A non-paywalled location with this op-ed from the New York Times is here:

https://dnyuz.com/2023/08/02/what-if-were-the-bad-guys-here/

This is definitely a message that needs to be heard. America is not a land
of opportunity for many of the ordinary people in the working class, which
is why a slogan like "Make America Great Again" has great appeal.

If only the lucky few can avoid unsafe neighborhoods and unsafe
schools - then it should not surprise anyone that the rest of the people
will seek any solution they can find - including questioning the
enthusiasm of the elites, who send their own children to private schools,
for racial equality.

The problem isn't that Trump has any overlooked good points, but
rather that his opponents have been blithely defending their own
economic self-interest so effectively... that they have made
poisonous movements like Trumpism inevitable.

Well, sort of. One could imagine a wholesome, positive, and democratic
response to the grievances of the working American presenting itself,
rather than those grievances being cynically exploited by estremist
billionaires whose goal seems to be to institute fascism in the United
States. And if COVID-19 kills off a big chunk of the working class...
along with black America, well, to them that's just gravy.

The sins of the Democrats are indeed a part of the problem. But
there's more to it than that. One factor is what I mentioned - rich
people backing the Republican slide into insanity. But there's *another*
factor too, also not mentioned in the op-ed.

Sure, selfishness can cause people to ignore a lot of the consequences
of their actions. But it's hard for me to believe that there weren't any
working-class voices in the Democratic Party, that nobody saw what
was happening - ever since the late 'sixties.

The simplest and most obvious explanation would be Russian
spies insidiously keeping the Democratic Party aligned to the
concerns of the academic Left and out of touch with labor. But I'm
open to other explanations.

John Savard

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:26:33 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> The simplest and most obvious explanation would be Russian
> spies insidiously keeping the Democratic Party aligned to the
> concerns of the academic Left and out of touch with labor. But I'm
> open to other explanations.

Why is it that the only Democrats who seem to even mention
the issues facing the working class... are ones like Bernie
Sanders and Alexandria Occasio-Cortez... who advocate the
wrong answer of going to genuine full-blown socialism. (As
opposed to the "socialism" that things like Obamacare
belong to.)

Bernie Sanders has even praised Venezuela and Cuba - when
they're dictatorships, the same kind of nightmare that there
is reason to fear that Trump might bring to the United States,
just with different slogans and window-dressing.

John Savard

On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:26:30 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:

> A non-paywalled location with this op-ed from the New York Times is
> here:
>
> https://dnyuz.com/2023/08/02/what-if-were-the-bad-guys-here/
>
> This is definitely a message that needs to be heard. America is not a

And definitely did not appear in the New York Times.

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 07:49:52 +0000, Charles Packer wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 23:26:30 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> A non-paywalled location with this op-ed from the New York Times is
>> here:
>>
>> https://dnyuz.com/2023/08/02/what-if-were-the-bad-guys-here/
>>
>> This is definitely a message that needs to be heard. America is not a
>
> And definitely did not appear in the New York Times.

Holy cow! It is from the NY Times. It's David Brooks, trying one of his
different voices.

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 23:47:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 12:26:33?AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> The simplest and most obvious explanation would be Russian
>> spies insidiously keeping the Democratic Party aligned to the
>> concerns of the academic Left and out of touch with labor. But I'm
>> open to other explanations.
>
>Why is it that the only Democrats who seem to even mention
>the issues facing the working class... are ones like Bernie
>Sanders and Alexandria Occasio-Cortez... who advocate the
>wrong answer of going to genuine full-blown socialism. (As
>opposed to the "socialism" that things like Obamacare
>belong to.)
>
>Bernie Sanders has even praised Venezuela and Cuba - when
>they're dictatorships, the same kind of nightmare that there
>is reason to fear that Trump might bring to the United States,
>just with different slogans and window-dressing.

Ah, but it's slogans and window-dressing he likes.

If Bernie and Friends suddenly vanished, the Democratic Party would
still exist and, all in all, be much the same as today. A wee bit
saner, to be sure.

If Trump, his Base, and the Tea Party idiots suddenly disappeared, the
Republican Party would cease to exist.

That's the difference -- degree of decay.

We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
right, both non-ideological.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

In article <g98qci12qimihg87sqenvrcmcaiih29mdu@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
>right, both non-ideological.

There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 1:24:51 PM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <g98qci12qimihg87s...@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
> >right, both non-ideological.
> There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.

Both then, in which every single member regards the health of
the country as more important than the health of the party.

(pause for laughter)

Well, the majority of members, anyway.

William Hyde

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 4:26:33 PM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
> A non-paywalled location with this op-ed from the New York Times is here:
>
> https://dnyuz.com/2023/08/02/what-if-were-the-bad-guys-here/

"Are we the baddies"?

https://youtu.be/ToKcmnrE5oY

-Moriarty

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:24:47 -0000 (UTC), jdnicoll@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <g98qci12qimihg87sqenvrcmcaiih29mdu@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
>>right, both non-ideological.
>
>There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.

