GOP has left its base

[AFTiger 282]

Okay, is this what passes for academic rigor at Auburn these days?

GOP has left its base - old and new

Sunday, April 01, 2007GERALD W. JOHNSON

The Republican Party has been the party of whites, the wealthy, smaller government, competency, strong defense, personal liberty, business opportunity and economic investment and fiscal conservatism. In the 1990s, it added to its base white, middle- and- lower economic-class religious conservatives, morals and values promoters and "fair play" economic opportunity advocates.

For the past decade this coalition of otherwise divergent interests, rich and not so rich, if not black and white, has provided the narrow margin of victory in national elections and reshaped state-level politics, particularly in the South.

History shows that once a party is in power for some length of time, the party leadership tends to move away from some parts of its base. What is remarkable about the current leadership of the Republican Party is that the party has left almost its entire base, old and new.

Smaller government and fiscal conservatism have been jettisoned. The president and Congress inherited a budget surplus from President Clinton and turned it into a $500 billion deficit that grows daily.

Strong international defense and the war against terrorism have been undermined by a poorly planned and executed war against the wrong enemy at unacceptable costs of lives, dollars and international partnerships. The real international threats go unchallenged.

Individual constitutional liberties are threatened by illegal invasion into personal areas of life, including bank accounts and cell phones, in the name of national security.

Moral and values issues have been tainted by a leadership of cynicism, deception, Enron fiascos and a culture of corruption.

Competency has devolved into nightmarish handling of Katrina and the nomination of personal friends to the Supreme Court.

Environmental neglect and denial in the midst of global warming and increasingly destructive weather patterns have subjugated protection of the environment to market opportunities.

Domestic security is warped by proposals to turn over American ports to foreign countries, providing amnesty and work permits for illegal immigrants, while building a wall between the United States and Mexico to keep illegal immigrants out.

Economic development has been outsourced to Third World countries around the globe.

Care for the elderly has produced cynical proposals to privatize Social Security and personalized drug prescription plans in a bewildering maze of so-called personal options.

States' rights have been abandoned in many areas, including public education, historically a state responsibility. No Child Left Behind, federally mandated but not funded, has turned educational opportunity into a guaranteed path for even the very best schools to fail.

The only bases that have not been abandoned by the Republican Party leadership are the wealthy few who become even wealthier by misguided tax and economic policies and a "contract" war, and the far religious right, who hold the distorted view that God is a Republican.

It is time to recognize, as the electorate in most of the country did in the most recent election, that the Republican Party leadership has left the building and taken almost every thing of value with it.

Gerald W. Johnson is an emeritus professor of political science at Auburn University. E-mail: johnsong@bellsouth.net.

Birmingham News

Sounds like a Democrat poser to me all accusations and no facts.

I will agree that Bush has provided no leadership to the Republican Party and has failed to advance the conservative message. The Republican Senate thwarted every attempt to move conservatism along. This nation will pay the price.

[otterinbham 0]

Okay, is this what passes for academic rigor at Auburn these days?

GOP has left its base - old and new

Sunday, April 01, 2007GERALD W. JOHNSON

The Republican Party has been the party of whites, the wealthy, smaller government, competency, strong defense, personal liberty, business opportunity and economic investment and fiscal conservatism. In the 1990s, it added to its base white, middle- and- lower economic-class religious conservatives, morals and values promoters and "fair play" economic opportunity advocates.

For the past decade this coalition of otherwise divergent interests, rich and not so rich, if not black and white, has provided the narrow margin of victory in national elections and reshaped state-level politics, particularly in the South.

History shows that once a party is in power for some length of time, the party leadership tends to move away from some parts of its base. What is remarkable about the current leadership of the Republican Party is that the party has left almost its entire base, old and new.

Smaller government and fiscal conservatism have been jettisoned. The president and Congress inherited a budget surplus from President Clinton and turned it into a $500 billion deficit that grows daily.

Strong international defense and the war against terrorism have been undermined by a poorly planned and executed war against the wrong enemy at unacceptable costs of lives, dollars and international partnerships. The real international threats go unchallenged.

Individual constitutional liberties are threatened by illegal invasion into personal areas of life, including bank accounts and cell phones, in the name of national security.

Moral and values issues have been tainted by a leadership of cynicism, deception, Enron fiascos and a culture of corruption.

Competency has devolved into nightmarish handling of Katrina and the nomination of personal friends to the Supreme Court.

