Quantcast
Opinion

Michael Gerson: The GOP's new reality

Comments

Return To Article
  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 12:28 a.m.

    There once was a time that the Republican party was primarily composed of Burkean conservatives (see Dwight Eisenhower). That era is long gone. The GOP is now composed of the people that Burke feared the most: radical revolutionaries.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Nov. 6, 2013 7:39 a.m.

    I've said it before, I'll say it again...

    The Tea-party reminds me of a couple of scenes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

    1. The "Black Knight" who believes he is actually winning and is invincible while obviously to everyone else is getting whacked down to nothing.
    and
    2. The extremely ignorant (and paranoid) puritan Villagers, who upon finding one of their own (a young woman) has one tiny little wart - take it upon themselves to turn her into something she is not, and burn her at the stake anyway.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    Tea party lost in Virginia. Was the Senator Cruz-Lee shutdown the difference?

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    moderate republicans always win ie McCain, Romney. Nuff said?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    @Airnaut, the witch scene is exactly what I see in my head when I hear or sea the the tea party.

    Cruz: "Obama turned me into a newt."..."I got better."

    To use a conservative defense. The republican party allowed the camel (tea party) to get his his nose under their "Big Tent." Now there's no room for the GOP especially rinos.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    Don't sell it short. It was tactically AND symbolically disastrous. Oh, and how about that Christie?

  • T. Party Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    This is America. Re-alignment is the constant, but the age-old controversy between liberty and equality rages on.

    On one side we have people who value liberty more than any other principle. On the other side we have people who value equality of outcome. America has tried with varying success to blend these principles in a way which allows them to co-exist. When liberty prevails, we prosper (and, by the way, we achieve greater equality).

    America is beginning to see that the botched Obamacare blend is toxic to liberty. I anticipate a widespread rejection of it. Enough to discredit Big Government for all time? Probably not, but for many years, yes. Bad ideas have a way of crawling back out of the dumpster of history.

    One thing is for certain: as long as there is one person fighting for liberty, the tea party is alive. The budget showdown may have been symbolic, but it did show us who are the fighters, and who are the weasels.

    @airnut and one vote

    If this is Monte Python, you're the guys loading up the wagon with people who aren't dead yet.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    @ Happy

    To use a conservative defense. The republican party allowed the camel (tea party) to get his his nose under their "Big Tent." Now there's no room for the GOP especially rinos.

    And the Democrats have Socialists/Communists and certainly a President who appears to have a propensity for lying.No contest in my opinion!

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Nov. 6, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    mohokat
    Ogden, UT

    You know,
    You guys get soooo upset about the hiccups of the Obamacare website,

    And yet can't seem to remember the 2 Wars, 5,000 dead Americans, 75,000 wounded, and the $3 Trillion unfunded doallars spent over the LIES of GWBush and Cheney.

    That old mote vs. beam in the eye anaology applies here very well...

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 6, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    @mohokat – “moderate republicans always win ie McCain, Romney. Nuff said?”

    They do when they stay true to their moderate sensibilities. McCain and Romney destroyed any chance of winning when the made a hard right turn, which they both did throughout the early parts of their campaign but is best exemplified by McCain’s VP choice and Romney’s 47% comment.

    Most Americans, no matter which direction they lean, don’t like divisive or overly-ideological leaders.

    I personally can’t wait for Christie to run in 2016. Not sure I would vote for him but it will be a blast to watch him thumb his nose (in his typical Tony Soprano-like Jersey manner) at the far-right ideologues throughout the primary - unless he repeats the mistakes of McCain and Romney and panders shamelessly at Bob Jones “University” in a soul-selling but likely futile effort to gain the White House.

    We’ll see if he’s gone to school on those guys and stays true to himself.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 6, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    "...On the other side we have people who value equality of outcome."

    No... that is not what is being asked. It is equality of opportunity. While many of the barriers to prosperity have been removed, they are far from gone. No one is asking everyone get a B in class... nor are they saying every job should pay the same. But they are asking that all class rooms are taught with the same resources, and that you not be denied work because of race, color, religion or any other factor other than your skills or lack there of.