Both of us may be right.

By "non-ideological" I mean "political", that is, willing to work with
the other party (this being the USA, there are only two worth
considering) to produce compromise solutions.

By "ideological" I mean "not political", that is, so insistent on
getting their own way that they (usually figuratively but sometimes
literally) hold their breaths till their faces turn blue rather than
accept any compromise.

You, OTOH, may be correctly pointing out that any party has to have
core beliefs, which can be called an ideology.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:52:51 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:24:47 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
> >In article <g98qci12qimihg87s...@4ax.com>,
> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
> >>right, both non-ideological.
> >
> >There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.
> Both of us may be right.
>
> By "non-ideological" I mean "political", that is, willing to work with
> the other party (this being the USA, there are only two worth
> considering) to produce compromise solutions.
>
> By "ideological" I mean "not political", that is, so insistent on
> getting their own way that they (usually figuratively but sometimes
> literally) hold their breaths till their faces turn blue rather than
> accept any compromise.
>
> You, OTOH, may be correctly pointing out that any party has to have
> core beliefs, which can be called an ideology.

I have firm beliefs, you have an ideology, he is a fanatic.

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 4:52:51 PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:24:47 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
> >In article <g98qci12qimihg87s...@4ax.com>,
> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
> >>right, both non-ideological.
> >
> >There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.
> Both of us may be right.
>
> By "non-ideological" I mean "political", that is, willing to work with
> the other party (this being the USA, there are only two worth
> considering) to produce compromise solutions.
>
> By "ideological" I mean "not political", that is, so insistent on
> getting their own way that they (usually figuratively but sometimes
> literally) hold their breaths till their faces turn blue rather than
> accept any compromise.
>
> You, OTOH, may be correctly pointing out that any party has to have
> core beliefs, which can be called an ideology.
> --
> "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
> Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
> Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
The Tory party has at times been criticised for not having an ideology, or of caring about little else but the pursuit of power. An ideology might also be less important in a society polarised in non-ideological grounds, such as an ethnic/religious split where both sides have religious convictions that sideline left-wing "religion is the opium of the people" views. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK), here is Churchill in an internal debate:

A party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable confederation; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad; the trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a party machine; sentiment by the bucketful; patriotism by the imperial pint; the open hand at the public exchequer, the open door at the public-house; dear food for the million, cheap labour for the millionaire.

(As for the original article, I wonder if the concept of "elite overproduction" applies. although I am not necessarily convinced by everbody that uses the phrase.)

On 2023-08-05, John Halpenny <j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:52:51 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:24:47 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <g98qci12qimihg87s...@4ax.com>,
>> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
>> >>right, both non-ideological.
>> >
>> >There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.
>> Both of us may be right.
>>
>> By "non-ideological" I mean "political", that is, willing to work with
>> the other party (this being the USA, there are only two worth
>> considering) to produce compromise solutions.
>>
>> By "ideological" I mean "not political", that is, so insistent on
>> getting their own way that they (usually figuratively but sometimes
>> literally) hold their breaths till their faces turn blue rather than
>> accept any compromise.
>>
>> You, OTOH, may be correctly pointing out that any party has to have
>> core beliefs, which can be called an ideology.
>
>
> I have firm beliefs, you have an ideology, he is a fanatic.

The distinction I make is between moderates and extremists, where
I define an extremist as someone who allows ideology to overwhelm
logical thought.

I'm concerned we're losing the ability to have rational public arguments.
The extremists take over. Any moderate of either side is painted an
extremist by the extremists of the other side and the content of the
arguments are forced to be the content of the two extremist sides (neither
of which can be fully logically supported.)

We have serious issues like climate change that need addressing and
compromising, but it's increasingly difficult to talk about them!

Chris

On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 21:39:53 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
<mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 4:52:51?PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:24:47 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <g98qci12qimihg87s...@4ax.com>,
>> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
>> >>right, both non-ideological.
>> >
>> >There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.
>> Both of us may be right.
>>
>> By "non-ideological" I mean "political", that is, willing to work with
>> the other party (this being the USA, there are only two worth
>> considering) to produce compromise solutions.
>>
>> By "ideological" I mean "not political", that is, so insistent on
>> getting their own way that they (usually figuratively but sometimes
>> literally) hold their breaths till their faces turn blue rather than
>> accept any compromise.
>>
>> You, OTOH, may be correctly pointing out that any party has to have
>> core beliefs, which can be called an ideology.
>> --
>> "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
>> Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
>> Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
>The Tory party has at times been criticised for not having an ideology, or of caring about little else but the pursuit of power. An ideology might also be less important in a society polarised in non-ideological grounds, such as an ethnic/religious split where both sides have religious convictions that sideline left-wing "religion is the opium of the people" views. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK), here is Churchill in an internal debate:
>
>A party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable confederation; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad; the trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a party machine; sentiment by the bucketful; patriotism by the imperial pint; the open hand at the public exchequer, the open door at the public-house; dear food for the million, cheap labour for the millionaire.
>
>(As for the original article, I wonder if the concept of "elite overproduction" applies. although I am not necessarily convinced by everbody that uses the phrase.)

