What is the future of the Republican Party?

[Guy Chamberlin]

One of the reasons mental health is being more openly discussed these days is because of years and years of efforts to de-stigmatize it. Once that conversation opened up, we realized that virtually everyone has someone among family and close friends affected by mental illness, often serious mental illness, that had been hidden or undiagnosed, or simply not talked about due to the social shame. That's a pretty huge development. 

Using Herschel Walker to give it a partisan slant seems like a real stretch.

If you want to talk about mental health in the What is the Future of the Republican Party thread, let's talk about public policy and social services. 

If you want to talk about pathological conspiracy theories being legitimized as normal discourse........I don't even know where to begin. 

 

[Lorewarn]

Medium story short, you are wrong in your assessment. 

I didn't say that you don't care. I said the reason you brought up how amazing and inspiring Herschel Walker getting elected wasn't because of your care, and you having history of illnesses in your family (which everybody does) doesn't disprove my thoughts about you and your theoretical support for Walker.

 

[Archy1221]

, and you having history of illnesses in your family (which everybody does) doesn't disprove my thoughts about you and your theoretical support for Walker

I wasn’t trying to disprove theoretical support for Walker :dunno   

If the primaries showed him electable and his 20 yr alleged issues behind him because of treatment then I would be fine with him over Warnock.  How your getting this confused is strange
 

 

[Lorewarn]

I wasn’t trying to disprove theoretical support for Walker :dunno   

If the primaries showed him electable and his 20 yr alleged issues behind him because of treatment then I would be fine with him over Warnock.  How your getting this confused is strange

Because you're on record thinking he needs to win against Warnock period, not only "if the primaries showed him electable and his 20 yr alleged issues behind him because of treatment"

 

[Archy1221]

Because you're on record thinking he needs to win against Warnock period, not only "if the primaries showed him electable and his 20 yr alleged issues behind him because of treatment"

You keep trying and keep getting it wrong.  I admire the tenacity and effort, but at some point reality should set in for you.  
 

since you love to research my posts, take a gander at the ones to enhance 

 

[Lorewarn]

You keep trying and keep getting it wrong.  I admire the tenacity and effort, but at some point reality should set in for you.  
 

since you love to research my posts, take a gander at the ones to enhance 

Okay. Let's keep in mind that this was your second comment in regards to Walker (the first being that he should leverage his football fame if he wants to win):

The guy needs to lose bad. 

Not if it’s against Warnock.  

Then here's your first post in response to Enhance

He isn’t a pick I would like to have as first choice if I were a Georgian, however, he can’t really be any worse than Warnock policy wise and policy is what affects citizens.  

The next:

I could argue that if a Freshmen Senator is mentally unstable to create policy good enough to have 60 Senators approve it, him creating policy isn’t much of a worry.    His vote for policy created by the Leadership Team is valuable though and something Warnock doesnt deliver that Walker would.  

So to recap,

#1 he needs to not lose (aka win) against Warnock

#2 he can't be any worse than Warnock on policy

#3 even if he's too unstable to make good policy he still offers something of value as a Senator

Forgive me if I'm failing to see all the focus on mental health in here, and the acknowledgment that the above three assertions are only true if he's stable enough for office.

 

[Enhance]

In @Archy1221's defense, he did also say the following to me:

If any politician is unable to carry out their duties because of mental issue, they shouldn’t be in the office anymore.   So if Walker is still having problems that would prevent him from serving, then he isn’t a better option than Warnock by default.

He and I went back and forth for awhile on that discussion because I (and it appears I was not alone) interpreted his original stance as being "Walker or bust," regardless of Walker's mental health and other personal concerns. I don't think that this is Archy's viewpoint now after the discussion, but Archy is admittedly higher on Walker as a Senatorial candidate than I am.

I still maintain Walker's personal and professional resumé is too volatile and risky to become a U.S. Senator. Our nationally elected officials should be the best of the best. That dude isn't it and he doesn't deserve to be given a shot, particularly because it can be incredibly difficult to remove an elected official from office.

 

[Archy1221]

Okay. Let's keep in mind that this was your second comment in regards to Walker (the first being that he should leverage his football fame if he wants to win):

Then here's your first post in response to Enhance

The next:

So to recap,

#1 he needs to not lose (aka win) against Warnock

#2 he can't be any worse than Warnock on policy

#3 even if he's too unstable to make good policy he still offers something of value as a Senator

Forgive me if I'm failing to see all the focus on mental health in here, and the acknowledgment that the above three assertions are only true if he's stable enough for office.

