Kevin McCarthy, and the weird phenomenom of the Democrats fueling the Right Wing Extremism

[myata]

9 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

His presidency was a mixedbag all around, from the economic standpoint to the diplomatic perspective, which are the main focuses of a presidency. Overall, Trump wasn't that dangerous to the world stability while not being the force of good people who are fanatized by him claim to be.

He was kept under a tight lead by Republican officialdom and now he and his mob despises them as softies or even "traitors". The Capitol event showed where his real base is. Also he is developing extreme animosity to the justice system and judiciary. There's no way to predict what his presidency could be like now. Anyone who would choose to push the button for unpredictable jerk with clear authoritarian ambitions and admiration for dictator strongmen, for any reasons, as a savior or being bored with the establishment, can be playing with the fate. It happened exactly in this way before.

Generally, a binary system produces this kind of figures in the landscape of steadily growing then becoming extreme, partisanship. In the setting where nothing changes, ever, some folks will begin looking for adventures and surprises. They may think it's only a game, like in "bread and circuses" game. Quite likely, it's only a matter of time.

[myata]

Gleeful Democrats may be thinking that it works to their advantage. That's a delusion based on the same partisan zero-sum premise: if not them, then it has to us. But in reality it doesn't happen like this. Faced with an obstruction, a body of water finds a new channel and then washes everything in its path. Being blind and self-righteous never helped with complex problems.

[Hodad]

36 minutes ago, myata said:

Gleeful Democrats may be thinking that it works to their advantage. That's a delusion based on the same partisan zero-sum premise: if not them, then it has to us. But in reality it doesn't happen like this. Faced with an obstruction, a body of water finds a new channel and then washes everything in its path. Being blind and self-righteous never helped with complex problems.

No, it is in the Democrats favor, and in the favor of rest of the country as well. If there isn't a unified majority then the parties have to compromise and work together, as they did with the bill last week to keep the government running. 

Bipartisan compromise and cooperation is what the American people actually want. Not blind obstructionism. If the next speaker requires some Dem votes to be elected, that's good news for everyone--everyone except for the hardliners. 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Bipartisan compromise and cooperation is what the American people actually want. Not blind obstructionism. If the next speaker requires some Dem votes to be elected, that's good news for everyone--everyone except for the hardliners. 

Or it could drag on for months creating a crisis and chaos environment in which, quite commonly, ugly surprises arise. One or the other. Let's bet.

Edited October 4, 2023 by myata

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

Hitler wasn't kind of Hitlerish the first time he was elected.

True - he was more like obama.  "You're being oppressed by other people and i can solve that for you" " we need to make business and society work for everyone (and by everyone i mean the state). UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!

all socialistic types sound great early on, promising to make society better and more fair for the 'average person'. Yes we can! It's not till later that things go completely sideways and we see them for the dictators they are at heart.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

. But the playbook was also similar in many ways. The division, the scapegoating, the flavor of the rhetoric etc., even if the goals were not an overt parallel.

You could make pretty much the same argument about obama.  he was all about divisions and setting one group against another (if i had a son, he'd iook like trevon martin). He created the 'intersectional alliance' just for that purpose.

Certainly you could also say it of trudeau, stalin, etc.  There's going to be some similarity between pretty much all politicians of course. They have to achieve the same thing - appeal to the masses, get them excited and worked up over something, and convince them they're the only one who can solve it.

 

[Aristides]

56 minutes ago, myata said:

Or it could drag on for months creating a crisis and chaos environment in which, quite commonly, ugly surprises arise. One or the other. Let's bet.

So how is that any different from US politics for the last 8 years?

[BeaverFever]

18 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Kevin McCarthy, who is the first Speaker of the House to be ousted, was a Republican with more or less Centrist views that could find agreements on many issues with the Democrats.

He has been ousted with an unanimity of the votes of the Democrats, who voted alongside 8 Republicans. The 8 Republicans are considered to be at the far Right of the GOP in general.

This isn't the first case of Democrats making life easier for the extremists of the opposite party. In 2015, many Democrats helped Trump win the GOP nomination, leading to the victory of the GOP in the 2016 election. They thought, at first, that giving the spotlight to the extremist contender would guarantee an easy 2016 bid for Hillary Clinton. It was an obvious mistake.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428/

Now, History seems to rhyme again. We have seen an unanimous vote from Democrats to further radicalize the GOP. Will it be a winning strategy, this time?

Will it help ordinary Americans?

Will the GOP implode more than it already is? Are we about to witness a second coming of Ross Perot?

It’s not the Democrats fault the GOP is being overrun by the very extremists that they have been deliberately cultivating for the past 15 or so years.  Of course extremists eat their own and constantly turn on each other that’s why they’re called extremists   Mc Carthy swallowed the suicide pill months ago when he agreed to the extremists’ rule change demand that stipulated any ONE person in that parry of lunatics could trigger a confidence vote  

The Dems are simply heeding Napoleon’s advice to never interrupt your enemy while he is in the process of destroying himself. 
 