"[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" is a good
description of how I saw the Republican Party as recently as, say, 10
years ago (this focus on power beginning to replace a more cooperative
attitude perhaps a further 10-15 years back), but they generally
didn't /do/ anything; it was as if they wanted to be in power solely
to prevent the Democrats from doing anything.

They have definintely ... progressed ... since then. Now they have a
/program/ and, boy, does it suck!
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 11:29:08 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 21:39:53 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
> <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 4:52:51?PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:24:47 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> >> Nicoll) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <g98qci12qimihg87s...@4ax.com>,
> >> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
> >> >>right, both non-ideological.
> >> >
> >> >There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.
> >> Both of us may be right.
> >>
> >> By "non-ideological" I mean "political", that is, willing to work with
> >> the other party (this being the USA, there are only two worth
> >> considering) to produce compromise solutions.
> >>
> >> By "ideological" I mean "not political", that is, so insistent on
> >> getting their own way that they (usually figuratively but sometimes
> >> literally) hold their breaths till their faces turn blue rather than
> >> accept any compromise.
> >>
> >> You, OTOH, may be correctly pointing out that any party has to have
> >> core beliefs, which can be called an ideology.
> >> --
> >> "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
> >> Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
> >> Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
> >The Tory party has at times been criticised for not having an ideology, or of caring about little else but the pursuit of power. An ideology might also be less important in a society polarised in non-ideological grounds, such as an ethnic/religious split where both sides have religious convictions that sideline left-wing "religion is the opium of the people" views. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK), here is Churchill in an internal debate:
> >
> >A party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable confederation; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad; the trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a party machine; sentiment by the bucketful; patriotism by the imperial pint; the open hand at the public exchequer, the open door at the public-house; dear food for the million, cheap labour for the millionaire.
> >
> >(As for the original article, I wonder if the concept of "elite overproduction" applies. although I am not necessarily convinced by everbody that uses the phrase.)
> "[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" is a good
> description of how I saw the Republican Party as recently as, say, 10
> years ago (this focus on power beginning to replace a more cooperative
> attitude perhaps a further 10-15 years back), but they generally
> didn't /do/ anything; it was as if they wanted to be in power solely
> to prevent the Democrats from doing anything.
>
> They have definintely ... progressed ... since then. Now they have a
> /program/ and, boy, does it suck!

"[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" means focusing on what the voters want, instead of what you want. Is that supposed to be a good thing?

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:29:41 PM UTC-4, John Halpenny wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 11:29:08 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 21:39:53 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
> > <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
> > >On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 4:52:51?PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:24:47 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> > >> Nicoll) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >In article <g98qci12qimihg87s...@4ax.com>,
> > >> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
> > >> >>right, both non-ideological.
> > >> >
> > >> >There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.
> > >> Both of us may be right.
> > >>
> > >> By "non-ideological" I mean "political", that is, willing to work with
> > >> the other party (this being the USA, there are only two worth
> > >> considering) to produce compromise solutions.
> > >>
> > >> By "ideological" I mean "not political", that is, so insistent on
> > >> getting their own way that they (usually figuratively but sometimes
> > >> literally) hold their breaths till their faces turn blue rather than
> > >> accept any compromise.
> > >>
> > >> You, OTOH, may be correctly pointing out that any party has to have
> > >> core beliefs, which can be called an ideology.
> > >> --
> > >> "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
> > >> Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
> > >> Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
> > >The Tory party has at times been criticised for not having an ideology, or of caring about little else but the pursuit of power. An ideology might also be less important in a society polarised in non-ideological grounds, such as an ethnic/religious split where both sides have religious convictions that sideline left-wing "religion is the opium of the people" views. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK), here is Churchill in an internal debate:
> > >
> > >A party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable confederation; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad; the trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a party machine; sentiment by the bucketful; patriotism by the imperial pint; the open hand at the public exchequer, the open door at the public-house; dear food for the million, cheap labour for the millionaire.
> > >
> > >(As for the original article, I wonder if the concept of "elite overproduction" applies. although I am not necessarily convinced by everbody that uses the phrase.)
> > "[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" is a good
> > description of how I saw the Republican Party as recently as, say, 10
> > years ago (this focus on power beginning to replace a more cooperative
> > attitude perhaps a further 10-15 years back), but they generally
> > didn't /do/ anything; it was as if they wanted to be in power solely
> > to prevent the Democrats from doing anything.
> >
> > They have definintely ... progressed ... since then. Now they have a
> > /program/ and, boy, does it suck!
> "[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" means focusing on what the voters want, instead of what you want. Is that supposed to be a good thing?

Phocion was elected Strategos in Athens forty five times. He never campaigned for it, and often wasn't to be found when elected. In the assembly he
frequently spoke against the majority, often in very strong terms. He never declined the office, however.