#1) whether or not he is mentally fit for the job is at this point subject based on his treatment and recent history for the disorder he claims to have.  If he’s proven mentally unfit, then I’ve addressed that.  Which leads me to….

#2) your selective choice of posts.  Not surprised though

#3) you are being intentionally obtuse, again, if you do not believe policy affects citizens.  
 

 

[Lorewarn]

In @Archy1221's defense, he did also say the following to me:

Yeah, days later.

I (and it appears I was not alone) interpreted his original stance as being "Walker or bust," regardless of Walker's mental health and other personal concerns. I don't think that this is Archy's viewpoint now after the discussion

You rightfully interpreted it that way because that was all there was to interpret for the first while of the conversation.

He's since changed his tone, but that's really all I'm getting at; the fact that what he's offering as nuance and disclaimers now didn't exist before. Figuring out if that change in viewpoint is because he's changed his mind, is trying to tapdance out disclaimers for what he really thinks, or he's communicating poorly is really impossible to know, but easy to make a guess on based off history (similar to guessing about Walker's fitness for public service).

 

[Scarlet]

This is a totally disheartening but crucial read on the authoritarian state of the GOP and what that means for the future of democracy in the USA.  This is from a scholar of authoritarian dictatorships throughout history.  Having started this thread a couple of years ago I was naively hopeful that the GOP was at an inflection point and would throw off the yoke of Trumpism and it's authoritarian bent but over two years later it's clear,  the future, and present, of the Republican Party is authoritarianism.  Think of where this will head when an axis is formed between the US, Russia, and China.  The dark ages cometh again.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/16/history-shows-trump-personality-cult-end-00024941

She had seen enough of Donald Trump’s behavior over the preceding five years to know how neatly he lined up with other strongmen she had studied and how his autocratic tendencies would influence his behavior whether he won or lost.

“I just predicted that he wouldn’t leave in a quiet manner,” Ben-Ghiat, a professor of history and Italian studies at New York University told me recently. “He’s an authoritarian, and they can’t leave office. They don’t have good endings and they don’t leave properly.”

Nearly two years later — after a riot, an impeachment, and a monomaniacal campaign to punish the Republicans who tried to hold him accountable — Ben-Ghiat has ample proof of her thesis. And she professes even more concern that Trump’s sway over the GOP has permanently transformed the party’s political culture. “He’s changed the party to an authoritarian party culture,” she told me. “So not only do you go after external enemies, but you go after internal enemies. You’re not allowed to have any dissent.”

And so the GOP over these years has truly, in my estimation, become an authoritarian far-right party. And the other big story is that his agenda and his methods are being continued at the state level. Some of these things were on the agenda way before he came in, like getting rid of abortion rights and stuff like that. But these states are really laboratories of autocracy now, like Florida, Texas.

One of the big talking points and strategy of right-wing authoritarianism, is to label democratic systems as tyrannical. Mussolini was the first to say that democracies are tyrannical, democracies are the problem. And there’s a whole century’s worth of the strategy of calling sitting Democrats, who you want to overthrow, dictators. 

Americans traditionally always accepted that when your time is up, no matter how popular you were, you were gone. Trump disrupted that because he’s different from any other president, Republican or Democrat. He’s an authoritarian, and they can’t leave office. They don’t have good endings and they don’t leave properly.

(Desantis) has absorbed the lessons of what you need to get ahead in the GOP today. And that is to be a forceful bully, even to high school students. The way he carries himself and speaks has gotten much more aggressive.

What’s notable about him is he has sensed, like all smart politicians, what you need to get ahead in today’s America, in today’s GOP, what kind of leader you need to seem to be, what policies, what talking points, [such as] election fraud. What you need to do is turn citizens against each other, which he does with the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. His election security office has a hotline where you can call and tip off your fellow Floridians doing bad things. These are in themselves all things that match up with autocratic policies.

it’s not out of the realm of possibility that we could end up with some kind of form of autocracy because that’s what’s being set up by all of the assaults on our electoral system. And Bannon’s been working very hard at this, too, from his own vantage point. It’s intimidation of voters, removing voters, look at all these threats to election officials — so you get them out of the system — this all corresponds to what we call “autocratic capture.” There’s a movement going on. This is what I mean by more — it’s more legalistic and quieter. And that doesn’t tend to bring out people into the streets. Because it’s an evolution and it’s happening slowly, slowly, slowly

The reason that Trump was able to shift the political culture, Trump and his allies, is that he imposed an authoritarian party culture [with] unified messaging. Propaganda needs to be repeated with small variations. All the different Fox News hosts, all the GOP politicians, you can tell when the various talking points come up, because they get echoed

The final bolded sounds familiar after headquarters puts out it's talking points.  Good times ahead, y'all.   :cheers

 

[Enhance]

Yeah, days later.

