I don’t see how the lefty blog comments sampled at the two links even support the notion of totalitarian tendencies. A more alarming totalitarian tendency is accusing one’s enemies of being a traitor of wrapping oneself in the flag and accusing those who don’t support you of being unpatriotic. Some Republican Congressmen called people who did not support the war traitors. Others in the right wing community (not necessarily part of the end times crowd either) want to shoot all traitors. The level of reactionary emotional vindictiveness seems to be as high or higher in the right wing community than anything the Democrats can muster.

I object to those claiming to have a moderate political ideology and then for one emotional reason or another (”those Democrats are just mean-spirited!”) prefer Republicans. Such justification is as emotional and petty as the tendencies of which you accuse the Democratic wingers. To even vote for moderate Republicans is to approve of Republican stewardship for the last 6 years (”here are the keys back.”). The moderate Republican junior senator from where ever is not going to be able to change the face of the Republican party for quite some time. Continued endorsement of the Republican party is to approve of their domestic and foreign policies, to be ok with illegal wiretapping, to be ok with torture, and to be ok with Congress (a Republican Congress) passing legislation that retroactively legalizes all of the Bush lawlessness.

These are the facts which should be given sober and careful consideration.

Infantrie, you just said a mouthful. LOL.

You evidently didn’t look past Line 1 when you went to the links. Each is a gathering of quoted comments, one on Bush, Chavez and Ahmadinejad at the UN, the a group of feminists saying “let’s get” Ann Althouse (as if she was Leon Trotsky or something).

ADHD?

Good luck!

There is no difference between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims.

other than fundamentalist Muslims are a little more well versed in
hatred and killing in the name of god.

When was the last time a christian flew an airplane full of people into
a crowded building?

It is beyond me how anyone who really thinks about what is going on in the world can honestly say that Republicans, embodied as they are by the current administration, are representative of any but a small group of fundamentalist Christians who earnestly hope for the end of the world. Having the perspective of past membership in the latter group, all i can say is Be Afraid. These are not people guided by what is best for anyone other than themselves, and they think they’re going to be airlifted out of here sooner rather than later, so what happens to the planet or humanity is an afterthought.

Republicans, less this influence are basically bog standard humans just like Democrats and Sunnis and Zoroastrians and Socialists. The differences between Republicans and Democrats are not as pronounced as demagogues on either side would have anyone believe.

I can’t rule out paranoia, but my feeling is that the greatest danger to the Republican party, and by extension the world since they are in power, is the influence of fundamentalist Christianity. There is no difference between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. Christians and Muslims do not present a danger, it’s fundamentalism. Zealotry, not straightforward ideology or religious belief is the root of the problem, though I have my own issues with religious belief.

Amba correctly points out that our political system appeals to and encourages extremism. Should we then zealously overthrow our system to encourage moderation? Um, prolly not. Moderation in politics is a pain in the ass. Extremism is easy. It requires no thought beyond the primary colors, and provides immediate release of frustration. Or, at least easily self-defined objects of one’s frustration. Moderate politial thought is boring and requires work, which is why it has a limited appeal.

It’s possible that some changes need to be made to the way politicians are elected, but I’m always suspicious of anyone who makes such suggestions. This system has worked quite well for a long time, though it’s difficult for me to escape the thought that that’s because the de-marginalization of large swaths of people here is a relatively recent phenomenon. Having said that: Measure twice and cut once.

I just learned that my liberal-independent mother (a kick-ass 82) registered as a Republican because she wanted to vote in a particular primary race. Thus demonstrating that it is possible to register as a Republican without becoming — identifying as — a Republican. Since I viscerally dislike partisanship, that’s probably as far as I’ll go.

“I disagree with their [democrats] emotional outbursts and think that a better approach is to argue based on the facts and with convincing policies and strategies that address the problems the administration has created.”

So, you would rather stand behind, defend and support disastrously failed and failing foreign policy in the hands of Republicans? Your friend is drunk and drives your car off the road into a ditch. Do you let him keep driving? Personally, I would take the keys away.

