Right wing populism

[oldfart]

A recent interview in which Rick Santorum expressed support for increases in the minimum wage sparked a thought in my mind. For those of us on the left, it has always seemed odd that the populist right would continue to carry water for narrow business interests.

So why can't people like Santorum support things like increasing the minimum wage and those provisions of the Affordable Care Act (which is most of them) that are popular? It shouldn't be the kiss of death, like supporting abortion or same sex marriage, with their base. They could even advocate these measures as reducing the deficit (obviously raising the minimum wage cuts welfare).

My question is whether such populist positions could be combined with fiscal conservatism and social conservatism, with or better without the neo-con foreign policy, producing a platform that could actually challenge democrats in 2016.

Is the barrier that Republicans are dependent on big business for funding and the tea party base will not financially support a political operation? Or is there another reason the GOP cannot adopt any populist positions?

 

[srlip]

they are popular with the TICKS, not with the people who have to pay for Obamacare.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

A recent interview in which Rick Santorum expressed support for increases in the minimum wage sparked a thought in my mind. For those of us on the left, it has always seemed odd that the populist right would continue to carry water for narrow business interests.

So why can't people like Santorum support things like increasing the minimum wage and those provisions of the Affordable Care Act (which is most of them) that are popular? It shouldn't be the kiss of death, like supporting abortion or same sex marriage, with their base. They could even advocate these measures as reducing the deficit (obviously raising the minimum wage cuts welfare).

My question is whether such populist positions could be combined with fiscal conservatism and social conservatism, with or better without the neo-con foreign policy, producing a platform that could actually challenge democrats in 2016.

Is the barrier that Republicans are dependent on big business for funding and the tea party base will not financially support a political operation? Or is there another reason the GOP cannot adopt any populist positions?

How can you say ACA is popular when the majority of Americans don't like it?

 

[RandomVariable]

a recent interview in which rick santorum expressed support for increases in the minimum wage sparked a thought in my mind. For those of us on the left, it has always seemed odd that the populist right would continue to carry water for narrow business interests.

So why can't people like santorum support things like increasing the minimum wage and those provisions of the affordable care act (which is most of them) that are popular? It shouldn't be the kiss of death, like supporting abortion or same sex marriage, with their base. They could even advocate these measures as reducing the deficit (obviously raising the minimum wage cuts welfare).

My question is whether such populist positions could be combined with fiscal conservatism and social conservatism, with or better without the neo-con foreign policy, producing a platform that could actually challenge democrats in 2016.

Is the barrier that republicans are dependent on big business for funding and the tea party base will not financially support a political operation? Or is there another reason the gop cannot adopt any populist positions?

100%

 

[oldfart]

How can you say ACA is popular when the majority of Americans don't like it?

Polls consistently show that while the ACA is viewed negatively by a slim majority, provision by provision the same people favor the concepts in it.

 

[jasonnfree]

A recent interview in which Rick Santorum expressed support for increases in the minimum wage sparked a thought in my mind. For those of us on the left, it has always seemed odd that the populist right would continue to carry water for narrow business interests.

So why can't people like Santorum support things like increasing the minimum wage and those provisions of the Affordable Care Act (which is most of them) that are popular? It shouldn't be the kiss of death, like supporting abortion or same sex marriage, with their base. They could even advocate these measures as reducing the deficit (obviously raising the minimum wage cuts welfare).

My question is whether such populist positions could be combined with fiscal conservatism and social conservatism, with or better without the neo-con foreign policy, producing a platform that could actually challenge democrats in 2016.

Is the barrier that Republicans are dependent on big business for funding and the tea party base will not financially support a political operation? Or is there another reason the GOP cannot adopt any populist positions?

How can you say ACA is popular when the majority of Americans don't like it?

The majority of Americans that get their information from fox news and right wing radio anyway.

 

[emilynghiem]

How can you say ACA is popular when the majority of Americans don't like it?