When the assembly wanted to go to war with Macedon, Phocion spoke against it. A politician asked him if he was opposing
the will of the people, to which he said "yes". He went on to say that he held this position even though he knew that
if there was war, he would be the politician's master, and otherwise the politician would be the master.

On one occasion when the assembly applauded loudly at one of his speeches he asked his friends sotto voice "Have I said something vile?".

In his eighties he was required to commit suicide for "treason". As Marx said, history repeats as farce, they ran out of
hemlock and had to look for substitutes.

He saved many Athenian lives, both in the battles he fought and won, and in those he prevented.

There must be people like him in the world today, presumably we've consigned them to asylums.

William Hyde

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 9:29:08 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> They have definintely ... progressed ... since then. Now they have a
> /program/ and, boy, does it suck!

Before Trump came along, it was generally claimed that the Republican
Party was divided into two parts.

One part was the social conservatives. Their goal was to make America
the way it used to be, rolling back the social change and progress of
recent years.

The other part was the classical liberals. Their goal was to make America
better for Big Business, with free trade high on the agenda.

The platform of the first group had _some_ popular appeal, but the
appeal of the platform of the second group was narrow. Lots more voters
were focused on jobs, which free trade tends to threaten, than on profits.

Donald Trump brought a new direction to the Republican Party. He
promised to crack down on cheap imports and illegal immigration,
to protect the jobs of Americans.

But what did he actually do?

On immigration, he separated children from their parents - making it
difficult to reunite them later. This will likely ensure that for decades
to come, reasonable debate about the need to control immigration will
be impossible, because any attempt to do so will be dismissed as
racism. He wasted money on a completely impractical measure, his
famous wall.

He was so worried about the temporary impact on the economy, that
he obstructed necessary measures to stop the COVID-19 pandemic
from spreading.

He did rally nearly the whole Republican Party behind him... to wage
open war on democracy and the Constitution.

The Democrats do have a way open to them to stop Trump. It's
something they should have done long ago. Look back at Franklin
D. Roosevelt, and *steal Trump's populist thunder*. Start being
the party of working people and labor once again. But without
going to the extreme left - Bernie Sanders and AOC don't have the
right answers, and the American people will not support that sort
of thing, and rightly so.

John Savard

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:29:41 PM UTC-6, John Halpenny wrote:

> "[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" means focusing
> on what the voters want, instead of what you want. Is that supposed
> to be a
[bad]
> thing?

It depends on how _sincere_ they are.

Normally, what one expects of elections in a multi-party democracy is
the following: each party does have a certain viewpoint, which it
honestly admits to, even as it adjusts to changing times and to the
percieved wishes of the electorate.

So, voters can make a choice, because they know what they can
expect of each party if it gains power.

If a party seems to have no agenda of its own, but instead has a
platform that reflects only what is most popular at a given time,
that leads to the following concerns:

1) Perhaps the politicians _do_ have an agenda and ideology of
their own, which they will put into practice if elected, but which
for good reason they would rather the voters didn't know about; and

2) Also, in promising the people what they want, they may be
promising things which can't actually be done: i.e. maintaining a
certain level of government services, while also keeping taxes below
a certain level, and also keeping government debt below a certain
level.

John Savard

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 8:15:52 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 3:29:41 PM UTC-6, John Halpenny wrote:
>
> > "[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" means focusing
> > on what the voters want, instead of what you want. Is that supposed
> > to be a
> [bad]
> > thing?
>
> It depends on how _sincere_ they are.
>
> Normally, what one expects of elections in a multi-party democracy is
> the following: each party does have a certain viewpoint, which it
> honestly admits to, even as it adjusts to changing times and to the
> percieved wishes of the electorate.
>
> So, voters can make a choice, because they know what they can
> expect of each party if it gains power.
>
> If a party seems to have no agenda of its own, but instead has a
> platform that reflects only what is most popular at a given time,
> that leads to the following concerns:
>
> 1) Perhaps the politicians _do_ have an agenda and ideology of
> their own, which they will put into practice if elected, but which
> for good reason they would rather the voters didn't know about; and
>
> 2) Also, in promising the people what they want, they may be
> promising things which can't actually be done: i.e. maintaining a
> certain level of government services, while also keeping taxes below
> a certain level, and also keeping government debt below a certain
> level.
>

In US political science jargon, an _ideological party_ is one with a program or
platform based on actual ideas, wih some sort of consistency. That would include
my party, the Libertarians, along with small parties that can avail themselves of
fusion aka cross-endorsement, such as New York's old Liberal Party, now supplanted
by the Working Families Party, and that state's Conservative Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_of_New_York_State

Besides the US Libertarians, there is the Green Party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_the_United_States

The Democrats of old were a non-ideological party that united Southern slaveholders,
and later Jim Crow advocates, with Northern city machines, immigrants and labor unions.
There was always a pro-business group in the Southern Democrats:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Democrat

These groups did not have a common political ideology. The late 19th-early 20th century
Progressives did, but they split between the GOP (Teddy Roosevelt) and the Dems
(Woodrow Wilson.)

