View Single Post
Old 2012-09-25, 22:12   Link #758
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
The "small r" Republicans seems supported by the Republican 2012 platform though. That's the weird part. The Platform sound (almost) nothing like one would hear here about the Republican Party.
The difference is in the focus. The vast majority of the 1980 platform is spent denouncing Carter's economic policies and foreign policy failures, advocate controlled government, reduction of (then) high tax levels, and so on. Social policies were barely touched upon except empty nods towards "family." Even abortion received an "it's a difficult issue" address. The current platform amounts to a comprehensive defense of social conservatism as a central issue with extensive points ranging from abortion to defense of marriage and so on. There is no question: God is with the GOP this round and He shall not cede ground to the liberals.

In terms of economic policies, the shift had not been too dramatic in platform, notably because 1980 was the beginning of the "Reaganomics" idea that the Republican Party has been using since (Laffer curve and all that). However, you are probably much more aware of this than I am (having lived through it), but despite everything "Reaganomics" and the promise of small government was regularly compromised by pragmatic concerns and the Reagan Administration's aggressive military expansion. The current Republican Party in Congress has instead launched what amounted to a total war on any Democratic economic measure, which has already cost the nation its credit rating. As recently as last week a "veterans' job bill" failed to pass the Senate at 58 for - 40 against, because of Republican obstruction.

Of course, this is not the first time such a thing happened. There's the "shutdown" around 1994 led by Newt Gingrich, for example.

More importantly, note the dramatic difference in the perception of social programs. While the 1980 platform called for a reining in, it did not dispute the then-predominant view that welfare was fundamentally good and even necessary, whereas the new platform uses the term "entitlements" repeatedly as an attack.

Foreign policy is probably where the United States' establishment parties are most similar, in that they all consider the defense of US interests supreme. There is a great continuity among the various administrations over the decades since the Second World War, despite the sometimes heated rhetoric of differences. There are differences, but they are subtler and in wedge issues (Israel, the Middle East, China) and in, well, personality. Platforms are mostly useless when Presidents regularly have to react to events that originate outside the US borders, as is happening now in the Middle East. In this respect, the potential election of Mitt Romney promises at least a short term cooling of many relationships with the exception of Israel, partly because of his own gaffes, partly through no fault of his own in that the world at large absolutely, totally, utterly, hated our previous President and the party behind him, and unlike the American people they still kinda remember that. I myself remember 2008 quite well, when things basically went, "welcome back to the world community, America," with a surprising amount of celebrations worldwide for Obama's victory and a sharp decline in anti-American sentiments in places like Europe. They even gave President Obama that Nobel Peace Prize as a thank you for not being Bush.

It turned out he's still an American President, of course, and places US interest over any other, more idealistic universalist goals, but at least he is, you know, not Bush.
Irenicus is offline