Asking whether this is good for America is the wrong question. This is yet another symptom of, rather than the cause of, the collapse of American politics and society 

Edited October 4, 2023 by BeaverFever

[Boges]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Of course it won't. The dems stepped in it there.  Basically the dems wanted him to be their lapdog and that's what got him in trouble with the more feverant of his party and lead to the ouster. Now they'll get someone who's more in keeping with the right wing of the party.  They were better off with the devil they had, but whatever.

I think they're better off showing the Electorate that the Republicans are controlled by fringe members. 

If there's a government shutdown it'll be 100% on the Republicans to own. It wasn't the Dems that called for the vote to Vacate, but they weren't going to save the GOP from shooting themselves in the foot. The party looks like a joke now. 

[BeaverFever]

56 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

True - he was more like obama.  "You're being oppressed by other people and i can solve that for you" " we need to make business and society work for everyone (and by everyone i mean the state). UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!

all socialistic types sound great early on, promising to make society better and more fair for the 'average person'. Yes we can! It's not till later that things go completely sideways and we see them for the dictators they are at heart.

Hitler was not a socialist. The socialists were among the scapegoats whom he jailed and murdered by the tens of thousands. Every expert and historian describes European fascism as right wing authoritarianism.  
 

Obama didn’t invent the narrative of racism, but look at Republicans track record of hysteria and fear-mongering over immigrants, Muslims, common criminals, gays and now trannies and “groomers”. 

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, Boges said:

I think they're better off showing the Electorate that the Republicans are controlled by fringe members. 

 

I doubt it will play out that way. Having division worked for the dems. If they get unity behind someone else it will be a serious long term problem for them.

I'd point out their most radically fringe member is currently polling better than biden.

[myata]

54 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So how is that any different from US politics for the last 8 years?

My point. Something is happening in the US politics in the last decade. Hard not to notice.

Hardline duo emerges as the top contenders for the Speaker. McCarthy with all his downsides, was a relative moderate. With the help of Dems GOP just edged a bit further to the extreme. They think that it would work for them nicely. But it may just work the other way around.

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

My point. Something is happening in the US politics in the last decade. Hard not to notice.

Hardline duo emerges as the top contenders for the Speaker. McCarthy with all his downsides, was a relative moderate. With the help of Dems GOP just edged a bit further to the extreme. They think that it would work for them nicely. But it may just work the other way around.

Do you think those two have a chance of getting elected? If they do, that says a lot more about the GOP than it does the Democrats. The Democrats had nothing to do with the election or firing of McCarthy, this shit show belongs to the GOP. 

[myata]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Do you think those two have a chance of getting elected? If they do, that says a lot more about the GOP than it does the Democrats.

Then its months of political chaos. Shutdown quite possible. What will the population think? Who will it hold responsible? Dems believe that it would work for them but chaos is never predictable. First time they tried partisanship, if backfired. Second time around it's bordering on irresponsibility and a blind, entrenched position.

They did not have to vote against, just declare present. If a moderate Speaker was elected, it would be easier to build bridges and isolate the extreme crowd. But Dems leadership decided to play the partisan card. And so if it backfires again, there's no way they could escape responsibility for the outcome.

[Rebound]

17 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Kevin McCarthy, who is the first Speaker of the House to be ousted, was a Republican with more or less Centrist views that could find agreements on many issues with the Democrats.

He has been ousted with an unanimity of the votes of the Democrats, who voted alongside 8 Republicans. The 8 Republicans are considered to be at the far Right of the GOP in general.

This isn't the first case of Democrats making life easier for the extremists of the opposite party. In 2015, many Democrats helped Trump win the GOP nomination, leading to the victory of the GOP in the 2016 election. They thought, at first, that giving the spotlight to the extremist contender would guarantee an easy 2016 bid for Hillary Clinton. It was an obvious mistake.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428/

Now, History seems to rhyme again. We have seen an unanimous vote from Democrats to further radicalize the GOP. Will it be a winning strategy, this time?

Will it help ordinary Americans?

Will the GOP implode more than it already is? Are we about to witness a second coming of Ross Perot?

Who says Kevin McCarthy was the first Speaker to be ousted? 
Gingrich was ousted. His successor, Craig Livingstone resigned four days later. John Boehner was ousted.

 

The House Republicans have three choices:

1) Let the eight ultra-right Congressmen decide everything, resulting in bills the Senate won’t pass the the President won’t sign. 
 

2) Compromise with Democrats and get most of their policy initiatives enacted.

 

3) Do nothing at all and let the government shut down and wait for people to erupt in anger.  
 