There's a list as long as one's arm of current and past Communist and Socialist parties,
here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_left-wing_political_parties#U

....gets you the UK & the USA.

The top 2 US parties are coalitions of groups that might join an ideological party if
such a party stood much of a chance of electing anyone. In many countries with a
parliamentary system, individual parties with ideologies collect votes and seats (often
on a proportional basis.) Governments are created by some party putting together a
cabinet after the election. Sometimes there is an ad hoc electoral alliance before election
day, that is not a "coalition party." Other times there isn't, and negotiations are all after
election day.

Our Presidential/Congressional system favors coalition parties, remembering that
each of the 50 states has its own party system, with First Past The Post the default
for gaining seats in the legislature.

Some state Republican parties are effectively Conservative parties, while others harbor
moderates, non-LP Libertarians and a remnant of "liberal Republicans." In the 60s they
were derided as Rockefeller* Republicans, and more recently RINOs - Republicans
in Name Only.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller - why NY has a Conservative Party.

It is important to remember that a plurality of US voters consider themselves
independents, and a good portion of those swing. Another tranch - as much as 75% -
seems to think independemce is a good quality in a citizen, so they claim that label,
even though they almost always vote for the same party.

[ See: https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/AmVoterRevisitCh6.pdf
Lewis-Beck et al "The American Voter Revisited" for a discussion of "closet partisans."]

If you couldn't already tell that one of my BA majors was in Political Science, now you know.
This was the text that explained political party realignment to us, though I would have used
the 1973 edition in my classes.

https://www.brookings.edu/books/dynamics-of-the-party-system/that lacks a req

We have been going through a rolling dealignment, if not a realignment.
For awhile, the Free Traders were allied with the Democrats, then the Republicans.
Then a post-Cold War consensus reigned, before Buchanan and Trump flipped
the GOP into a protectionist, anti-immigrant convulsion. I was going to call it a
mindset, but there is a certain lack that a mindset needs.

I take a certain satisfaction in being able to say "I didn't vote for either of these
geriatric (alleged) criminals/incompetents, but little enjoyment as it is my country
being poisoned by these clowns.

--
Kevin R

In article <d3273e09-c14a-4e6b-8847-22752b6ea894n@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Some state Republican parties are effectively Conservative parties,
>while others harbor
>moderates, non-LP Libertarians and a remnant of "liberal Republicans."
>In the 60s they
>were derided as Rockefeller* Republicans, and more recently RINOs - Republicans
>in Name Only.

(Hal Heydt)
Off topic aside... Nelson (and a couple of his brothers) tried
to get their father to fire my great-uncle (they thought he had
too much influence on their father). Instead, he fired his sons.

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 14:29:37 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
<j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 11:29:08?AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 21:39:53 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
>> <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 4:52:51?PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:24:47 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>> >> Nicoll) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <g98qci12qimihg87s...@4ax.com>,
>> >> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
>> >> >>right, both non-ideological.
>> >> >
>> >> >There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.
>> >> Both of us may be right.
>> >>
>> >> By "non-ideological" I mean "political", that is, willing to work with
>> >> the other party (this being the USA, there are only two worth
>> >> considering) to produce compromise solutions.
>> >>
>> >> By "ideological" I mean "not political", that is, so insistent on
>> >> getting their own way that they (usually figuratively but sometimes
>> >> literally) hold their breaths till their faces turn blue rather than
>> >> accept any compromise.
>> >>
>> >> You, OTOH, may be correctly pointing out that any party has to have
>> >> core beliefs, which can be called an ideology.
>> >> --
>> >> "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
>> >> Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
>> >> Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
>> >The Tory party has at times been criticised for not having an ideology, or of caring about little else but the pursuit of power. An ideology might also be less important in a society polarised in non-ideological grounds, such as an ethnic/religious split where both sides have religious convictions that sideline left-wing "religion is the opium of the people" views. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK), here is Churchill in an internal debate:
>> >
>> >A party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable confederation; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad; the trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a party machine; sentiment by the bucketful; patriotism by the imperial pint; the open hand at the public exchequer, the open door at the public-house; dear food for the million, cheap labour for the millionaire.
>> >
>> >(As for the original article, I wonder if the concept of "elite overproduction" applies. although I am not necessarily convinced by everbody that uses the phrase.)
>> "[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" is a good
>> description of how I saw the Republican Party as recently as, say, 10
>> years ago (this focus on power beginning to replace a more cooperative
>> attitude perhaps a further 10-15 years back), but they generally
>> didn't /do/ anything; it was as if they wanted to be in power solely
>> to prevent the Democrats from doing anything.
>>
>> They have definintely ... progressed ... since then. Now they have a
>> /program/ and, boy, does it suck!
>
>
>"[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" means focusing on what the voters want, instead of what you want. Is that supposed to be a good thing?

Actually, no; it means telling voters what they want to hear to get
their votes -- and then, in the case discussed, doing /nothing
whatsoever/ [1]. Not what the voters want, not what they promised,
nothing at all.