Environmental neglect and denial in the midst of global warming and increasingly destructive weather patterns have subjugated protection of the environment to market opportunities.

Domestic security is warped by proposals to turn over American ports to foreign countries, providing amnesty and work permits for illegal immigrants, while building a wall between the United States and Mexico to keep illegal immigrants out.

Economic development has been outsourced to Third World countries around the globe.

Care for the elderly has produced cynical proposals to privatize Social Security and personalized drug prescription plans in a bewildering maze of so-called personal options.

States' rights have been abandoned in many areas, including public education, historically a state responsibility. No Child Left Behind, federally mandated but not funded, has turned educational opportunity into a guaranteed path for even the very best schools to fail.

The only bases that have not been abandoned by the Republican Party leadership are the wealthy few who become even wealthier by misguided tax and economic policies and a "contract" war, and the far religious right, who hold the distorted view that God is a Republican.

It is time to recognize, as the electorate in most of the country did in the most recent election, that the Republican Party leadership has left the building and taken almost every thing of value with it.

Gerald W. Johnson is an emeritus professor of political science at Auburn University. E-mail: johnsong@bellsouth.net.

Birmingham News

Sounds like a Democrat poser to me all accusations and no facts.

I will agree that Bush has provided no leadership to the Republican Party and has failed to advance the conservative message. The Republican Senate thwarted every attempt to move conservatism along. This nation will pay the price.

Well he's professor emeritus, which means he's retired and most likely a doddering old fool. His unfocused, ad hominem arguments reveal as much.

However, your reply states that Bush has provided no leadership to the Republican Party, and that the Republican Senate has stood in the way of attempts to advance conservatism. If that's not leaving its base, then what is it?

However, Bush is far more culpable than simply not showing leadership. The Prescription Act is an economic horror show, guaranteeing insolvency in about 15-20 years. And, given how the president is supposed to set the legislative agenda of his party, I don't see how you can give him a free pass. Oh. And he has this rubber stamp in his drawer that says "Veto." You know. The one that he's barely touched. So while spending bills wound their way into law unmolested in a Republican Congress and a Republican Presidency, who the heck else are we supposed to blame?

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Well he's professor emeritus, which means he's retired and most likely a doddering old fool. His unfocused, ad hominem arguments reveal as much.

You mean, like this guy was:

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/0....friedman.shtml

Ad hominem AND overstated broadbrush assumption.

[otterinbham 0]

Well he's professor emeritus, which means he's retired and most likely a doddering old fool. His unfocused, ad hominem arguments reveal as much.

You mean, like this guy was:

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/0....friedman.shtml

Ad hominem AND overstated broadbrush assumption.

A very strange citation on your part, given how Milton Friedman's seminal works, which I doubt you've read were written during his academic career, not after he retired.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Well he's professor emeritus, which means he's retired and most likely a doddering old fool. His unfocused, ad hominem arguments reveal as much.

You mean, like this guy was:

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/0....friedman.shtml

Ad hominem AND overstated broadbrush assumption.

A very strange citation on your part, given how Milton Friedman's seminal works, which I doubt you've read were written during his academic career, not after he retired.

As is true for most academics. Doesn't mean that there are not many brilliant men and women that retire and are afforded emeritus status while they are still quite capable. Why you cannot simply admit that this:

...which means he's retired and most likely a doddering old fool.

is a ridiculously broad statement is beyond me. Attack his arguments, not his status.

[otterinbham 0]

Okay.

"Smaller government and fiscal conservatism have been jettisoned. The president and Congress inherited a budget surplus from President Clinton and turned it into a $500 billion deficit that grows daily."

Actually, as a percentage of the GDP, the Deficit is actually shrinking. Using that benchmark, the deficit is less than it was in all but the last two years of the Clinton Presidency when taxation rates were considerably higher. Now, if it weren't for the execrable Presciption Act, the amount of the deficit would actually be far less.

"Moral and values issues have been tainted by a leadership of cynicism, deception, Enron fiascos and a culture of corruption."

Is this guy for real? Both parties can be equally tarred with this brush. For every Bush, there's a Clinton. For every Cheney, there's a Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd.

"Economic development has been outsourced to Third World countries around the globe."

Yet unemployment is now below 5% and average household wealth has reached historic highs. Productivity and job creation remains double that of the EU. Per capita income continues to increase at a similar rate. How odd. I thought our economic development had left the country. Guess not.