Polls consistently show that while the ACA is viewed negatively by a slim majority, provision by provision the same people favor the concepts in it.

Can you show me a poll, statistics or anything that shows
the people who support it are willing to pay all costs associated with it?

A friend at work pointed out that how many people would be for
war and military if they had their own sons and family in active combat?

How much of our resources and political hassles would we save ourselves
if we held people and parties to support the policies they push for others to pay for?

If WE had to pay the costs, out of our own pockets, what reforms or programs would we push then?
That work so well, we could afford the investment because it would pay itself back?

 

[emilynghiem]

A recent interview in which Rick Santorum expressed support for increases in the minimum wage sparked a thought in my mind. For those of us on the left, it has always seemed odd that the populist right would continue to carry water for narrow business interests.

So why can't people like Santorum support things like increasing the minimum wage and those provisions of the Affordable Care Act (which is most of them) that are popular? It shouldn't be the kiss of death, like supporting abortion or same sex marriage, with their base. They could even advocate these measures as reducing the deficit (obviously raising the minimum wage cuts welfare).

My question is whether such populist positions could be combined with fiscal conservatism and social conservatism, with or better without the neo-con foreign policy, producing a platform that could actually challenge democrats in 2016.

Is the barrier that Republicans are dependent on big business for funding and the tea party base will not financially support a political operation? Or is there another reason the GOP cannot adopt any populist positions?

How can you say ACA is popular when the majority of Americans don't like it?

The majority of Americans that get their information from fox news and right wing radio anyway.

Sorry but when I ask around with even my liberal Democrat friends,
they are waiting and counting on the ACA to be reformed before they have to pay for it.

Nobody I know supports paying for insurance mandates, and my liberal friends who tolerate ACA are pushing for Singlepayer in place of it. Some are honest that it is just a transition to get closer to reforms they wanted; some are opposed but refuse to align with the right and are content to let them get the flack for fighting it "for them" while remaining silent; some keep pushing it, either sincerely to push for health care or to wave ACA as a "head on a stick" to incite Conservatives they know are outraged.

I think this is cruel, because I believe ACA is unlawful by the Constitution:
* either directly by requiring an Amendment BEFORE passing such legislation;
* by requiring consent and representation of the people before imposing a tax that requires a business purchase from private industry under federal terms or face penalties that the citizens did not directly vote on;
* and/or by the nature of Constitutional beliefs in limited federal govt and in civil liberties and states' rights being "religious creed" protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments from govt infringement, penalty, or discrimination. (also the exemptions and regulations basically discriminate on the basis of religion and creed by penalizing citizens not affiliated with select beliefs or groups that are exempted). I believe it is a form of
religious harassment to impose the penalties/mandates and to abuse it to taunt and bully.

If Muslims were taunted this way by pushing pork in their faces,
or Hindus with beef, or Atheists with Crosses, people would be outraged.

But because of political discrimination against Conservatives and Christians, it is "okay" to push these unconstitutional mandates and then blame the opposition for their own outrage in response. Abusing that to insult their intent trying to profit politically from this wrong.

 

[oldfart]

How can you say ACA is popular when the majority of Americans don't like it?

The majority of Americans that get their information from fox news and right wing radio anyway.

Sorry but when I ask around with even my liberal Democrat friends,
they are waiting and counting on the ACA to be reformed before they have to pay for it.

Nobody I know supports paying for insurance mandates, and my liberal friends who tolerate ACA are pushing for Singlepayer in place of it. Some are honest that it is just a transition to get closer to reforms they wanted; some are opposed but refuse to align with the right and are content to let them get the flack for fighting it "for them" while remaining silent; some keep pushing it, either sincerely to push for health care or to wave ACA as a "head on a stick" to incite Conservatives they know are outraged.