[1] Of course they /appeared/ to be doing things: playing
brinksmanship with the National Debt Ceiling, shutting the gummint
down from to time to to gain political points, much about with the
Supreme Court, now revealed as corrupt and without honor. But actually
/doing/ something never happened.

Indeed, in the case of the ACA, they spent 6 years telling us what
they would do to it when they took over, and then they took over, and
turned out to have /no plan whatsoever/ for dealing with it.

As I said, seeking power but not using it.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:05:19 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 14:29:37 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
> <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 11:29:08?AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 21:39:53 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
> >> <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
> >> >On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 4:52:51?PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:24:47 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> >> >> Nicoll) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <g98qci12qimihg87s...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
> >> >> >>right, both non-ideological.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.
> >> >> Both of us may be right.
> >> >>
> >> >> By "non-ideological" I mean "political", that is, willing to work with
> >> >> the other party (this being the USA, there are only two worth
> >> >> considering) to produce compromise solutions.
> >> >>
> >> >> By "ideological" I mean "not political", that is, so insistent on
> >> >> getting their own way that they (usually figuratively but sometimes
> >> >> literally) hold their breaths till their faces turn blue rather than
> >> >> accept any compromise.
> >> >>
> >> >> You, OTOH, may be correctly pointing out that any party has to have
> >> >> core beliefs, which can be called an ideology.
> >> >> --
> >> >> "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
> >> >> Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
> >> >> Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
> >> >The Tory party has at times been criticised for not having an ideology, or of caring about little else but the pursuit of power. An ideology might also be less important in a society polarised in non-ideological grounds, such as an ethnic/religious split where both sides have religious convictions that sideline left-wing "religion is the opium of the people" views. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK), here is Churchill in an internal debate:
> >> >
> >> >A party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable confederation; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad; the trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a party machine; sentiment by the bucketful; patriotism by the imperial pint; the open hand at the public exchequer, the open door at the public-house; dear food for the million, cheap labour for the millionaire.
> >> >
> >> >(As for the original article, I wonder if the concept of "elite overproduction" applies. although I am not necessarily convinced by everbody that uses the phrase.)
> >> "[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" is a good
> >> description of how I saw the Republican Party as recently as, say, 10
> >> years ago (this focus on power beginning to replace a more cooperative
> >> attitude perhaps a further 10-15 years back), but they generally
> >> didn't /do/ anything; it was as if they wanted to be in power solely
> >> to prevent the Democrats from doing anything.
> >>
> >> They have definintely ... progressed ... since then. Now they have a
> >> /program/ and, boy, does it suck!
> >
> >
> >"[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" means focusing on what the voters want, instead of what you want. Is that supposed to be a good thing?
> Actually, no; it means telling voters what they want to hear to get
> their votes -- and then, in the case discussed, doing /nothing
> whatsoever/ [1]. Not what the voters want, not what they promised,
> nothing at all.
>
> [1] Of course they /appeared/ to be doing things: playing
> brinksmanship with the National Debt Ceiling, shutting the gummint
> down from to time to to gain political points, much about with the
> Supreme Court, now revealed as corrupt and without honor. But actually
> /doing/ something never happened.
>
> Indeed, in the case of the ACA, they spent 6 years telling us what
> they would do to it when they took over, and then they took over, and
> turned out to have /no plan whatsoever/ for dealing with it.
>
> As I said, seeking power but not using it.

> --

I'm not a Republican, but a Libertarian. The last GOP Presidential candidate
I supported was Jerry Ford, back in my college days.

I think attaining power to make sure it isn't unwisely used is a perfectly
cromulent goal for a party. When asked about not wanting to use power,
I've sometimes referred to electoral efforsts as "attempting to wrestle a
gun away from a madman."

As for ACA, the Republicans ran up against the mechanics of our Constitution.
They never had the House and the Senate at the same time they held the Presidency,
nor the House and a large enough Senate majority to avoid a cloture vote they couldn't
win nor large enough to overturn a veto.

As a result, all those House votes for repeal were just performance for their base.
Those bills were doomed to die in the Other Body.

