Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46

Thread: David Frum article on GOP

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523

    David Frum article on GOP

    [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinion/frum-mann-ornstein/index.html?hpt=hp_c2[/url]

    [QUOTE](CNN) -- Last month, two political scientists published one of those rare op-eds that gets the political community talking.
    The thesis of the piece was contained in the title: "Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem."
    In case that was not clear enough, the authors elaborated: "We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional.

    "In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
    "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
    "When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."

    The piece drew its authority from the authors' identity: Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, two of Washington's most veteran watchers of Congress. Both men have hard-earned reputations for nonideological independence of mind despite their institutional affiliations: Mann works at the liberal Brookings Institution, Ornstein at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. (Ornstein is a friend of mine, and was a colleague until I was given the heave-ho from AEI in March 2010.)

    Now they have backed their provocative op-ed with a new book, "It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism."
    The book backs the arresting op-ed with a battery of depressing research, substantiating their charge that congressional Republicans now act in a uniquely irresponsible way.
    The debt showdown last summer was the ultimate case: congressional Republicans nearly forcing a default on the obligations of the United States to get their way on a budget agreement.
    But the pattern manifests itself in almost all the business of government, down to the most mundane.
    For example: Because Senate rules often require unanimous consent to move to the next order of business, a determined minority can force delay on almost any action it opposes.

    Since 2009, Republicans have used this power of delay hyper-aggressively. Compare and contrast the treatment of executive-branch nominees.
    Sixteen months into the George W. Bush administration, Memorial Day 2002, only 13 executive-branch nominations awaited confirmation by the Senate. At the corresponding moment in the Obama administration, Memorial Day 2010, 108 nominees were awaiting action by the Senate.

    This comparison is supported by another academic study. The confirmation process got gradually slower between the 1960s and the 1990s. Then, suddenly, in the second Clinton administration, the confirmation process seized up.

    Under the elder Bush, a Republican president facing a Democratic Senate, 92% of nominees were confirmed within an average of 57 days. In the second Clinton administration, facing a Republican Senate, only 74% of nominees were confirmed, taking an average of 110 days.

    Ornstein and Mann offer a convincing array of explanations for the trend toward radicalism within the GOP, including changes in campaign finance and in the electorate itself. They offer too a range of proposals to work around GOP radicalism and restore the effective functioning of Congress. If those proposals have a faint wistful air to them, blame the inherent difficulty of the problem, not Mann and Ornstein.

    But one thing is missing from their powerful and important book, and it's a thought I'd like to enter here into the record: The radicalization of the GOP is a function of changes, not only in U.S. politics, but also in the U.S. economy.
    Americans are living through an era of disappointment. It's becoming obvious that the U.S. government cannot meet all the expectations that built up in better times.

    The tax status quo, the Medicare status quo, the social safety net status quo, the defense status quo -- they can't all be sustained. Something must give, and almost everybody senses it.

    In good times, we debate whether government should expand programs or cut taxes -- new benefits in either case.

    In these times, we are debating whether government should impose large reductions in programs or impose big increases in taxes -- taking from people benefits that they now enjoy.

    Human beings will typically fight much more ferociously to keep what they possess than to gain something new. And the constituencies that vote Republican happen to possess the most and thus to be exposed to the worst risks of loss.

    The Republican voting base includes not only the wealthy with the most to fear from tax increases, but also the elderly and the rural, the two constituencies that benefit the most from federal spending and thus have the most to lose from spending cuts.

    All those constituencies together fear that almost any conceivable change will be change for the worse from their point of view: higher taxes, less Medicare, or possibly both. Any attempt to do more for other constituencies -- the unemployed, the young -- represents an extra, urgent threat to them.
    That sense of threat radicalizes voters and donors -- and has built a huge reservoir of votes and money for politicians and activists who speak as radically as the donors and voters feel.

    Which means the solution to the problems so astutely diagnosed by Mann and Ornstein must ultimately be found outside the American political system -- and will not be solved until America's rich and America's elderly become either less fearful or more generous.[/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    Mods... Please rename title to dude cites two sources that somehow correlate obstructionism in Congress to D policy as the downfall of the R party...

