4 ms·

I've heard this sentiment, but I'm not sure if it's real. Republicans are just as adept at constructing things as deconstructing things. Look at No Child Left

I've heard this sentiment, but I'm not sure if it's real. Republicans are just as adept at constructing things as deconstructing things. Look at No Child Left Behind (fundamental reconstruction of education), the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA (large new bureaucracies), or the TCJA (fundamental reconstruction of the tax system). I think what we actually witness in government is two different phenomenons. First, Republicans act as a largely cohesive block that requires less coalition building. Second, Republican governing philosophy has as a central tenet the idea that government is inefficient and market-based solutions are better, from Reagan's "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help." to Grover Norquist's Starve the Beast theory "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." And the inverse of this is also true, there is an aphorism about the two parties voters, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." It seeks to explain why getting voters that agree with Democratic policies to the polls seems to be more difficult than getting voters that agree with Republican policies to the polls. This extends to the politicians, who pick largely from the same menu of issues but at different priority levels. This leads to the Democrats having to expend more effort to build coalitions, an example would be something like healthcare reform. Market-based solutions like the ACA have as much a home in the Democratic party as government-based solutions like Medicare For All (M4A). With a wider gamut of policy positions, more effort inevitably must be spent getting people to consensus. This means that Republican governments get more of their goals done, and because of their governing philosophy many of those things are deconstructing existing programs. They are capable of putting new programs into place, I named a few but there are others, so it doesn't seem to me that the main difference is constructing new thing vs deconstructing existing things, but the amount of effort it requires to get your coalition to take action. This all is an analysis of the efficacy of the two parties in accomplishing their goals, without really treading on the more dangerous ground of "who has the better goals?" I, like everyone else, have some opinion no this matter, but to try to keep the inevitable angry responses when discussing politics to a minimum, I'm going to just avoid discussing that altogether.

liability 6y ago
> First, Republicans act as a largely cohesive block that requires less coalition building. Does it require less coalition building, or are they just better at it? It never made much sense to me that a pro-choice/drugs/guns/prostitution libertarian from Nevada would vote for the same team as the social conservative corn farmer from Nebraska who wants to implement a Christian theocracy, yet when push comes to shove they seem to ignore each other and vote for the same party. I don't know how to explain that, other than Republicans are effective at pandering to two mutually incompatible philosophies at once.
- ihumanable 6y ago
  There are a number of theories that could explain this. Broadly speaking, small-c conservatism, hold the following central tenets "...tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism, I know this is a wikipedia link, it is sourced to an actual text which doesn't appear to be online and so is not conducive to hyperlinking). It could be that their preference for hierarchy and authority extends to the legislators being willing to support the party leadership, regardless of their own personal policy preferences. Another line of thought is that there is a Venn Diagram of sorts for those two politicians, and the policies that move forward are the ones where there is already agreement. For instance, we don't see a lot of legislation legalizing drugs or prostitution coming from the Republican party, because while the Libertarians might support that, not everyone does and coalition building is difficult. We do see a fair bit of pro-Christian actions from the party, but I think that could be attributed to reframing the issue as one of Religious Liberty which allows the Libertarian to either support it or not actively oppose it. Largely though the legislation we see passed through is about areas that likely have broad support where little coalition building is required, tax reform, military spending, moves to reduce the scope of what most Republicans would agree are wasteful government programs. I doubt the Republicans have found some new method for coalition building, if they had then you would expect more fringe Libertarian ideals like drug and prostitution legalization to have some presence in the conversation. It seems like even in the rather tame Marijuana legalization discussion the Republicans are staking out an opposition stance. Although the desire to make profit from Marijuana has turned some of the most ardent opponents into vocal supporters, as is the case for John Boehner.

liability 6y ago

> First, Republicans act as a largely cohesive block that requires less coalition building. Does it require less coalition building, or are they just better at it? It never made much sense to me that a pro-choice/drugs/guns/prostitution libertarian from Nevada would vote for the same team as the social conservative corn farmer from Nebraska who wants to implement a Christian theocracy, yet when push comes to shove they seem to ignore each other and vote for the same party. I don't know how to explain that, other than Republicans are effective at pandering to two mutually incompatible philosophies at once.

ihumanable 6y ago
There are a number of theories that could explain this. Broadly speaking, small-c conservatism, hold the following central tenets "...tradition, organic society, hierarchy, authority, and property rights." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism, I know this is a wikipedia link, it is sourced to an actual text which doesn't appear to be online and so is not conducive to hyperlinking). It could be that their preference for hierarchy and authority extends to the legislators being willing to support the party leadership, regardless of their own personal policy preferences. Another line of thought is that there is a Venn Diagram of sorts for those two politicians, and the policies that move forward are the ones where there is already agreement. For instance, we don't see a lot of legislation legalizing drugs or prostitution coming from the Republican party, because while the Libertarians might support that, not everyone does and coalition building is difficult. We do see a fair bit of pro-Christian actions from the party, but I think that could be attributed to reframing the issue as one of Religious Liberty which allows the Libertarian to either support it or not actively oppose it. Largely though the legislation we see passed through is about areas that likely have broad support where little coalition building is required, tax reform, military spending, moves to reduce the scope of what most Republicans would agree are wasteful government programs. I doubt the Republicans have found some new method for coalition building, if they had then you would expect more fringe Libertarian ideals like drug and prostitution legalization to have some presence in the conversation. It seems like even in the rather tame Marijuana legalization discussion the Republicans are staking out an opposition stance. Although the desire to make profit from Marijuana has turned some of the most ardent opponents into vocal supporters, as is the case for John Boehner.