https://ballotpedia.org/Timeline_of_ACA_repeal_and_replace_efforts

--
Kevin R

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:49:31 AM UTC+10, Kevrob wrote:
> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:05:19 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 14:29:37 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
> > <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
> > >On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 11:29:08?AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 21:39:53 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
> > >> <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
> > >> >On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 4:52:51?PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> > >> >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:24:47 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> > >> >> Nicoll) wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >In article <g98qci12qimihg87s...@4ax.com>,
> > >> >> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
> > >> >> >>right, both non-ideological.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.
> > >> >> Both of us may be right.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> By "non-ideological" I mean "political", that is, willing to work with
> > >> >> the other party (this being the USA, there are only two worth
> > >> >> considering) to produce compromise solutions.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> By "ideological" I mean "not political", that is, so insistent on
> > >> >> getting their own way that they (usually figuratively but sometimes
> > >> >> literally) hold their breaths till their faces turn blue rather than
> > >> >> accept any compromise.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You, OTOH, may be correctly pointing out that any party has to have
> > >> >> core beliefs, which can be called an ideology.
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
> > >> >> Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
> > >> >> Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
> > >> >The Tory party has at times been criticised for not having an ideology, or of caring about little else but the pursuit of power. An ideology might also be less important in a society polarised in non-ideological grounds, such as an ethnic/religious split where both sides have religious convictions that sideline left-wing "religion is the opium of the people" views. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK), here is Churchill in an internal debate:
> > >> >
> > >> >A party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable confederation; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad; the trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a party machine; sentiment by the bucketful; patriotism by the imperial pint; the open hand at the public exchequer, the open door at the public-house; dear food for the million, cheap labour for the millionaire.
> > >> >
> > >> >(As for the original article, I wonder if the concept of "elite overproduction" applies. although I am not necessarily convinced by everbody that uses the phrase.)
> > >> "[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" is a good
> > >> description of how I saw the Republican Party as recently as, say, 10
> > >> years ago (this focus on power beginning to replace a more cooperative
> > >> attitude perhaps a further 10-15 years back), but they generally
> > >> didn't /do/ anything; it was as if they wanted to be in power solely
> > >> to prevent the Democrats from doing anything.
> > >>
> > >> They have definintely ... progressed ... since then. Now they have a
> > >> /program/ and, boy, does it suck!
> > >
> > >
> > >"[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" means focusing on what the voters want, instead of what you want. Is that supposed to be a good thing?
> > Actually, no; it means telling voters what they want to hear to get
> > their votes -- and then, in the case discussed, doing /nothing
> > whatsoever/ [1]. Not what the voters want, not what they promised,
> > nothing at all.
> >
> > [1] Of course they /appeared/ to be doing things: playing
> > brinksmanship with the National Debt Ceiling, shutting the gummint
> > down from to time to to gain political points, much about with the
> > Supreme Court, now revealed as corrupt and without honor. But actually
> > /doing/ something never happened.
> >
> > Indeed, in the case of the ACA, they spent 6 years telling us what
> > they would do to it when they took over, and then they took over, and
> > turned out to have /no plan whatsoever/ for dealing with it.
> >
> > As I said, seeking power but not using it.
>
> I'm not a Republican, but a Libertarian. The last GOP Presidential candidate
> I supported was Jerry Ford, back in my college days.
>
> I think attaining power to make sure it isn't unwisely used is a perfectly
> cromulent goal for a party.

Yeah, we know you think that
a) doesn't mean you're right
b) in the current environment it requires lot of adjustment if government doesn't do some of the things it traditionally has. You can't just ignore it

>When asked about not wanting to use power,
> I've sometimes referred to electoral efforsts as "attempting to wrestle a
> gun away from a madman."
>
> As for ACA, the Republicans ran up against the mechanics of our Constitution.
> They never had the House and the Senate at the same time they held the Presidency,
> nor the House and a large enough Senate majority to avoid a cloture vote they couldn't
> win nor large enough to overturn a veto.

They had the house, senate and the presidency
They had the votes to change the senate rules
They wouldn't have needed to overturn a veto with Trump as president.

They had a vote in the senate to repeal the individual mandate of the affordable care act and it lost by 1 vote with McCain casting the deciding vote (along with Collins and Murkowski crossing the floor)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/26/16029976/senate-health-care-bill-skinny-obamacare-repeal-now

basically the GOP couldn't get their act together on WTF they wanted to do despite years of time to prepare.
>
> As a result, all those House votes for repeal were just performance for their base.
> Those bills were doomed to die in the Other Body.

again, they have the votes in the senate to change the senate rules, they got the skinny repeal vote to the vote and lost it when McCain, Collins and Murkowsk voted against it
..
>
> https://ballotpedia.org/Timeline_of_ACA_repeal_and_replace_efforts
>