  3. #3
    I guess the two ' non-partisans" missed the part where the Dems have moved radically left.

  4. #4
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    40,287
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4468071] It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
    [/QUOTE]


    Lmao...so this is the [I]Republicans.[/I]

    Okay, guy.

    :rolleyes:


    -
    Last edited by 32green; 05-14-2012 at 08:43 PM.

  5. #5
    It's pretty shocking Frum wrote this piece. He's been a righty for a long time.

  6. #6
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,620
    [QUOTE=cr726;4468138]It's pretty shocking Frum wrote this piece. He's been a righty for a long time.[/QUOTE]

    I've noticed he's been on the outs for a while now, seemingly going out of his way to criticize the right.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4468149]I've noticed he's been on the outs for a while now, seemingly going out of his way to criticize the right.[/QUOTE]

    I must of missed his stuff before this piece. Every time he was on Bill Maher he towed the GOP line.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,802
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4468071][url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/opinion/frum-mann-ornstein/index.html?hpt=hp_c2[/url][/QUOTE]

    compromise is what makes or breaks a Republican system

    [QUOTE]...
    "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition...
    [/QUOTE]


    [QUOTE]...
    The tax status quo, the Medicare status quo, the social safety net status quo, the defense status quo -- they can't all be sustained...
    [/QUOTE]

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,802
    [QUOTE=acepepe;4468113]I guess the two ' non-partisans" missed the part where the Dems have moved radically left.[/QUOTE]

    Exhibit A for this thesis.

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,802
    [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum[/URL]


    Reminder of who David Frum is


    [QUOTE]

    In a Newsweek column, Frum described his political beliefs as follows:


    I'm a conservative Republican, have been all my adult life. I volunteered for the Reagan campaign in 1980. I've attended every Republican convention since 1988. I was president of the Federalist Society chapter at my law school, worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and [B]wrote speeches for President Bush—not the "Read My Lips" Bush, the "Axis of Evil" Bush. [/B]I served on the Giuliani campaign in 2008 and voted for John McCain in November. I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I could go on, but you get the idea.[28]
    [/QUOTE]

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    [QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4468082]Mods... Please rename title to dude cites two sources that somehow correlate obstructionism in Congress to D policy as the downfall of the R party...[/QUOTE]

    Here's the article Frum is referring too:

    [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html[/url]

    [QUOTE][B]Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.[/B]

    By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Published: April 27

    Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.

    It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.

    We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

    The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

    When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

    “Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

    It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

    The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post.

    What happened? Of course, there were larger forces at work beyond the realignment of the South. They included the mobilization of social conservatives after the 1973Roe v. Wade decision, the anti-tax movement launched in 1978 by California’s Proposition 13, the rise of conservative talk radio after a congressional pay raise in 1989, and the emergence of Fox News and right-wing blogs. But the real move to the bedrock right starts with two names: Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.

    From the day he entered Congress in 1979, Gingrich had a strategy to create a Republican majority in the House: convincing voters that the institution was so corrupt that anyone would be better than the incumbents, especially those in the Democratic majority. It took him 16 years, but by bringing ethics charges against Democratic leaders; provoking them into overreactions that enraged Republicans and united them to vote against Democratic initiatives; exploiting scandals to create even more public disgust with politicians; and then recruiting GOP candidates around the country to run against Washington, Democrats and Congress, Gingrich accomplished his goal.

    Ironically, after becoming speaker, Gingrich wanted to enhance Congress’s reputation and was content to compromise with President Bill Clinton when it served his interests. But the forces Gingrich unleashed destroyed whatever comity existed across party lines, activated an extreme and virulently anti-Washington base — most recently represented by tea party activists — and helped drive moderate Republicans out of Congress. (Some of his progeny, elected in the early 1990s, moved to the Senate and polarized its culture in the same way.)

    Norquist, meanwhile, founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985 and rolled out his Taxpayer Protection Pledge the following year. The pledge, which binds its signers to never support a tax increase (that includes closing tax loopholes), had been signed as of last year by 238 of the 242 House Republicans and 41 of the 47 GOP senators, according to ATR. The Norquist tax pledge has led to other pledges, on issues such as climate change, that create additional litmus tests that box in moderates and make cross-party coalitions nearly impossible. For Republicans concerned about a primary challenge from the right, the failure to sign such pledges is simply too risky.

    Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented.

    In the third and now fourth years of the Obama presidency, divided government has produced something closer to complete gridlock than we have ever seen in our time in Washington, with partisan divides even leading last year to America’s first credit downgrade.

    On financial stabilization and economic recovery, on deficits and debt, on climate change and health-care reform, Republicans have been the force behind the widening ideological gaps and the strategic use of partisanship. In the presidential campaign and in Congress, GOP leaders have embraced fanciful policies on taxes and spending, kowtowing to their party’s most strident voices.

    Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
    Text Size PrintE-mailReprints
    Republicans often dismiss nonpartisan analyses of the nature of problems and the impact of policies when those assessments don’t fit their ideology. In the face of the deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression, the party’s leaders and their outside acolytes insisted on obeisance to a supply-side view of economic growth — thus fulfilling Norquist’s pledge — while ignoring contrary considerations.

    The results can border on the absurd: In early 2009, several of the eight Republican co-sponsors of a bipartisan health-care reform plan dropped their support; by early 2010, the others had turned on their own proposal so that there would be zero GOP backing for any bill that came within a mile of Obama’s reform initiative. As one co-sponsor, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), told The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein: “I liked it because it was bipartisan. I wouldn’t have voted for it.”

    And seven Republican co-sponsors of a Senate resolution to create a debt-reduction panel voted in January 2010 against their own resolution, solely to keep it from getting to the 60-vote threshold Republicans demanded and thus denying the president a seeming victory.

    This attitude filters down far deeper than the party leadership. Rank-and-file GOP voters endorse the strategy that the party’s elites have adopted, eschewing compromise to solve problems and insisting on principle, even if it leads to gridlock. Democratic voters, by contrast, along with self-identified independents, are more likely to favor deal-making over deadlock.

    Democrats are hardly blameless, and they have their own extreme wing and their own predilection for hardball politics. But these tendencies do not routinely veer outside the normal bounds of robust politics. If anything, under the presidencies of Clinton and Obama, the Democrats have become more of a status-quo party. They are centrist protectors of government, reluctantly willing to revamp programs and trim retirement and health benefits to maintain its central commitments in the face of fiscal pressures.

    No doubt, Democrats were not exactly warm and fuzzy toward George W. Bush during his presidency. But recall that they worked hand in glove with the Republican president on the No Child Left Behind Act, provided crucial votes in the Senate for his tax cuts, joined with Republicans for all the steps taken after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and supplied the key votes for the Bush administration’s financial bailout at the height of the economic crisis in 2008. The difference is striking.

    The GOP’s evolution has become too much for some longtime Republicans. Former senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraskacalled his party “irresponsible” in an interview with the Financial Times in August, at the height of the debt-ceiling battle. “I think the Republican Party is captive to political movements that are very ideological, that are very narrow,” he said. “I’ve never seen so much intolerance as I see today in American politics.”

    And Mike Lofgren, a veteran Republican congressional staffer, wrote an anguished diatribe last year about why he was ending his career on the Hill after nearly three decades. “The Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe,” he wrote on the Truthout Web site.

    Shortly before Rep. West went off the rails with his accusations of communism in the Democratic Party, political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, who have long tracked historical trends in political polarization, said their studies of congressional votes found that Republicans are now more conservative than they have been in more than a century. Their data show a dramatic uptick in polarization, mostly caused by the sharp rightward move of the GOP.

    If our democracy is to regain its health and vitality, the culture and ideological center of the Republican Party must change. In the short run, without a massive (and unlikely) across-the-board rejection of the GOP at the polls, that will not happen. If anything, Washington’s ideological divide will probably grow after the 2012 elections.

    In the House, some of the remaining centrist and conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats have been targeted for extinction by redistricting, while even ardent tea party Republicans, such as freshman Rep. Alan Nunnelee (Miss.), have faced primary challenges from the right for being too accommodationist. And Mitt Romney’s rhetoric and positions offer no indication that he would govern differently if his party captures the White House and both chambers of Congress.