I think this is cruel, because I believe ACA is unlawful by the Constitution:
* either directly by requiring an Amendment BEFORE passing such legislation;
* by requiring consent and representation of the people before imposing a tax that requires a business purchase from private industry under federal terms or face penalties that the citizens did not directly vote on;
* and/or by the nature of Constitutional beliefs in limited federal govt and in civil liberties and states' rights being "religious creed" protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments from govt infringement, penalty, or discrimination. (also the exemptions and regulations basically discriminate on the basis of religion and creed by penalizing citizens not affiliated with select beliefs or groups that are exempted). I believe it is a form of
religious harassment to impose the penalties/mandates and to abuse it to taunt and bully.

If Muslims were taunted this way by pushing pork in their faces,
or Hindus with beef, or Atheists with Crosses, people would be outraged.

But because of political discrimination against Conservatives and Christians, it is "okay" to push these unconstitutional mandates and then blame the opposition for their own outrage in response. Abusing that to insult their intent trying to profit politically from this wrong.

I tried in the OP to ask a straightforward question in a non-ideological fashion: "Why is there not more inclination on the right to embrace popular (and populist) ideas?" In the course of this I used the example of ideas in the ACA that poll in the 70% range among voters of all political affiliations. Do you have an on-topic response, or do you just jump every opportunity to hijack a thread to go off on the ACA?

What this thread seems to demonstrate is that again there is no one from the right on this board who seems capable of addressing any issue with any real argument, substituting vitriol for reasoning. And then the right whines about no one paying attention to their arguments. What arguments?

On another thread, the OP spent a great deal of time chastising posters from the left for not abiding by his rules in discussing Reaganomics. That thread also failed to engage. If you want real discussion folks, you can't act like trolls all of the time, in every forum, on every thread. You have to post real content from time to time.

 

[The Rabbi]

Over 50% of the public opposes Obamacare.

Anyway, what about whether the policies are any good, rather than how well they poll? Raising the min wage polls well. Until people understand it will mean fewer jobs for the most vulnerable parts of society. Eliminating pre-existing condition coverage polls well. Until people understand that it means their own premiums will rise significantly.
Leaders are supposed to be just that. Not slavish followers to what polls well.

 

[Interpol]

A recent interview in which Rick Santorum expressed support for increases in the minimum wage sparked a thought in my mind. For those of us on the left, it has always seemed odd that the populist right would continue to carry water for narrow business interests.

So why can't people like Santorum support things like increasing the minimum wage and those provisions of the Affordable Care Act (which is most of them) that are popular? It shouldn't be the kiss of death, like supporting abortion or same sex marriage, with their base. They could even advocate these measures as reducing the deficit (obviously raising the minimum wage cuts welfare).

My question is whether such populist positions could be combined with fiscal conservatism and social conservatism, with or better without the neo-con foreign policy, producing a platform that could actually challenge democrats in 2016.

Is the barrier that Republicans are dependent on big business for funding and the tea party base will not financially support a political operation? Or is there another reason the GOP cannot adopt any populist positions?

How can you say ACA is popular when the majority of Americans don't like it?

The majority of Americans aren't even participating in Obamacare because they have their own insurance already, so the polls are a logical fallacy.

Anyone who's been able to sign up for insurance now is in favor of it by virtue of finally not being discriminated against for having a pre-existing condition.

More than 50% of the public now supports the idea of making the ACA work, not scrapping it.

It's the law, it works, and Republicans are yet again on the wrong side of history.

I can't think of one populist idea they have that is appealing to people other than complaining about taxes, which we all do, though what separates the adults from the children on this issue is the understanding that taxation has given us civilization.

 

[oldfart]

Over 50% of the public opposes Obamacare.

You are correct. But many of the specific features of the ACA (keeping adult children on parents insurance until age 27, no underwriting based on present health, national standards for plans so they can be compared, etc.) routinely poll in the 70% range.
The Republican House keeps claiming that they can develop an alternative to the ACA that keeps these features but removes the objectionable features. The specifics of such a plan have not been put forward yet.

Anyway, what about whether the policies are any good, rather than how well they poll?