The Democrats did not bail McCarthy out because he refused to agree to support any of their initiatives. A normal person would look at the political landscape and realize they cant get everything they want with a Democratic Senate and President. But these people aren’t interested in getting things done, they’re interested in creating chaos. 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Rebound

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

True - he was more like obama.  "You're being oppressed by other people and i can solve that for you" " we need to make business and society work for everyone (and by everyone i mean the state). UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!

all socialistic types sound great early on, promising to make society better and more fair for the 'average person'. Yes we can! It's not till later that things go completely sideways and we see them for the dictators they are at heart.

The Scandinavian countries in Europe prove ^this wrong. Democratic Socialism does not have to become a dictatorship.

[BeaverFever]

13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The Scandinavian countries in Europe prove ^this wrong. Democratic Socialism does not have to become a dictatorship.

He doesn’t know what “socialism” means. He thinks it simply means “authoritarian”.  Therefore in his view all authoritarians are socialist and vice-versa while all conservatives are libertarian and vice-versa. To him, the existence of right wing dictators and left wing democracies are impossibilities 

Edited October 4, 2023 by BeaverFever

[myata]

32 minutes ago, Rebound said:

A normal person would look at the political landscape and realize they cant get everything they want with a Democratic Senate and President.

OK I'm not an expert in the US politics. But American people voted GOP to have a majority in the House and they expect both parties be responsible and mature to make the House work for them (the people), not itself! Because GOP has the majority the Speaker has to be GOP and the House has to work.

So it could have played out as:

Responsible Democrats and Republicans talk who they could work with on the agenda needed for the country, the citizens. They have a majority for a candidate in this case, he/she is elected and the House gets to working for the people.

The Republicans say no, no we'll elect them just by ourselves no help needed and agree on a candidate who then has to accept the strings to the extreme margin. And it zips from there in the only possible direction.

Question: was the former option even considered, by both parties? Or it's something no longer necessary? Because partisanship has become a thing in its own right, it controls the decisions of (purportedly) people's representatives, instead of representatives working for the people as they must and expected to?

[myata]

McCarthy exemplifies quite clearly the problem of GOP that is torn between the democracy and Constitution and pleasing the loudmouth lying mob. You can't have both, no. History showed that very clearly. Honesty and responsibility is the best way forward in all circumstances.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, myata said:

 Honesty and responsibility is the best way forward in all circumstances.

Well, if there's no trust between parties then you have to make agreements.  It sounds, from the above, that McCarthy made a deal with the dems that he didn't keep so bon voyage.  

[Deluge]

19 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Kevin McCarthy, who is the first Speaker of the House to be ousted, was a Republican with more or less Centrist views that could find agreements on many issues with the Democrats.

He has been ousted with an unanimity of the votes of the Democrats, who voted alongside 8 Republicans. The 8 Republicans are considered to be at the far Right of the GOP in general.

This isn't the first case of Democrats making life easier for the extremists of the opposite party. In 2015, many Democrats helped Trump win the GOP nomination, leading to the victory of the GOP in the 2016 election. They thought, at first, that giving the spotlight to the extremist contender would guarantee an easy 2016 bid for Hillary Clinton. It was an obvious mistake.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428/

Now, History seems to rhyme again. We have seen an unanimous vote from Democrats to further radicalize the GOP. Will it be a winning strategy, this time?

Will it help ordinary Americans?

Will the GOP implode more than it already is? Are we about to witness a second coming of Ross Perot?

There's nothing extreme about keeping America normal. If the left had its way, all children would be wards of the state and the number of gender reassignment surgeries would spike through the roof. 

[eyeball]

16 hours ago, West said:

What makes one "far right" anyway?

Deplorability.

[Legato]

On a related n

Nancy Pelosi and her long-time deputy Steny Hoyer have been ordered to leave their workspaces in the US Capitol by acting House Speaker Patrick McHenry.

Both were told locks on their office doors will be "re-keyed" on Wednesday.

The evictions come after Kevin McCarthy was ousted from the chamber's plum post on Tuesday and Mr McHenry, a top loyalist, was appointed in the interim.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67005444

[eyeball]

Seems more like a country evicting a diplomat.

I wonder how long it'll be until partisan states start levying sanctions on one another for supporting the enemy?

[Nationalist]

18 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Far right isn't necessarily fascist. There are many views which are deemed far left or far right that are legitimate, although I do not identify myself to one extreme or another. But far right of the GOP means being more orientated to being isolationist, more obsuctrionist, less incline to promote mass migration, less inclined to accept the election result of 2020, etc.

The other part of the GOP is for more intervention, votes more in the favor of the Democrats, voted Bills to include more immigrants in the USA, do not deny the 2020 election results etc.

There is really a part of the GOP which is far right, just the same as the far left with the Democrats.

Huh...so Democrat lapdogs Vs independent, strong-willed conservatives. OK.