That was partly my doing as it took me several days to respond to him.

You rightfully interpreted it that way because that was all there was to interpret for the first while of the conversation.

He's since changed his tone, but that's really all I'm getting at; the fact that what he's offering as nuance and disclaimers now didn't exist before. Figuring out if that change in viewpoint is because he's changed his mind, is trying to tapdance out disclaimers for what he really thinks, or he's communicating poorly is really impossible to know, but easy to make a guess on based off history (similar to guessing about Walker's fitness for public service).

I won't begrudge you your opinion, but I felt it was important to clarify his stance as he most recently left it. I don't like this idea of holding someone to precisely what they said at the beginning of a conversation if they have since clarified, even if we disagree with them. It's a tad disingenuous. I screw up or incorrectly relay my feelings all the time.

His initial posts indicated he did not care much at all about Walker's red flags as others (like myself) did. But saying he's on record as as "thinking [Walker] needs to win against Warnock period, not only" is inaccurate. Now, if we want to discuss whether or not Archy should put more emphasis on those red flags, that's fair game.

 

[Archy1221]

Yeah, days later.

You rightfully interpreted it that way because that was all there was to interpret for the first while of the conversation.

He's since changed his tone, but that's really all I'm getting at; the fact that what he's offering as nuance and disclaimers now didn't exist before. Figuring out if that change in viewpoint is because he's changed his mind, is trying to tapdance out disclaimers for what he really thinks, or he's communicating poorly is really impossible to know, but easy to make a guess on based off history (similar to guessing about Walker's fitness for public service).

So it’s settled.  We all agree you were wrong and just trying to save a little face here.  
 

Is Walker an ideal candidate—no; is Warnock an ideal candidate—no

Is Walker currently the better of two less desirable candidates—yes 

Does Walker have a diagnoses Mental Illness—yes; is it treated—yes; Does Warnock—we assume no. 

Does Walker have abuse allegation against him—yes; Does Warnock—yes

Does Walker have some financial suits/allegations—yes but has won most of them;  Does Warnock—yes

Does Walker have allegations of hiding Chile abuse—no; does Warnock—yes

Did Walker question the outcome of an election—don’t know but I assume yes based on his fervent Trump support; does Warnock—yes

Does Warnock support shifty legislation—YES;  will Walker support that legislation—no.  
 

Will you be leading the charge to get Warnock expelled from the Senate (based on your posting history). 

 

[Scarlet]

Keeping with the Republican's authoritarian theme, this situation is reminiscent of other places where a tyrant rose to power and good people (not that J.D. Vance is a good person) just allowed it to happen.  He likens Trump to either Nixon at best or Hitler at worst but now carries his water?  What the absolute f#&%?

 

[Lorewarn]

I don't like this idea of holding someone to precisely what they said at the beginning of a conversation if they have since clarified, even if we disagree with them. It's a tad disingenuous.

Couldn't agree more. But that's part and parcel trying to communicate with Archy, who will literally never find the bottom of the rabbit hole of parsing through every word and very quickly and gladly claiming that someone is putting words in his mouth.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Couldn't agree more. But that's part and parcel trying to communicate with Archy, who will literally never find the bottom of the rabbit hole of parsing through every word and very quickly and gladly claiming that someone is putting words in his mouth.

Very good point.

And let's be honest, Archy supports Walker because of the 'R' next to his name. He then rationalizes his support and desire for him to win after that fact. Millions of Americans do the same. 

And, frankly, this voting behavior is exactly what Republicans depend on in order to win. Does Walker have policy he believes in, a philosophy he's going to use in the floor of the Senate? No. His team is terrified the public will hear him speak in any unscripted event.

Republicans are going to dominate politics for the next 20 years or so. All we can hope for is that Republicans don't subvert Democracy more than they already have or accidentally invade a country again. America will undoubtedly become worse as a result - as evidenced by Trump. Let's hope it's recoverable.