"States' rights have been abandoned in many areas, including public education, historically a state responsibility. No Child Left Behind, federally mandated but not funded, has turned educational opportunity into a guaranteed path for even the very best schools to fail."

Hmmm...what administration created the Department of Education? Would it be Carter? Further, I defy you to find a Democrat anywhere who is telling the Federal Government to butt out of schools. Please. Oh, and another thing. Dr. Johnson is an employee of the Alabama AEA, possibly the single greatest obstruction to education reform in the State of Alabama. The AEA does not exist to improve education in our state, but rather to improve the lot of Alabama school teachers. The two are often contradictory impulses, especially on the subject of academic tenure.

"Care for the elderly has produced cynical proposals to privatize Social Security and personalized drug prescription plans in a bewildering maze of so-called personal options."

Ah. Well which is it? Either the Republican Party is trying to bilk the retirees of America or it's trying to give it free prescription medicine. Again, I didn't see Democrats trying to vote down the Prescription Drug act. Further, Social Security is unsustainable under the current model. Privatizing similar programs has done amazing things in countries such as Chile. The cynical thing in this situation would be to look the electorate in the eye and proclaim that there's NOT a problem with Social Security, just so you don't have to face the AARP's wrath in the next election.

Some of these statements in his letter I might be inclined to agree with. However, so many points are distorted and inaccurate, the rest of his argument falls flat.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Okay.

"Smaller government and fiscal conservatism have been jettisoned. The president and Congress inherited a budget surplus from President Clinton and turned it into a $500 billion deficit that grows daily."

Actually, as a percentage of the GDP, the Deficit is actually shrinking. Using that benchmark, the deficit is less than it was in all but the last two years of the Clinton Presidency when taxation rates were considerably higher. Now, if it weren't for the execrable Presciption Act, the amount of the deficit would actually be far less.

I don't understand this argument-- "The deficit is actually shrinking"...from where Bush took it originally, yes. The last three years of Clinton's presidency had surpluses. The deficit shrunk each year before those three. The trend lines were always positive and wealth grew despite the tax rates. We actually paid down the debt.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...1/clinton.debt/

Republicans can't admit it, but Clinton was the most fiscally responsible President we've had in a long time.

And to say, "If it weren't for the execrable Prescription Act..." ignores Bush's domestic legacy--- expanding entitlements, enriching big Pharma, and breaking the bank. Kinda hard to dismiss that.

[AFTiger 282]

Republicans can't admit it, but Clinton was the most fiscally responsible President we've had in a long time.

No, no, no, no, no, TT. The Republican congress was the most fiscally resposible when it rejected Clinton's spending plans and reformed welfare over Clinton's ojections. Bush's compassionate conservatism turned out to be big government wrapped in a thin conservative shell.

He did try to reform and save social security but was block by Senate Democrats so when it does collapse, it will be on the heads of your party.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

Republicans can't admit it, but Clinton was the most fiscally responsible President we've had in a long time.

No, no, no, no, no, TT. The Republican congress was the most fiscally resposible when it rejected Clinton's spending plans and reformed welfare over Clinton's ojections. Bush's compassionate conservatism turned out to be big government wrapped in a thin conservative shell.

He did try to reform and save social security but was block by Senate Democrats so when it does collapse, it will be on the heads of your party.

The Congress stayed in Republican hands for the first 6 years of Bush's presidency. The surplus disappeared, the defict ballooned and the Republican Congress and the Republican President went on a drunken spending spree. You are soooooo drunk on the koolaid.

[AFTiger 282]

Well lets forget the fact Clinton recession and 9/11 kinda had a small effect in tanking the economy (Democrat Selective Memory Syndorme). Bush's tax cuts led to a rapid recovery and lowest unemployment numbers in history. The tax cut increased the flow of revenues into the national treasury and cut the rate of deficit spending. Clintons numbers were illusionary and would have never stood the test.

Democrats have never learned the lessons from Kennedy (John not Teddy), Reagan, and Bush that lowere tax rate increase growth and revenues and are set to raise taxes again. Anybody that considers a tax cut as a cost to the government has their head on backwards anyway.

As far as Bush's drunken spending spree is concerned, you seem to have forgotten (DSMS again) that the Dims were complaining that he was not spending enough. So you put your Koolaid down and try a drink of cool clear reason and maybe you will come to your senses.