    Statements like above, that intentionally characterize the other side falsely cause the most harm. Rather than trying to speak for the other side, speak for yourself, and what you stand for. Let the other side speak for themselves... and then let people decide.

    I don't need you to tell me what progressives believe. I don't need progressives to tell me what tea party people believe. Someone at some point will need to start telling what they will do, rather than what the other side is doing wrong. Otherwise it will become really quite - which isn't bad either.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    "...The National Republican Senatorial Committee has cut ties with a Republican advertising firm employed by tea-party challengers. "We're not going to do business," says a spokesman, "with people who profit off of attacking Republicans. Purity for profit is a disease that threatens the Republican Party."

    People who profit off of attacking Republicans?

    Who in the name of heritage foundation favorites mike lee and t. cruz could that possibly be?

    "...Matt Kibbe, the president and CEO of FreedomWorks, describes it well: "You're really seeing a disintermediation in politics. ... Grass-roots activists have an ability to self-organize, to fund candidates they're more interested in, going right around the Republican National Committee and senatorial committee...".

    Disintermediation?

    Matt Kibbe took over for ex-president and CEO of Freedom Works Dick Armey who received an $8,000,000 golden parachute from Freedom Works...

    Freedom Works works(ed)...at least for Dick Armey!

    "...As the public standing of the GOP recently reached its lowest point ever, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told a cheering tea-party audience, "Look, the Democrats are feeling the heat." It is one thing to engage in Pickett's Charge; another to describe it as a victory...".

    Amen.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Nov. 6, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    mohokat
    Ogden, UT
    moderate republicans always win ie McCain, Romney. Nuff said?

    8:13 a.m. Nov. 6, 2013

    =========

    Let me guess,
    You think the Republicans keep loosing over and over again and getting pasted in the General Elections because McCain and Romney weren't "Conservative" [i.e., uber-far-right-wing Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity] enough?

    If so, you deserve to loose, each and everytime.

    BTW -- Saint Ronald Reagan was RINO of epic proportions.
    and guys like you would be the first to publically execute him.

  • T. Party Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil "No... that is not what is being asked. It is equality of opportunity."

    Equality of opportunity is to create laws which apply equally to everyone, and enforce them equally for everyone, and then let them decide for themselves how they will behave within that framework. If one group ends up with health insurance, and the other group ends up with big screen TV's, that's their choice. You let them live with the consequences.

    Equality of outcome is to do things like forcing one group of people to pay higher prices for insurance plans they don't necessarily want, in order to provide insurance for another group who doesn't have it.

    Which do you support?

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    @ Tyler

    If Christie runs in 2016 it will be interesting.

    Romney got over 2 million less votes than MaCain

    Romney got 5% more Independents than Obama

    That translates to lack of base turnout.

    Chritie if he is listening will thumb his nose at his own peril

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    What was it called again by other Republicans:

    Stop being the Party of Stupid - Gov. Bobby Jindal
    The GOP needs a GOP Proctology Exam - Gov. Haley Barbour

    The Democrats threw out former-Clinton, shady investment dealing, never held an elected office - loser in Virgina and WON!

    The GOP has no-one --- not even the Democrats -- for their abismal performance.

    IMHO -- The GOP should purge itself of the radical Tea-Party,
    and start re-building itself on a more Big-Tent inclusive, moderate platform, ala RINO Reagan.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 6, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    @T. Party – “If one group ends up with health insurance, and the other group ends up with big screen TV's, that's their choice.”

    Implying that the “haves” and “have nots” are actually all “haves” - the only real difference is what they “chose” to have (likely a small amount of truth to this).

    But if that was how it was in most of the real world (and not just in an Ayn Rand novel) I would be Tea Party conservative too.

    @mohokat – “That translates to lack of base turnout.”

    Or a shrinking base…

    I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that conservatives are dying off at a faster rate than liberals and moderates, and conversely (given their current tone) are not replacing those who pass on at a rate necessary to stay whole.