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 8:25:52 AM UTC-4, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:49:31 AM UTC+10, Kevrob wrote:
> > On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 12:05:19 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> > > On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 14:29:37 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
> > > <j.hal...@rogers.com> wrote:
> > > >On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 11:29:08?AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> > > >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 21:39:53 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
> > > >> <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote:
> > > >> >On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 4:52:51?PM UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> > > >> >> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:24:47 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> > > >> >> Nicoll) wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >In article <g98qci12qimihg87s...@4ax.com>,
> > > >> >> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >>We need two centrist parties, one (slightly) left, one (slightly)
> > > >> >> >>right, both non-ideological.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >There is no such thing as a non-ideological political party.
> > > >> >> Both of us may be right.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> By "non-ideological" I mean "political", that is, willing to work with
> > > >> >> the other party (this being the USA, there are only two worth
> > > >> >> considering) to produce compromise solutions.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> By "ideological" I mean "not political", that is, so insistent on
> > > >> >> getting their own way that they (usually figuratively but sometimes
> > > >> >> literally) hold their breaths till their faces turn blue rather than
> > > >> >> accept any compromise.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> You, OTOH, may be correctly pointing out that any party has to have
> > > >> >> core beliefs, which can be called an ideology.
> > > >> >> --
> > > >> >> "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
> > > >> >> Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
> > > >> >> Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
> > > >> >The Tory party has at times been criticised for not having an ideology, or of caring about little else but the pursuit of power. An ideology might also be less important in a society polarised in non-ideological grounds, such as an ethnic/religious split where both sides have religious convictions that sideline left-wing "religion is the opium of the people" views. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK), here is Churchill in an internal debate:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >A party of great vested interests, banded together in a formidable confederation; corruption at home, aggression to cover it up abroad; the trickery of tariff juggles, the tyranny of a party machine; sentiment by the bucketful; patriotism by the imperial pint; the open hand at the public exchequer, the open door at the public-house; dear food for the million, cheap labour for the millionaire.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >(As for the original article, I wonder if the concept of "elite overproduction" applies. although I am not necessarily convinced by everbody that uses the phrase.)
> > > >> "[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" is a good
> > > >> description of how I saw the Republican Party as recently as, say, 10
> > > >> years ago (this focus on power beginning to replace a more cooperative
> > > >> attitude perhaps a further 10-15 years back), but they generally
> > > >> didn't /do/ anything; it was as if they wanted to be in power solely
> > > >> to prevent the Democrats from doing anything.
> > > >>
> > > >> They have definintely ... progressed ... since then. Now they have a
> > > >> /program/ and, boy, does it suck!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"[C]aring about little else but the pursuit of power" means focusing on what the voters want, instead of what you want. Is that supposed to be a good thing?
> > > Actually, no; it means telling voters what they want to hear to get
> > > their votes -- and then, in the case discussed, doing /nothing
> > > whatsoever/ [1]. Not what the voters want, not what they promised,
> > > nothing at all.
> > >
> > > [1] Of course they /appeared/ to be doing things: playing
> > > brinksmanship with the National Debt Ceiling, shutting the gummint
> > > down from to time to to gain political points, much about with the
> > > Supreme Court, now revealed as corrupt and without honor. But actually
> > > /doing/ something never happened.
> > >
> > > Indeed, in the case of the ACA, they spent 6 years telling us what
> > > they would do to it when they took over, and then they took over, and
> > > turned out to have /no plan whatsoever/ for dealing with it.
> > >
> > > As I said, seeking power but not using it.
> >
> > I'm not a Republican, but a Libertarian. The last GOP Presidential candidate
> > I supported was Jerry Ford, back in my college days.
> >
> > I think attaining power to make sure it isn't unwisely used is a perfectly
> > cromulent goal for a party.
> Yeah, we know you think that
> a) doesn't mean you're right
> b) in the current environment it requires lot of adjustment if government doesn't do some of the things it traditionally has. You can't just ignore it
> >When asked about not wanting to use power,
> > I've sometimes referred to electoral efforsts as "attempting to wrestle a
> > gun away from a madman."
> >
> > As for ACA, the Republicans ran up against the mechanics of our Constitution.
> > They never had the House and the Senate at the same time they held the Presidency,
> > nor the House and a large enough Senate majority to avoid a cloture vote they couldn't
> > win nor large enough to overturn a veto.
> They had the house, senate and the presidency
> They had the votes to change the senate rules
> They wouldn't have needed to overturn a veto with Trump as president.
>
> They had a vote in the senate to repeal the individual mandate of the affordable care act and it lost by 1 vote with McCain casting the deciding vote (along with Collins and Murkowski crossing the floor)
> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/26/16029976/senate-health-care-bill-skinny-obamacare-repeal-now
>
> basically the GOP couldn't get their act together on WTF they wanted to do despite years of time to prepare.
> >
> > As a result, all those House votes for repeal were just performance for their base.
> > Those bills were doomed to die in the Other Body.
> again, they have the votes in the senate to change the senate rules, they got the
> skinny repeal vote to the vote and lost it when McCain, Collins and Murkowsk voted against it
> .

Fair enough.

Cloture on the filibuster is not in the Constitution, that's true. Each time the Senate
changes those rules it gets closer to making the filibuster extinct, which a party that
contemplates being in the minority fears.

I saw a lot of comment at the time that the House would not go for the Senate's
version, which was an intra-GOP squabble.
> >
> > https://ballotpedia.org/Timeline_of_ACA_repeal_and_replace_efforts
> >

--
Kevin R

On 8/4/23 2:26 AM, Quadibloc wrote:

> The simplest and most obvious explanation would be Russian
> spies insidiously keeping the Democratic Party aligned to the
> concerns of the academic Left and out of touch with labor. But I'm
> open to other explanations.

Hi, John. I don't think we need to look so far afield as Russia to
explain a Democratic party that has thrown workers under the bus in
favor of leftist academia. I think corporate America is perfectly happy
with a leftism that emphasizes aspects of identity other than class.