> They have no policy. They have no plan for governing; they don't like governing.
This is an unfair analysis, and is either naive at best or disingenuous at worst.
I'm not a registered Republican, but I AM strongly against an all-powerful centralized body of government that continues to expand exponentially. I would rather focus powers in a more decentralized direction closer to the individuals and the States themselves. e.g. "Think globally - act locally."
The parent's comment is the EXACT problem that comes with a central government that is too powerful: you have to be mindful that "your party" will not be in "charge" about ~50% of the time.
For a concrete example, I don't like expanding Presidential powers nor extensive use of Executive Orders because likely there will be a president I don't support in that position, and I'd rather her/him NOT have that type of power.
States and local communities are more knowledgable about what their constituents need, and the more local you go, the more homogeneous that group becomes - leading to a higher degree of success for those policies. For example, I have never lived on a farm, nor have every lived remotely _near_ a farm...so how can I properly empathize with their needs or considerations in a fair way?
States and more local forms of government also provide solid grounds for the greatest real-life A/B test of policies in the world: if you are living in an area that doesn't align with your values and/or needs, you have _so many_ other options to consider settling. e.g. if you like living in California where virtually all the policies and politicians are left of center, then great! You can live there and it doesn't impact me in any way over in where I live.
Homogeneity also comes with its own problems -- smaller, more homogenous governments are much more likely to discriminate against the "out group", for instance.
Government grows because what we do grows. We didn't need legislation on airspace and radio waves and net neutrality and cyber bullying when our Constitution was written. In many cases, powers simply come into existence, and I'd rather the government have those powers than a monopoly or oligopoly of private rich entities.
Rather than limited Government, I'd rather see an Open Government -- one that is accountable to, accessible to, and made up of us. Then why does it matter if government gets big? Government is us, after all. At least we can work toward that. Maybe?
> Homogeneity also comes with its own problems -- smaller, more homogenous governments are much more likely to discriminate against the "out group", for instance.
I discriminately support my family more than my neighbors. You probably do too.
I also discriminately support my circle of friends more than the random stranger. You probably do too.
I also don't think a random stranger can come into my home and get equal footing with myself as the homeowner simply because the other person was "out". You probably do too.
Hell, even at the broad government level, US citizens are prioritized over non-citizens - like literally every single country that has ever existed.
From this comment it is clear that you have a policy and plan for governing. But it isn't clear what that has to do with the portion of the parent comment that you quoted.
The implication of the way you wrote your comment is that it's unfair and naive or disingenuous to say that the Republican party has no policy, because what you outline is their policy. But the rest of your comment just ... isn't their policy. (Which is, presumably, why you aren't a registered Republican.)
For instance, you say you don't like expanding Presidential powers. But the leader of the Republican party has a suit in front of the Supreme Court, right this moment, attempting to expand Presidential powers all the way to "immune from the rule of law".
Now, it could still be true that the policy of the Republican party is in disagreement with the desires of that person who is the leader of their party - that totally happens! - but unfortunately at this specific moment in time, "the desires of that person who is the leader of their party" is exactly as close as you can get to defining the party's policy.
It's a sad state of affairs! But I seem to frequently see this kind of wishcasting based on what people think the party's policy should be, except it has nothing to do with the clear policy of the party in actuality. (Note that this wishcasting thing is not actually unique to the Republican party.)
Sounds good in theory, but we are more intertwined on private sector levels.
As an example, the cost of natgas on the east coast after California's rules limiting coal for power generation. People in nearby states with different COL pick up part of the tab.
> after California's rules limiting coal for power generation.
Great example & case study for the beauty of the US Constitution's "interstate commerce" clause, and one of the areas the federal government _SHOULD_ focus its attention.
>because likely there will be a president I don't support in that position, and I'd rather her/him NOT have that type of power.
I wish more people had this perspective.
The topic of packing the Supreme Court comes to mind. There are people who want Biden to do this, but if does it, what’s stopping the next Republican from doing it too… back and forth until the court is so big it can’t function. These easily won “victories” can just as easily work against a group as they can work for them. It’s very short-sighted.
The only reason the courts are getting involved as much as they are, is because Congress can’t get anything done. They make the law, the court interprets it. We need a functioning Congress to avoid the courts needing to give their best guess on what the law currently is for issues that aren’t well defined, or not defined at all. Packing the court as a solution is solving the wrong problem.
Congress had decades to make actual abortion laws, and both sides had times where they were fully in power - not that they shouldn’t have compromised on something like 12 or 15 weeks instead like most European countries.
As far as people’s opinions of the court goes, it really grinds my gears how most people assume the Supreme Court is there to essentially make or strike down laws on their own whims. That’s not how it’s supposed to work. I’m no judicial scholar but it seems to me the current court is doing the best job of what they’re actually supposed to do than they have in a long time.
The Supreme Court decides which cases it wants to hear and there are many cases brought into the legal system each year. That practically gives it the power to make (well, re/interpret) or strike down whatever legislation it wants, as long as there's a relevant-enough case.
Right, but they ideally choose because they think a law needs to be struck down, clarified, etc. based on legal merit and not because of how they or the population feel about the end result.
I would say that is unfair because their actual platform is deliberately sabotaging any kind of functional governance and refusing to change any government policy that is clearly broken and in desperate need of change. Obviously they won't admit that. But that is what they have been doing for decades. They wouldn't want to accidentally make things better for people because then they can't campaign on fixing the problems.
I recall reading or hearing that a bunch of senior GOP leadership got together immediately after Barack Obama’s election and agreed explicitly that their approach was going to be obstruction.
And that worked, but then the next generation of elected party members seemed to be obstructionist only. So much so that in 2017 when they held the executive branch and both houses of congress, they couldn’t get anything done.
This is an unfair analysis, and is either naive at best or disingenuous at worst.
I'm not a registered Republican, but I AM strongly against an all-powerful centralized body of government that continues to expand exponentially. I would rather focus powers in a more decentralized direction closer to the individuals and the States themselves. e.g. "Think globally - act locally."
The parent's comment is the EXACT problem that comes with a central government that is too powerful: you have to be mindful that "your party" will not be in "charge" about ~50% of the time.
For a concrete example, I don't like expanding Presidential powers nor extensive use of Executive Orders because likely there will be a president I don't support in that position, and I'd rather her/him NOT have that type of power.
States and local communities are more knowledgable about what their constituents need, and the more local you go, the more homogeneous that group becomes - leading to a higher degree of success for those policies. For example, I have never lived on a farm, nor have every lived remotely _near_ a farm...so how can I properly empathize with their needs or considerations in a fair way?
States and more local forms of government also provide solid grounds for the greatest real-life A/B test of policies in the world: if you are living in an area that doesn't align with your values and/or needs, you have _so many_ other options to consider settling. e.g. if you like living in California where virtually all the policies and politicians are left of center, then great! You can live there and it doesn't impact me in any way over in where I live.