    But I agree, 2016 should be an interesting campaign…

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 6, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    T.Party.... you really think part time employees at Walmart or Target are deciding between insurance or a big screen TV. What comic book did that come from?

    If you want to make this about health care.... what I want is for everyone to pay so I don't have to pay a premium bill to cover the free services that are being handed out via the emergency room door to those who choose not to pay.

    With healthcare, the option is not to let someone die because they bought a big screen tv versus paying for insurance. That isn't how works, nor is it how it should work.

    Here is the net of what I am taking from your argument. Its about your money. Not money that you have been blessed with that is a stewardship... but it is money.... that you earned through your own skills and will.... and that you have no responsibility to impart with to help those less blessed.

    Its not my political beliefs that keep me from supporting that stance... it is my religious beliefs.

  • T. Party Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil "Here is the net of what I am taking from your argument. Its about your money....that you have no responsibility to impart with to help those less blessed."

    No, I believe exactly the opposite. I *do* have the responsibility to help those in need. It is a moral responsibility I take very seriously, motivated by my religious beliefs.

    What I don't believe in, is granting government the power to compel this from me and others. A government which has this power is a threat to life and liberty. As I said before: I value liberty over equality of outcome. And it is evident from your response that you value equality of outcome.

    "what I want is for everyone to pay so I don't have to pay a premium bill to cover the free services..."

    So, it's about money? (Sorry...couldn't resist. Can we agree that it's not helpful to impute motives?)

    Believe me, I do see where you're coming from on helping the poor. I also believe strongly in preserving agency and individual liberty and personal responsibility as we seek ways to help.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    T. Party:

    True equality of opportunity would mean that everyone starts at the same point. Would you agree?

    I would assert these conditions simply don't exist.

    Some kids have considerable advantages, and a lot of kids don't have anything remotely close to that. If you really believed what you were saying, you'd advocate that millionaires and billionaires give away all their money when they die, with no money or resources going to their progeny as an advantage to continue the family legacy of wealth.

    Those on the far right like to pretend there is true equality in opportunity so they can feel better about what they advocate for, but that is really just a fantasy, an unrealistic premise to justify an ideology that results in great inequalities.

    "The poor have chosen their lot in lives. Homeless people really just prefer that lifestyle. Children of immigrants have just as good a chance of becoming Billionaries as anyone else, including the children of Bill Gates."

    Well, not quite.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Nov. 6, 2013 5:47 p.m.

    @T. Party
    Pleasant Grove, UT

    What I don't believe in, is granting government the power to compel this from me and others.

    =====

    Too Funny,
    coming from someone on Social Security and Medicare.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 9:58 p.m.

    utahbluedevil: since you don't want to question motives, then it does come down to something very simple. you want to use the power of the government to compel citizens to be charitable. I believe that my charity is an individual free choice! does that mean that I don't believe in charity? Absolutely not and to question it is patronizing and disengenuus and worthy of my contempt for anyone that does. so, if you want to have an honest discussion and dialogue, you must have respect for my position or there will be no reason to discuss it with you or anyone else! I prefer liberty over enslavement, choice over compulsion, equality of opportunity over equality of outcome. freedom as the pilgrims and founders envisioned it.

  • T. Party Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 11:26 p.m.

    @10CC "True equality of opportunity would mean that everyone starts at the same point. Would you agree?"

    Yes.

    "I would assert these conditions simply don't exist."

    And I agree with that.

    What we don't agree on is what should be done about it. I don't think we should grant the government power to take a man's property when it decides he has too much and someone else has too little. This road leads to tyranny.

    I value liberty over equality. If I understand your argument correctly, you value equality over liberty. That's what this whole argument is about, and has been since our founding. To me, it's the difference between what motivated the American Revolution (liberty) and what motived the French Revolution (equality). Observing how the two revolutions ended up, I'd say America got it right.

    Whether y'all mean to or not, you keep validating my earlier point.