That's a good question. Some popular policies are unworkable, others might have severely negative consequences. A robust debate should weed those out. But not all are doomed to be bad law (IMO, some folks might argue that any new law coming from any direction must be bad law, but I thinks that's rather silly. Conservatives wouldn't like to criminalize abortion, abolish all firearm regulation, and eliminate the Fed, SEC, EPA, BLM, ATF, IRS, and mandate school vouchers?)

I would think that popular measures would be easier to pass, so they deserve a closer look to see if they can be done right.

But let me return to the original question. Are there any issues where conservatives could exploit populist feeling to their benefit? What are they?

 

[Listening]

A recent interview in which Rick Santorum expressed support for increases in the minimum wage sparked a thought in my mind. For those of us on the left, it has always seemed odd that the populist right would continue to carry water for narrow business interests.

So why can't people like Santorum support things like increasing the minimum wage and those provisions of the Affordable Care Act (which is most of them) that are popular? It shouldn't be the kiss of death, like supporting abortion or same sex marriage, with their base. They could even advocate these measures as reducing the deficit (obviously raising the minimum wage cuts welfare).

My question is whether such populist positions could be combined with fiscal conservatism and social conservatism, with or better without the neo-con foreign policy, producing a platform that could actually challenge democrats in 2016.

Is the barrier that Republicans are dependent on big business for funding and the tea party base will not financially support a political operation? Or is there another reason the GOP cannot adopt any populist positions?

The answer is that a populist could.

The failure of the GOP has been to articulate any kind of overarching strategy, even if that strategy is only to let the states figure it out.

The GOP is a mess and has really gone off message. I am amazed that Priebus was reappointed the head of the GOP.

It needs an overhaul.

The GOP does not have to support the things you mentioned in the form they currently exist. They can develop other approaches.

As an example, I've never seen a clear definition of our "health care issue". The GOP really let this conversation get away from them.

The left will say 50 milion uninsured. I say "So What ?" Meaning..what does that matter.

Once you explain the bedrock philosophy...and then put forth your policy, it is easier to talk about.

 

[BobPlumb]

Over 50% of the public opposes Obamacare.

You are correct. But many of the specific features of the ACA (keeping adult children on parents insurance until age 27, no underwriting based on present health, national standards for plans so they can be compared, etc.) routinely poll in the 70% range.
The Republican House keeps claiming that they can develop an alternative to the ACA that keeps these features but removes the objectionable features. The specifics of such a plan have not been put forward yet.

Anyway, what about whether the policies are any good, rather than how well they poll?

That's a good question. Some popular policies are unworkable, others might have severely negative consequences. A robust debate should weed those out. But not all are doomed to be bad law (IMO, some folks might argue that any new law coming from any direction must be bad law, but I thinks that's rather silly. Conservatives wouldn't like to criminalize abortion, abolish all firearm regulation, and eliminate the Fed, SEC, EPA, BLM, ATF, IRS, and mandate school vouchers?)

I would think that popular measures would be easier to pass, so they deserve a closer look to see if they can be done right.

But let me return to the original question. Are there any issues where conservatives could exploit populist feeling to their benefit? What are they?

Of course most people are for the things that Obamacare is supposed to do. However, when individual features are polled they are divorced form costs and unattended consequences that the total package of Obamacare will cause.

I'm for everyone having Heath insurance. But do I want to pay higher premiums and higher deductibles to make this happen...........

I would love for everyone to be able to earn a minimum of $15 or more an hour. But if there really are no negative consequences to raising the minimum wage, why not raise it to $150 per hour.

 

[Listening]

Over 50% of the public opposes Obamacare.

You are correct. But many of the specific features of the ACA (keeping adult children on parents insurance until age 27, no underwriting based on present health, national standards for plans so they can be compared, etc.) routinely poll in the 70% range.
The Republican House keeps claiming that they can develop an alternative to the ACA that keeps these features but removes the objectionable features. The specifics of such a plan have not been put forward yet.

