http://www.whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva/2012/10/the-difference-parties-dont-make.html

To take an example from this thread, bad Jim @52 believes that recent Democratic presidents do not invade foreign countries because magnitude maters and Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Libia do not count.

I didn’t realize Obama was reading this. I’d better watch my step.

Democrats can’t reason or bargain with Republicans not because of something to do with ‘reality’, whatever that is, but because the Democratic Party has taken up almost all of the Republicans’ ideological space. The Republicans’ stock in trade is sadly depleted. Serve the rich, bail out bankers and brokers? Democrat. Start and continue wars all over? Democrat. Trash the Bill of Rights? Democrat. Surveille everybody? Democrat. Bust Welfare, Social Security? Democrat. Poor old Republicans have just about nothing left to sell, as their silly Benghazi fandango shows.

Obama, for nearly all of his first term, was the embodiment of Broderism, both in terms of his desire for a “grand bargain” with the Republicans, and his acceptance of standard the centrist view that the core requirement of such a bargain was to cut Medicare and Social Security. He’s shifted away from that significantly, both in process and policy terms.

The main point of posts like this, and my previous post, is to convince centrists like Obama that the Republican party, as it now exists, is not based on reality and can’t be reasoned or bargained with.

Variant of your epigram:
“I never meant to say that the Radicals are generally silly. I meant to say that silly people are generally Radical. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”

Forget who, in the late 19th century, said that. Not obviously less true than Mill. Sauce for goose, sauce for gander.

I knew several such when I was younger, fewer now. Would it be too much trouble for you to explain which revolutionary socialist attempts have been successful; and why you think the others failed; and how you think your revolutionary efforts will avoid failure?

I must take a little exception here, though (bad Jim 02.11.13 at 6:50 am @ 52): ‘ The last three Republican presidencies featured invasions of foreign countries, while the last three Democratic presidencies did not. There has also been a notable difference in the competence with which natural disasters have been managed, and both of these have actually drawn considerable attention from the media.’

One of the strongest evidences of a coherent ruling class in the U.S. is the remarkable consistency of American foreign and military policy and action since World War 2. The last three Democratic presidents have all been resolute interventionists in spite of the disastrous effects of the Vietnam intervention of their predecessors upon their party and country.

In regard to natural disasters, FEMA’s performance was an object of derision here in New York City. However, they may have had better public relations elsewhere. In any case it may be that large authoritarian organizations are incapable of responding to such events because of the many layers of bureaucracy through which any proposal for action must pass, whereas local volunteer groups can simply go and do what they think needs to be done. The Gothamist, a local news website, published amusing pictures of Occupy Sandy volunteers feeding woebegone FEMA volunteers, who said they had been sent to the Rockaways with no mission, directions, funds, food, tools, or rain gear. One can imagine what would have happened if we had had a New-Orleans sized disaster. Or maybe not.

The study as I recall found that over that time period support for Democratic values had generally run between 45-50%, while for Republican values the support had been mostly between 40% and 45% – but had fallen below that at the time of the survey (and is no doubt well below that now).

I’m sure the study is easily found, it got lots of attention at the time. I’m not aware of any updates.

The suggestion I took away was that there was a solid base of around 45% for any Democratic candidate that wasn’t “nuts” (and they’ve had their share too) and maybe a 40% base for a similarly non-nuts Rebuplican candidate. The middle 15% of the electorate is the one that will be variously swayed by the economy, media, personal appeal and maybe, just maybe a little data (accurate or not).

Obviously its easier to pull 5 of 15 than 10 of 15 which explains much of the recent success of Democrats and will likely contribute to their long-term success unless they arrogantly rest on their laurels to the point where they think they can run “nuts” and win.

Firstly, it reveals that they think of themselves as the parents, and everyone else as the children. That’s a patronising and worrying assumption right there.

Then, parenting is associated with being mean. Now, like every single person on the planet, I had some issues with things my parents said and did when I was younger, and there are now moments when I understand things they said or did that I didn’t at the time, but “being mean” was, and is, not something I associate with their parenting, and I’d be horrified if that’s what my child associated with me.

Being a parent =/= mean. Worth bearing in mind at this juncture that the main reason the US has not signed up the Convention on the Rights of the Child is because of right wing perception that it undermines the authority of parents.

The differences aren’t really that hard to see. The last three Republican presidencies featured invasions of foreign countries, while the last three Democratic presidencies did not. There has also been a notable difference in the competence with which natural disasters have been managed, and both of these have actually drawn considerable attention from the media.

It seems like a reasonable question. The parties are different, in the tribal identities and cultural associations they furnish their memberships. One might almost think the party competition was a show, put on to distract the populace.