    @airnaut

    I do allow the government to take taxes for Social Security and Medicare as the law requires. I don't expect to ever see a dime of it, as flimsy a footing as these programs are on.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    All the liberal progressives,Democrats, and socialists take on the Republican party as if people like myself have been supporting them. The Republicans and Democrats are all in one party together. It is a big party, all-inclusive, and ready to take on any independent thinkers out there and label them as extremist domestic terrorists. No one here has been able to tell me if there is any difference between the two parties! They both want an all powerful government that controls everything from the purse strings to moral choices! Pick your favorite Democratic(Social programs) or Republican (war and corporate welfare)ideals and you will find that in the end they all get what they want--Bigger government that wants more and gives less! And yet, ironies of ironies, both party zealots want to point the finger at the other party as the one that is destroying America. What a joke! Mirror, mirror on the wall who's the fairest of them all! Just keep looking in the mirror Democrats and Republicans and I'm sure you'll find your true identity either way--the reflection is the same! Two sides of the same coin!

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    Many of the posters on here calling republicans extremists remind me of Stalin calling Eisenhower a radical.

    From some seats n the ballpark, everything appears to be in right field.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    @T. Party
    Pleasant Grove, UT

    @airnaut

    I do allow the government to take taxes for Social Security and Medicare as the law requires. I don't expect to ever see a dime of it, as flimsy a footing as these programs are on.

    ======

    but,
    isn't that the whole premise that ALL insurance programs are based on?
    You buy it, and then hope and pray you never need to use it?

    You don't but fire insurance anticipating a fire,
    You don't buy collision insurance anticipating a collision,
    You don't buy Home Insurance anticipating loosing your home.
    You don't buy Accidental Death or Dismemberment HOPING you die or loose an arm or leg.

    You buy insurance for peace of mind - "Insurance" - that if anything catosptrophic DID happen,
    you can have it replaced or be compensated for your losses.

    Health Insurance is no different,
    nobody buys it HOPING the get sick, get cancer, or have a heart attack,
    but IF you do, won't loose your house, your car, your savings, your retirement, your life's savings if you do.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    @T. Party – “I don't think we should grant the government power to take a man's property when it decides he has too much and someone else has too little. This road leads to tyranny.

    And

    “I do allow the government to take taxes for Social Security and Medicare as the law requires.”

    Quite a bit of cognitive dissonance going on here…

    What if we lived in a democracy and The People decided that it was OK to tax them (us) to help others at the bottom end of the food chain. Is that still tyranny?

    I understand your points about liberty and believe me I get just as upset when I see people “working the system” or otherwise making one bad choice after another, and whatever can be done to get those people off the dole should be.

    I just don’t feel like I’m the victim of tyranny because I agree to have my wages taxed in order to help insure that we don’t have millions of Americans spending their twilight years living under a bridge.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    T. Party
    Pleasant Grove, UT

    We don't get to pick and choose what we decide to pay taxes on.

    I for one don't want to pay one red cent to ANY of the GW Bush Wars or Corporate handouts!

    I hate having to pony up my hard earned money for WallStreet executives, the Industrial Military Complex, Pharmacuteical Industries, Oil Corporations and Farming subsides, and doing so at a much higher income rate than Millionaires and Billionaires.

    However, I don't mind at all paying for such things as: Research and Developmet, Education, Welfare, Humanitarian aid, Infrastructure, Public Utilities, Fire and Police protection.

    I imagine we are probably polar opposites on these items,
    but that's America and the differences between our 2 party system.

    I for one do not see how freedom and liberty can be wholly Republican or Democrat controlled,
    because we are arguing over MONEY, and not Speech, Religion, Press, movement, privacy, gun ownership, ect.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 8:57 p.m.

    The shutdown cost 6 Billion dollars.

  • Coyote Solo Denver, CO
    Nov. 10, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    How many people would be enraged if they were hit by an uninsured motorist? Is it "tyranny" to be forced to buy auto insurance? And is the excuse that "we can choose to drive" really a realistic response?