I would rather have NO FOREIGN POLICY than a Neocon foreign policy. Their farcical War on Terror in Iraq destabilized the region, increased the likelihood of additional terror acts on our soil, and increased Iran’s power and prestige in the region (an opposite effect the Neocons were actually going for). Republican knee jerk foreign policy is “stay the course” (even when it is not working). Neocons knee jerk foreign policy is a second (Iran) and maybe third (Syria) invasion to stimulate regime change. (Oh, that will solve the problem. More war. Look! A raging forest fire! Let’s douse it with thousands of gallons of gasoline. BRILLIANT!)

Pre-emptive strike and regime change are horrible foreign policies. Democracy does not magically appear after the US removes a totalitarian regime. All our regime change does it to create a power vacuum that will likely be filled by a different baddie.

Democracy is like a muscle and must be exercised. A society with no democratic experience will have troubles and friction. Democracy can get you to a better place but it takes time (e.g. South Africa and the oppression of the majority by the politically powerful minority, or an earlier time in our history, when the majority failed to recognize even the humanity of certain members of our society…slaves). What we really want is liberty for everyone. Liberty comes from tolerance and acceptance and respect for rule of law. These always take time to develop, especially if you’ve only known bigotry, distrust, and corruption.

Umm, actually the Republicans run everything and are still angry – some type of majority minority syndrome.

So, assuming that this is not an oversight, I’d say, sure, become a Republican: Forceful assertions backed by no evidence have been a potent tool for them.

I also believe that nominating Hillary as the Democratic candidate for President in 2008 would not only guarantee a ground swell of conservative voters, but woudl be more likely to make an uber-conservative their choice.

http://dontbealemming.com/2006/09/24/jerry-falwell-says-hillary-clinton-will-mobilize-gop-base.aspx

Posted by the Lemming Herder from Don’t Be A Lemming!

Okay, enough with this rant…now I’m depressed.

It’s only natural that the party out of power is going to attract the more outraged commenters. Why should the people who run everything be angry? I think you’re forgetting some of the things Republicans were saying when Clinton was in power.

I think some Democrats lack a certain eloquence and sophistication when expressing their objections about Bush because where do we begin? I admit it’s easier (and feels better) to foam at the mouth and rage. But, such outbursts do not give ‘moderates’, ‘centrists’, ‘libertarians’, and ‘reasonable conservatives’ an excuse to close their eyes and ignore Bush’s behavior. Some of the issues? Breaking the law (torture and eavesdropping), ignoring due process (extraordinary rendition and military tribunals without basic criminal rights like seeing the evidence), becoming involved in private lives (Terri Schiavo), record deficits, a war in Iraq completely unrelated to the WOT, and corporate welfare (Medicare Drug Benefit give away to drug companies and no-bid contracts to “rebuild” Iraq).

“I sure don’t want to help a party come into power that gives any credibility whatsoever to the naive world view and immature rude behavior of the nutroots.”

Naïve world view? “There is good, and there is evil.” “You are either for us or for the terrorists.” “Saddam (oops – the terrorists) are evil.” “We are so righteous and pure in our actions that nobody can have any legitimate grievance against us.”

Nutroots? At least the Democrats have the decency to hide their crazies on the internet in comment sections and blogs. Republicans parade them around and give them national air time every week. Please see Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and others.

Finally (everybody is probably cheering and saying about time),

“More than that, though, I’ve been nauseated by the totalitarian mindset on shameless display in lefty blog comments..”

So, a self-described “reasonable” centrist is thinking about becoming a Republican because of the totalitarian tendencies he sees amongst Democrats (a narrow subset as you describe it)? Are you being disingenuous or naïve?

I voted for her husband (twice), his vice president, and George Bush, and I joined the military after the invasion of Iraq, so I think my vote can fairly be described as up for grabs. All of which is just to say, Amba, that you shouldnt say you “won’t” vote for Hillary until you see who the alternative is.

Hillary Clinton is about as centrist as you can get – so centrist, in fact, that I suspect you really dislike her because she’s dull (that’s why I dislike her). That’s fine, but it has nothing to do with centrism. She’s Joe Lieberman, plus some soapy backstory, and minus the willingness to take dumb risks.

Rudy won’t have a hard time getting past the puritan guardians, because he’ll just give them whatever they want. They have a long history of taking bribes, anyway. McCain, on the other hand, might; because he’s gone out of his way to agitate them, and because libertarians like Icepick aren’t his allies either.