Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If more Republicans were like Lincoln Chafee then I might vote Republican.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If more Republicans were like Lincoln Chafee then I might vote Republican.

    I recently bought the book "Against the Tide" by former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in American politics. Chafee was known as a moderate Republican but he was really one of those old fashioned Republicans (some people call them paleo-Republicans) who believed in a strict separation between religion and state, hated the idea of deficit spending, and thought the powers of the Federal government should be kept in a well defined box. In short he believes government should be limited and responsible.

    I'm actually kind of sad that Senator Chafee lost his seat in the 2006 Democratic landslide because having more Paleo-Republicans in the Republican party might help counter balance the religious right and bring the party back to its historic roots.

    Some interesting facts about Senator Chafee's political career:

    - He voted against Bush's tax cuts in 2001 because he thought $1.6 trillion in tax cuts would cause the deficit to explode and because there were no corresponding cuts to go with it. Boy did he get that right.

    - He was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against invading Iraq because he thought it would be a quagmire and a huge wast of money which wouldn't make America any safer. He took a huge amount of negative press for this vote but I think history has proved him right.

    - He voted for gay marriage because he thought the government shouldn't tell people how to live their life. This sort of libertarian point of view used to be common in the Republican party and it is interesting how rightists and leftists can come to the same conclusion but for totally different reasons.

    - Became anti death penalty for personal religious reasons and thought it was better not to execute the guilty then risk executing an innocent man. Tried to get mandatory prerequisite of DNA analysis for all federal executions after it turned out several people on death row were found innocent after DNA testing was done. Unfortunately this bill got voted down by people who claimed it was a wast of money.

    - Was part of "the gang of 14" which was made up of 7 Democratic and 7 Republican Senators who opposed the excess partisanism in Washington. These 14 Senators blocked attempts to change the Senate rules for partisan gain (the so called nuclear option). He thought the institution of the Senate shouldn't be undermined by either party just to seek short term political advantage.

    He really does sound like an interesting fellow so it's kind of sad to read about how the religious right tried to marginalize him in the party for not towing the official line.
    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

  • #2
    Damn typo in the title.
    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

    Comment


    • #3
      So if more Republicans were like Democrats you'd vote for them?

      Why not just vote for Democrats?
      Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
      "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
      2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
        So if more Republicans were like Democrats you'd vote for them?
        Wrong, he would voted for them.
        Last edited by Darius871; April 20, 2008, 19:38.
        Unbelievable!

        Comment


        • #5
          From what I understand, his opinions make him closer to the Democrats than the Republicans (the fact that the reasons for his opinions might be different isn't that relevant).

          As you mentioned yourself, partisanship runs very high hence it's really no surprise that Republicans wouldn't want him in their party.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
            So if more Republicans were like Democrats you'd vote for them?

            Why not just vote for Democrats?
            Not really Democrats but what Republicans used to be before they were hijacked by the religious right. Basically small government types who wanted to keep the government out of people's business and who were deficit hawks guarding against wasts of public money.

            Originally posted by Lul Thyme
            From what I understand, his opinions make him closer to the Democrats than the Republicans (the fact that the reasons for his opinions might be different isn't that relevant).
            You don't think the reasons behind a decision matter?
            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

            Comment


            • #7
              Chaffee is not entirely a traditional Republican, but the old guard would have probably been against the massive tax cuts and invasion of Iraq.

              Though strongly anti-gay marriage and pro-death penalty.

              Of course if we didn't have a first past the post system, which locks in 2 parties, we would have ended up with a New England Republican party long ago.
              “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
              - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

              Comment


              • #8
                Not really Democrats but what Republicans used to be before they were hijacked by the religious right. Basically small government types who wanted to keep the government out of people's business and who were deficit hawks guarding against wasts of public money.
                So that's why you voted for people who believe in big government, getting their noses in people's business, and expanding the size of the government?

                I don't see why any of these would lead you to support a Democrat over a Republican.
                Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
                  Chaffee is not entirely a traditional Republican, but the old guard would have probably been against the massive tax cuts and invasion of Iraq.

                  Though strongly anti-gay marriage and pro-death penalty.

                  Of course if we didn't have a first past the post system, which locks in 2 parties, we would have ended up with a New England Republican party long ago.
                  I honestly am not to familiar with the first past the post system. Can you please elaborate?
                  Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It's what we have.