Anyway, what about whether the policies are any good, rather than how well they poll?

That's a good question. Some popular policies are unworkable, others might have severely negative consequences. A robust debate should weed those out. But not all are doomed to be bad law (IMO, some folks might argue that any new law coming from any direction must be bad law, but I thinks that's rather silly. Conservatives wouldn't like to criminalize abortion, abolish all firearm regulation, and eliminate the Fed, SEC, EPA, BLM, ATF, IRS, and mandate school vouchers?)

I would think that popular measures would be easier to pass, so they deserve a closer look to see if they can be done right.

But let me return to the original question. Are there any issues where conservatives could exploit populist feeling to their benefit? What are they?

Of course most people are for the things that Obamacare is supposed to do. However, when individual features are polled they are divorced form costs and unattended consequences that the total package of Obamacare will cause.

I'm for everyone having Heath insurance. But do I want to pay higher premiums and higher deductibles to make this happen...........

I would love for everyone to be able to earn a minimum of $15 or more an hour. But if there really are no negative consequences to raising the minimum wage, why not raise it to $150 per hour.

Health Insurance is an issue. If the GOP would grab it, they could guide the conversation. The solution does not have to include the government. It might include getting government out of the way.

I'd also suggest they need to start taking on the Social Security discussion by starting with the desire to preserve the promises that have been made to those who have paid their entire lives and are getting ready to come onto the program. There are ways to begin reforms without impacting those who are getting near retirement.

 

[BobPlumb]

You are correct. But many of the specific features of the ACA (keeping adult children on parents insurance until age 27, no underwriting based on present health, national standards for plans so they can be compared, etc.) routinely poll in the 70% range.
The Republican House keeps claiming that they can develop an alternative to the ACA that keeps these features but removes the objectionable features. The specifics of such a plan have not been put forward yet.



That's a good question. Some popular policies are unworkable, others might have severely negative consequences. A robust debate should weed those out. But not all are doomed to be bad law (IMO, some folks might argue that any new law coming from any direction must be bad law, but I thinks that's rather silly. Conservatives wouldn't like to criminalize abortion, abolish all firearm regulation, and eliminate the Fed, SEC, EPA, BLM, ATF, IRS, and mandate school vouchers?)

I would think that popular measures would be easier to pass, so they deserve a closer look to see if they can be done right.

But let me return to the original question. Are there any issues where conservatives could exploit populist feeling to their benefit? What are they?

Of course most people are for the things that Obamacare is supposed to do. However, when individual features are polled they are divorced form costs and unattended consequences that the total package of Obamacare will cause.

I'm for everyone having Heath insurance. But do I want to pay higher premiums and higher deductibles to make this happen...........

I would love for everyone to be able to earn a minimum of $15 or more an hour. But if there really are no negative consequences to raising the minimum wage, why not raise it to $150 per hour.

Health Insurance is an issue. If the GOP would grab it, they could guide the conversation. The solution does not have to include the government. It might include getting government out of the way.

I'd also suggest they need to start taking on the Social Security discussion by starting with the desire to preserve the promises that have been made to those who have paid their entire lives and are getting ready to come onto the program. There are ways to begin reforms without impacting those who are getting near retirement.

Yes, but the GOP needs someone like a Ronald Reagan to pull this off. When the Democrats start trying to accuse the GOP of throwing granny over the cliff, he needs to be able to pull off a Reagan "There you go again" moment.

 

[Listening]

Of course most people are for the things that Obamacare is supposed to do. However, when individual features are polled they are divorced form costs and unattended consequences that the total package of Obamacare will cause.

I'm for everyone having Heath insurance. But do I want to pay higher premiums and higher deductibles to make this happen...........

I would love for everyone to be able to earn a minimum of $15 or more an hour. But if there really are no negative consequences to raising the minimum wage, why not raise it to $150 per hour.

Health Insurance is an issue. If the GOP would grab it, they could guide the conversation. The solution does not have to include the government. It might include getting government out of the way.

