Republican forfeit

OP-ED: Our One-Party Democracy, By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, New York Times, September 8, 2009

Depressingly accurate description by Friedman. Opportunity is being wasted here. The GOP has alienated so many good thinkers on its side with the social policies stuff and it's beginning to show. The cupboard is increasingly bare on innovative thinking, but even when it appears, it is subsumed to the larger goal of thwarting the Dems.

A very sad situation.

Comments

[stuart abrams]

I thought this column was quite accurate, but neither sad nor depressing. What I liked in particular was Friedman's recognition of the connection between America's current partisan divide and globalization. Essentially, the Republicans have become the party of "America's Gap", which is basically the old South. This is not only the most backward part of the US economically, but it has many of the other attributes that we see in Gap regions, such as inferior education and healthcare, xenophobia, religious fundamentalism, and opposition to things such as gender equality and gay rights. Eventually, the Republicans will re-form themselves into a party that is capable of competing outside of this very limited ideological/cultural sector of America, which will be good news for everybody. Ideological politics in Amercan history can usually be traced to this kind of intense regional and cultural division, and they tend to be the exception rather than the rule - precisely because this kind of politics is so destructive. Obama's speech the other day was almost entirely directed to the left of the Democratic Party, which has the potential of de-railing the attempt to make the Democrats the party of globalization, and seeking to get the left under control. I suspect he succeeded because ultimately, the left is not very strong in the country as it represents a very narrow cultural element. If Obama, and others in the Democratic party, succeed in making their party the party of globalization, there will be an inexorable push on the Republicans to learn to compete in that arena. The beauty of democracy is that it, like capitalism, fosters competition.

[Mark]

Tom,

De-link the health and climate bills from big government and you'll get much more consensus from the conservatives. Apply the "development in a box" model to the US.

Put the "social issues", I'm guessing you are referring to abortion, gay marriage, etc., back to the states and get the federal gov't out of it. You don't like the law in a particular state...move.

I have said this to everyone I know....stop yelling and acting like morons. It just gives the other guy (liberal, conservative or especially centrist) reason to stop listening. Figure out what you agree on, what you disagree on and work something out. If at an impasse, table the topic and try the next one. Be polite. It costs little and reaps huge dividends in the future.

If its an issue of right and wrong....follow the law and keep the politics out of it. That is what law and the process to change or make new ones is for.

[Jack]

Loved this article. IMO the gist of Republican efforts revolves around this quote:

“Just because Obama is on a path to give America the Romney health plan with McCain-style financing, does not mean the Republicans will embrace it — if it seems politically more attractive to scream ‘socialist,’ ” said Miller.

Once the American citizenry understands how many "socialist" institutions we already have (letter carrier; primary and secondary education; security at local, state, federal and global levels; and yes, healthcare when you can't refuse an ER patient) we might begin to see that the present Republican party is little more than but hot air.

[Brian Peroceschi]

The republicans learned from smoot / hawley. Democrats have not connected on that logic yet and will repeat the same mistake.

[Gilbert Garza]

The quotes are from Mr. Friedman's article.

“Well, to compete and win in a globalized world, no one needs the burden of health insurance shifted from business to government more than American business.”

The burden will still be on markets and business (and all of us) since we (including government) will continue to depend on markets and business (and ourselves) to produce our wealth and supply our needs and wants. The so-called shift is an illusion floated by a delusion.

“No one needs immigration reform — so the world’s best brainpower can come here without restrictions — more than American business.”

I think business is aware (if Mr. Friedman is not) that there have to be some rules to appropriately allow (and restrict) immigration and that these should form rule sets that consider and balance service of/to particularly critical/urgent/special needs and to general/ordinary needs of country, region, and global business communities.

“No one needs a push for clean-tech — the world’s next great global manufacturing industry — more than American business. Yet the G.O.P. today resists national health care, immigration reform and wants to just drill, baby, drill.”

Mr. Friedman, for some time now, the debate is no longer so much what would/should/could be the desirable outcomes but instead the debate is on all of the specifics and issues of when, how, how much, and by whom. The resistance you are seeing is to many issues and specifics and it is unhelpful for you to incorrectly to term it a resistance to substance direction and desirable outcome.