a point in-which people are "too free". Some people are just too fucking stupid to have the freedom in which they have. Our society cannot handle these retards any longer and because of the wide range of freedoms we have been granted, yes granted, we will find ourselves back to a place with eroding freedoms. The math does not support anything other than a more socialized state in which growth and wealth are dependent upon the collective efforts of everyone. We are just a lazier people than in previous generations. Our youth "expects" things that were previously earned. I also feel that while we are more technical savvy than previous generations, we are generally more stupid. The Democrats are fully aware of this and are pushing for this. I think that in thought it truly sounds like a great idea. If everyone was to work towards a common goal.... The problem is lazy idiots. That is where the free market shines. You can take advantage of a lazy worker and out perform them and get ahead in-life to the next level of society. Though the problem there is that greed takes on a form that is not liked by the middle class. Not because it is something they wouldn't do themselves, but because they are without. Greed harms no one. It isn't necessarily fare, however if people used their brain, employers are only as good as those in-which they employ. Hence, you are not forced to work at Mc D's for $8/hr...... but you are also free to go on strike to make Mc D's pay you $15 to flip patties and have 3 kids out of wedlock. There is no middle ground of the free-market and a welfare state. It will only be one or the other. It is not possible for the U.S. to continue to try and balance this any longer. So in short, the republican party is dead. It will not recover. The vast majority of conservatives will form a band that is disproportionate to the rest of the country. The rest of the country is leaning heavily to a "feel good" society of hand outs, welfare and butterflies.
I would enact a policy of not passing laws to fix problems. I would allow markets to work as freely as possible. I would end as many government programs as possible, by removing redundant programs and reducing administrative overhead. I would push meaningful reforms to SS, MC, and MD even though it would be met with contempt. I would seek to overhaul the tax code to ensure it was both equitable and progressive, but as near to flat as possible.
Hallelujah and Amen. I would go further. According to LSU, there are over 1,300 distinct organizations across 3 branches of government. http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/faq.html. Over 1,300! Unreal and unnecessary. A government that is perpetuating it's own existence and utility but with little to show for it at the end of the food chain. Meaningful reform is a great start but you would lose steam and get less than that so why not go for it? Abolish HHS and Department of Education for starters. Push the money and responsibility back to individual states. Then begin to negotiate. Tort reform. Massive tort reform. Get the judicial branch out of people's lives. Unbelievable to me that we have government employees wasting time telling us all what to think, how to talk, and how to engage other human beings. And now in California, from K-12, children with gender identity issues can pick which bathroom and locker room they want to use. Sure, let's put millions of children (likely almost always the girls) in a troublesome situation so that a handful of kids can pee where they want. Got it. Stop the social engineering going on in public schools and focus on basics so that the US can compete globally. Cease and desist the federal reward programs for "high performing" or "performance improvement" programs like NCLB and RTTT. Massive re-working of pension programs. End financial and human support of foreign wars, primarily in the Middle East. Sever ties with Saudi Arabia, i.e. the Wahabbists. That ought to be a good start.
the recommendations that you allude to were indeed introduced but not until they realized that Obamacare was indeed going to pass and they had a political liability on their hands. i still believe that Obamacare partly belongs to the Republicans because the idea of an individual mandate was born out of the Heritage Foundation in the 80's and 90's and championed by Republicans during the 90's as an alternative to a single payer health care system that would have eliminated the private insurance industry altogether. now, i do agree that tort reform is an important component that, to my knowledge, has not been addressed and should be. and i guess that goes to my larger point about healthcare in the country: I am not 100% sold that Obamacare is going to be the silver bullet for rising health care costs although I do believe that it addresses some of the primary culprits like stopping insurance companies from dropping sick people or denying coverage to those who have pre-existing conditions or forcing insurance companies to quantify for consumers the amount of premiums that were actually spent on the patients health care versus salaries for top executives in the insurance company. all of that said, there is still room for improvement and we shouldn't consider the ACA to be the be-all, end-all authority on fixing health care. I don't think any reasonable person would say with a straight face that health care costs have not risen exponentially over the past 20 years and are now outpacing the rate of inflation, so something had to be done and still has to be done to prevent those costs from becoming unaffordable to hard working people. also, please remember that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans were very clear that their primary objective was to make Obama a one term President. this refusal to work with him started with the ACA. I clearly recall the President and Vice President sitting down with house republicans to discuss their input on ACA but they received nothing but "let's wait" or "well, we just don't know about....." It was a stalling technique and had nothing to do with honest negotiations, just like every other negotiation they have entered into with Obama. Again, not saying Obamacare is perfect, but I also do not believe that the Republicans were never honest brokers and had no intent of working with the President because they just wanted to make him fail....not govern.
Here is a very good analysis by Walter Mead (Obama voter) that lays out the mistakes made in the Middle East by this administration. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...8923699568400.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories One conclusion of the article is that by pissing off the three most important allies we have in the area, Israel, Saudi family, and Egypt military, we made everything we do there harder. Not emphasized enough in the article to me is also the red line in the sand with no balls screw up. To answer you question directly; Work the back side diplomacy to repair relationships with the three entities mentioned above. You may end up quasi supporting a military government in Egypt for a while but its the better bad alternative Obama needs to do something he has yet to show he can do in 4.5 years - Lead Decisively. Doing the wrong thing aggressively at this point is likely better than being a spectator. Blow something up - and I mean literally. Show we are willing to get engaged by bombing the best available target. Tell the Russians if you don't want your most significant naval base outside of Russia to be sitting in a boiling pile of shit you better back the fuck off of supporting this chemical tossing maniac. After everything gets ratcheted up in tension look for the best opening to make a difference and decisively and apologetically take it. That means with planes and bombs not boots. We did it in Libya with far fewer people suffering far less I know there is a lot of risk in all of that - but its the hole we dug for ourselves
I don't think Party means that much anymore. Bush was not as conservative as some think, and Clinton was not as liberal as he is given 'credit' for. The biggest problem for the Republicans is a void of leadership. They have some members with good ideas but they get lost in the static. I don't like Nancy Pelosi at all but she knows how to keep her troops in line. Truth be told Obamacare really should be called Pelosicare.