I'd also suggest they need to start taking on the Social Security discussion by starting with the desire to preserve the promises that have been made to those who have paid their entire lives and are getting ready to come onto the program. There are ways to begin reforms without impacting those who are getting near retirement.

Yes, but the GOP needs someone like a Ronald Reagan to pull this off. When the Democrats start trying to accuse the GOP of throwing granny over the cliff, he needs to be able to pull off a Reagan "There you go again" moment.

Fully agreed.

I keep telling my liberal friends that we are a mess.

If we ever get organized, they are in big trouble.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A recent interview in which Rick Santorum expressed support for increases in the minimum wage sparked a thought in my mind. For those of us on the left, it has always seemed odd that the populist right would continue to carry water for narrow business interests.

So why can't people like Santorum support things like increasing the minimum wage and those provisions of the Affordable Care Act (which is most of them) that are popular? It shouldn't be the kiss of death, like supporting abortion or same sex marriage, with their base. They could even advocate these measures as reducing the deficit (obviously raising the minimum wage cuts welfare).

My question is whether such populist positions could be combined with fiscal conservatism and social conservatism, with or better without the neo-con foreign policy, producing a platform that could actually challenge democrats in 2016.

Is the barrier that Republicans are dependent on big business for funding and the tea party base will not financially support a political operation? Or is there another reason the GOP cannot adopt any populist positions?

Santorum was on CNN’s State of the Union this morning and maintained his opposition to the ACA:

A new CNN/ORC poll shows 61% don't want to repeal Obamacare, but Rick Santorum tells Candy Crowley Obamacare "isn't working" and it is still a problem for the country and working men and women.

Santorum: Obamacare "isn't working" ? State of the Union - CNN.com Blogs

Although almost two-thirds of Americans oppose repeal of the ACA, Santorum and others on the right continue their opposition to the Act and seek its repeal.

To answer your question, therefore, it seems likely that the pragmatism required for republicans to support policies popular to most Americans simply doesn’t exist; where partisan ideology trumps a more objective approach, particularly with regard to the ACA, where the right’s opposition to the Act has more to do with their intense dislike of the president, as opposed to the actual merits of the Reform.

A more pragmatic – and likely winning – approach concerning the ACA for republicans would be to end the ‘repeal’ rhetoric and instead make proposals as how to address the Act’s deficiencies – since they’re clearly the ‘experts’ of what’s wrong with the ACA.

 

[Listening]

The ACA would fall by the wayside in the face of a cogent plan that does not require government intervention excpet to stop propping up the insurance industry.

Working to reform the medical industry would be great too. How come the AMA gets to call the shots ?

None of this gets discussed in the public forum. To the OP, a great case could be made by a member of the GOP that would appeal to a great many people.

They'll need a good message to overcome the likes of Barbara B.S. Boxer and her 60 million uninsured.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Listening you have nailed it. It is not what repubs have it is who they have presenting it.

The first thing you have to do is reject the premise of the op. Let's just ask everyone over 60 if they think they should have to pay for birth control like you have to do under obamacare. Public polling has been against obamacare since it's passage period. Yes there are a couple,of high profile items like preexisting conditions that are popular, but you can count them on ten fingers. Higher premiums, you can't keep your doctor, higher deductibles, and limited care trump any benefits. The medical system is in more turmoil now than before the aca was passed. So we are basically back to square one after six years and 100s of billions of dollars spent. The effort on balance has been a failure, unless you consider a few million people receiving totally subsidized health care while tens of millions are thrown under the bus a success. And you know all this is just talk, we will all find out in November how successful obamacare has been.

And yes I have as much disdain for repubs who have not come up with their own plan as I do for Obama. DR. BEn Carson could have drawn it up on a napkin at the prayer breakfast, but no establishment repubs have the guts to put it on the table. Obama is a paper tiger but Boehner and company are paper hyenas, so we get nowhere. People aren't just voting to fix obamacare they're begging us to fix govt.