    We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.

    Our advice to the press: Don’t seek professional safety through the even-handed, unfiltered presentation of opposing views. Which politician is telling the truth? Who is taking hostages, at what risks and to what ends?

    Also, stop lending legitimacy to Senate filibusters by treating a 60-vote hurdle as routine. The framers certainly didn’t intend it to be. Report individual senators’ abusive use of holds and identify every time the minority party uses a filibuster to kill a bill or nomination with majority support.

    Look ahead to the likely consequences of voters’ choices in the November elections. How would the candidates govern? What could they accomplish? What differences can people expect from a unified Republican or Democratic government, or one divided between the parties?

    In the end, while the press can make certain political choices understandable, it is up to voters to decide. If they can punish ideological extremism at the polls and look skeptically upon candidates who profess to reject all dialogue and bargaining with opponents, then an insurgent outlier party will have some impetus to return to the center. Otherwise, our politics will get worse before it gets better.

    [email]tmann@brookings.edu[/email]

    [email]nornstein@aei.org[/email]

    Thomas E. Mann is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This essay is adapted from their book “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism,” which will be available Tuesday.


    [/QUOTE]
    Last edited by SafetyBlitz; 05-14-2012 at 10:40 PM.

  12. #12
    Compromise has gotten the country into the shape it is in.

  13. #13
    Not sure how this is any different from Dick Morris, Clinton's top guy, now working for Fox News because "Democrats have gotten so far away from what they once stood for" . . .

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Buster;4468163]Exhibit A for this thesis.[/QUOTE]

    I agree 100% the flow of$$$ would be staunched!

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,655
    [B]"The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.[/B]

    Stopped reading at this point since its not a serious piece. Although it is a piece of something.


    :rofl:

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=quantum;4468544][B]"The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.[/B]

    Stopped reading at this point since its not a serious piece. Although it is a piece of something.


    :rofl:[/QUOTE]

    Yea. ;)

  17. #17
    I think there is truth in this article. However that doesn't mean we would be better off electing Democrats who would not be forced to compromise to run government.

    The basic contention is balance is good, compromise is good that doesn't logically follow that Democrats who can push their agenda's is good. It means we need a broader tent in the Republican party.

    An unfettered Democratic Party passing legislation could well be worse than a do nothing government. Liberals who gleefully look at articles like this and see an opportunity to advance their own agenda are missng the point entirely.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 05-15-2012 at 11:02 AM.

  18. #18
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4468577]I think there is truth in this article. However that doesn't mean we would be better off electing Democrats who would not be forced to compromise to run government.

    The basic contention is balance is good, compromise is good that doesn't logically follow that Democrats who can push their agenda's is good. It means we need a broader tent in the Republican party.[/QUOTE]

    I'd agree. It's about getting Republican voters to be open to some sort of compromise, not recruiting D's.

    10$ in cuts for every 1$ in raising revenue? That sounds good to me - but if 41/47 senators on one side signed the Grover Norquist tax pledge, and you need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate, then nothing can happen-

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,325
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4468590]I'd agree. It's about getting Republican voters to be open to some sort of compromise, not recruiting D's.

    10$ in cuts for every 1$ in raising revenue? That sounds good to me - but if 41/47 senators on one side signed the Grover Norquist tax pledge, and you need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate, then nothing can happen-[/QUOTE]

    If they cut[B] first[/B] and I mean real cuts not decreases to the proposed/anticipated increase then I would allow that proportion of increase. The problem is that historically every promise of cuts in exchange for higher taxes has resulted in reneging on the cut but still getting the increase.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4468590]I'd agree. It's about getting Republican voters to be open to some sort of compromise, not recruiting D's.

    10$ in cuts for every 1$ in raising revenue? That sounds good to me - but if 41/47 senators on one side signed the Grover Norquist tax pledge, and you need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate, then nothing can happen-[/QUOTE]

    Democrats don't support increases in revenues or cuts. They are running on redistribution of a shrinking pie.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us