Why Is the Republican Field So Extreme? (Read 2137 times)

I got kicked out of a political science class when the instructor asked us to write a three page essay for a mid term test describing the differences between being a republican or democrat.

I raised my hand and asked why three pages if I could say it in three sentences. "Democrats believe it the responsiblity of government to solve all of our problems. Republicans think its the responsibility of government to control all of our problems. Either way, nobody makes any money unless you've got a problem, so don't think they'll ever solve any of them."

The saying that we have a left and right wing governement is actually an old indian proverb which, "every problem needs two wings to fly".

My arguement was that we needed the Berlin Wall just as much as the Russians did. Their culture was based on its existance, as well is ours. Without that wall, we have nothing to contain our culture. Added to that, the information age has destroyed any sense of cultural identity founded by our Cold War created society.

And because we have no wall to prop up our society's failures, they're coming apart at the seams...

With change so swift and prominent, vast numbers of our population cannot cope and simply don't have the skills to cope with the speed change is hitting us. So rather than change, its become their demand that the world around them adapt to their views regardless to party affiliation.

Both parties created our problems, and therefore no one party will ever solve our problems simply because it would require change which neither of each party is willing to make. So each is attempting to force the failure of the other party to "prove" why we should behave as the opposite demands.

Its the perpetual Catch-22 of how even centerists of each party cannot solve our problems, and therefore the extremes of each party are becoming more vocal to keep the entire population from knowing that our society is a complete failure regardless to who thinks they're leading...

A perspective.

It's interesting that the discussion regards "republican" extremism from the people looking to win a primary but then we have things like this from a sitting congressional leader (and he's from my home state too). 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62396.html

It's not just one side folks. There are extremists on both sides and we give them too much oxygen in the debate. That's what is frustrating when reading threads like this. 

Carry on

It's interesting that the discussion regards "republican" extremism from the people looking to win a primary but then we have things like this from a sitting congressional leader (and he's from my home state too). 

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62396.html

 

It's not just one side folks. There are extremists on both sides and we give them too much oxygen in the debate. That's what is frustrating when reading threads like this. 

 

Carry on

True, but of course this guy is not a leading presidential candidate, which is what this thread focuses on. He said these things for his own small constituency, not because he thinks it will help him win a national presidential race. 

All that said, the comment is definitely over the top. But until you see Democratic party leaders and/or Barack Obama making similarly outrageous and inflammatory statement, it is hard to justify your frustration that this thread is not balanced.

it is hard to justify your frustration that this thread is not balanced.

I think it quite ironic that you start this thread calling out the "other side" as extreme, as if it is simply a truth, but when someone who shares a different viewpoint than you notes that they view those closer to you as extreme, it is "hard to justify" that it's not balanced. 

Way to simply dismiss others' perspective.

I think it quite ironic that you start this thread calling out the "other side" as extreme, as if it is simply a truth, but when someone who shares a different viewpoint than you notes that they view those closer to you as extreme, it is "hard to justify" that it's not balanced. 

 

Way to simply dismiss others' perspective.

He didn't start the thread calling the other side extreme, he started it calling a specific set of candidates for the Republican presidential primary extreme.  Most neutral political observers agree that they are.  Obviously with Jeff's background on this board and yours as well it would be impossible for Jeff to start a thread on that subject and not have be seen as taking shots at the "other side" and to have you dig in and defend "your side" but if you read his first post from a clean slate perspective, it's a fair comment.

And Jeff didn't dismiss the other comment, he acknowledged it as extreme but said that it wasn't from a serious presidential candidate.  

Of course if there were a Democratic primary going on as well there would be a bunch of bona fide whack jobs in that field as well.  Maybe even more.

The problem for the Republicans is that there aren't really any non-whack jobs in their primary field right now.  Well, except Romney but he's a stiff (a stiff for whom I once voted to govern my state, but hey, still a stiff).  And maybe Perry, but he's showing some signs he could spiral into whack job territory but quick if you push him just a little and he's never yet had to endure the scrutiny of a national election.

Doesn't sound like he was saying it to his Indianapolis constituents...

It was a Congressional Black Caucus event in Miami.

 

 

Rep. Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana who serves as the CBC’s chief vote counter, said at a CBC event in Miami that some in Congress would “love to see us as second-class citizens” and “some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62396.html#ixzz1Who7J9De

The Congressional Black Caucus has 41 members.  That is indeed a very small constituency.