4 ms·

> There is a vast difference between the parties' budget plans and vision of government Yet no matter which party holds the presidency and controls the legisla

> There is a vast difference between the parties' budget plans and vision of government Yet no matter which party holds the presidency and controls the legislature, we end up with the same status quo year after year. This would simply not be possible unless both parties were heavily invested in maintaining the status quo. On the other hand, the best rhetoric to use when fundraising is about things that will not happen (overturning Roe vs Wade, for example) because then there is no accountability when the status quo continues. Not coincidentally, both parties use this particular issue as a major fundraising plank.

hackuser 10y ago
> we end up with the same status quo year after year As I said, in some ways that is true and some ways it's not, but now we're going in circles. The budget and economy, foreign policy (including wars), health care, and more were much different when Bill Clinton left office, when Bush left office, and now near the end of Obama's terms. The courts have been and will be much different depending on who is elected. Congress acts very differently depending on which party controls it. EDIT: LGBTQ rights are a big change of the status quo, as is a black President and changes in national health care. And before that, pre-emptive war, torture, Guantanamo, and mass surveillance were big changes. Congressional gridlock is ironically a big change, as is only 8 Supreme Court justices. It would have been interesting to learn something about in what cases it's true about the status quo and in what cases it's not.
- grandalf 10y ago
  Don't forget that HRC and Obama both felt strongly (based on their faith) that marriage was between a man and a woman until popular opinion was quite a bit more progressive and there was no longer any political cost to being supportive of LGBTQ rights. While politicians like to pretend that they are a source of progressive energy, any member of a major party will typically lag by at least several years on any important issue... until it's "safe" or "mainstream" enough not to threaten the status quo too much. I simply do not believe that HRC and Obama suddenly realized that LGBTQ rights mattered, they are self-serving self-promoters who calculatingly switched their opinions only when it was advantageous to do so. Such horrible, unprincipled people do not deserve our support!

hackuser 10y ago

> we end up with the same status quo year after year As I said, in some ways that is true and some ways it's not, but now we're going in circles. The budget and economy, foreign policy (including wars), health care, and more were much different when Bill Clinton left office, when Bush left office, and now near the end of Obama's terms. The courts have been and will be much different depending on who is elected. Congress acts very differently depending on which party controls it. EDIT: LGBTQ rights are a big change of the status quo, as is a black President and changes in national health care. And before that, pre-emptive war, torture, Guantanamo, and mass surveillance were big changes. Congressional gridlock is ironically a big change, as is only 8 Supreme Court justices. It would have been interesting to learn something about in what cases it's true about the status quo and in what cases it's not.

grandalf 10y ago
Don't forget that HRC and Obama both felt strongly (based on their faith) that marriage was between a man and a woman until popular opinion was quite a bit more progressive and there was no longer any political cost to being supportive of LGBTQ rights. While politicians like to pretend that they are a source of progressive energy, any member of a major party will typically lag by at least several years on any important issue... until it's "safe" or "mainstream" enough not to threaten the status quo too much. I simply do not believe that HRC and Obama suddenly realized that LGBTQ rights mattered, they are self-serving self-promoters who calculatingly switched their opinions only when it was advantageous to do so. Such horrible, unprincipled people do not deserve our support!