                    Basically its pick among these candidates and the one in first gets the seat. Unlike parliamentary systems, where seats are given based on each party's percentage of vote.
                    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Oerdin
                      You don't think the reasons behind a decision matter?
                      To me, more or less.
                      To most people, not at all.

                      Let me explain.

                      Hypothetically, if there was a candidate who was guaranteed to always agree with you on all policies for possibly different reasons, why not vote for him? It's the perfect candidate.

                      Of course, in practice, you have no way of knowing that someone will agree with you in the future. If you have agreed with someone in the past but the reasons were different, that increases the chances that you will disagree in the future (compared to someone who agrees with the reasons also).
                      On the other hand, given the very limited choice usually available in elections, I would say someone with whom you have agreed in the past most of the time will usually end up being your best bet.



                      As for the general population, very few actually know the reasoning behind candidate's position (if they even know their position). Hence, from a political perspective, this guy is essentially a Democrat.

                      The fact that, according to you, he would have been labeled a Republican x years ago is also a red herring. Party ideologies are constantly redefined. If he goes against pretty much everything the rest of the Republicans are for, then he is not a Republican in the current sense of the term.
                      Last edited by Lul Thyme; April 20, 2008, 20:27.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Oerdin


                        I honestly am not to familiar with the first past the post system. Can you please elaborate?
                        FPtP: Individual candidates run, highest % wins (or first over 50%)
                        Basic Proportional Representation: Everyone votes for a party, if votes are 40%/30%/20%/10% then 100 seats, 40:30:20:10, either off of a list or based on party choice
                        Scandinavian system (I forget what its real name is): Like Prop.Rep, but more complicated: You vote for parties, and each seat is individually given out based on the percentages, in order, with percent calculated as (Total vote %) / (# of seats + 1), so your % goes down with each seat you win. 40:30:20:10 would go:
                        1st seat: 40:30:20:10 A:B:C: D, so A
                        2nd seat: now (40/2):30:20:10, so B
                        3rd seat: now (40/2): (30/2):20:10, so C (in a tie)
                        4th seat: now (40/2): (30/2): (20/2):10, so A
                        5th seat: now (40/3): (30/2): (20/2):10, so B
                        etc. I believe Finland uses this or a variant of it, iirc.

                        Both systems have advantages, and are appropriate in different situations. Obviously 'one-winner' elections must use FPtP (as you don't have a % possibility), so President must be, at some level, FPtP (though not necessarily as it currently is), if President is directly elected. Senate/House could be P.R., but they would not then be tied to the states and/or to districts, which is a tradeoff (as discussed elsewhere); in a smaller country P.R. makes significantly more sense (where you wouldn't really have districts), but in a large country with proportionally fewer reps per capita,
                        it does not necessarily make as much sense.

                        Ultimately, FPtP does not favor large population areas (urban centers. or urban states even) compared to rural/less urban areas, while P.R. favors urban centers. PR also favors the true majority, while FPtP (as it is currently anyway) does not reflect the will of the majority but instead gives more say to small areas that traditionally would get little representation otherwise.

                        It's an interesting debate, but one hard to have on Apolyton as we of course are primarily urban and/or liberal, both of which strongly favor P.R. (or European which won't understand our system anyway... )
                        <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                        I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


                          So that's why you voted for people who believe in big government, getting their noses in people's business, and expanding the size of the government?

                          I don't see why any of these would lead you to support a Democrat over a Republican.
                          I think the point is neither party, in their current large-scale organization, favors small government etc., so Oerdin chooses democrats who more favor intervening in ways he would prefer
                          <Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
                          I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


                            So that's why you voted for people who believe in big government, getting their noses in people's business, and expanding the size of the government?

                            I don't see why any of these would lead you to support a Democrat over a Republican.
                            I didn't say I was a small government guy; what I'm saying is if that was the Republican message and they worked the way they did from say 1918-1975 then I'd definitely be more inclined to vote for them. Right now the lock the religious right has on the party really puts them off for me as an atheist. Right now the Republicans say they're for small government but deliver big government without any of the beneficial social programs (increased education, universal health care, etc) which is dishonest.

                            With the Democrats even if I don't like all of their policies I have to at least admit they do exactly what they say they'll do (namely, increase spending on social programs). You can't say they tricked you.
                            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Oerdin chooses democrats who more favor intervening in ways he would prefer
                              You know, I think you are right.

                              So I guess that means that Oerdin is in favour of high tariffs and immigration controls a-la the republican party of 1918.
                              Scouse Git (2) La Fayette Adam Smith Solomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
                              "Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
                              2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X