Republicans cannot govern and here is what I think is why

The Republican Party's struggle to govern effectively despite controlling the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court is due to several factors. They lack a clear agenda, public support, and internal unity. The party's ideology of limited government makes it hard to prioritize policy goals. Furthermore, public opinion is not always in their favor, and there are divisions within the party on specific issues. The U.S. political system's design to protect minority rights also complicates their ability to govern as a majority party. In contrast, Democrats in the past had a more unified agenda and public support for their policies.

The above is an AI summary of the article linked to below. The article was written in 2017. just when Trump took over the White House. But the amusing fact is, it's even more true today. A minutiae, but telling evidence of that fact is how the House is going through speakers more than Trump changes wives and I would say it's the rise of MAGA movement, where the lesser educated segment of our society found in Trump their champion, and now they are trying to exact their influence, where, in my view, society was much better off back in the day when GOP granddaddy Bill Buckley (who was editor-in-chief and founder of the National Review Magazine, the premier conservative magazine during his era), he was able to keep the John Birchers (who were the trumpers of the 60s/70s/80s) pushed to the sidelines.

During the Buckley years, if Buckley didn't approve of it, it was not mainstream conservatism. Buckley understood how their fringe views were problematic, though he also understood Republicans needed their votes, so it was like treading a high wire keeping them from exerting too much influence without alienating them, as well. My view is that when Buckley died, there was no one to keep them down, and Trump saw this as a group he could hijack for political power, which is precisely what he did. Before his run, and during his Celebrity Apprentice years, he was a Democrat.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-republicans-cant-govern/

Modern Republicans face an additional problem. Much of the party’s stated governing ideology rests on the premise that “government is the problem,” which makes it difficult to develop a coherent agenda for determining what the government should be doing. And currently, there isn’t much else unifying a party fragmented along lines of ideology, openness to compromise and support for the president.

This is the fundamental flaw in conservative philosophy, which was crafted by Ronald Reagan, that 'government is the problem'. But there is a fundamental flaw in that philosophy, and it is this: Government is a natural progression of human desire to organize and manage larger and larger groups which become societies which become nations which demand a structured hierarchy of some sort which demands a public contribution to establish a governing hierarchy (of some sort).

In other words, before humans acquired enough intelligence to organize (on larger scales), achieved through the natural process of millions of years of evolution, they had only enough intelligence to manage very small groups---these are the small ad hoc hunter and gatherer family/groups of our distant past, and that overall, anarchy was the rule. As we developed more intelligence via natural evolution, our brains got bigger, etc., and evolution rewarded intelligence over all other survival mechanisms, then our desire to organize was the logical alternative to anarchy.

So, government is a natural human outgrowth of evolution. If you are saying that 'the problem is government, itself, what you are really saying is that human nature is the problem, itself, and if that is true, there until we can solve the problem of human nature, we are dealing with a problem that is unsolvable. Under conservative thinking, it's like we can't get there from here, and "here" being solutions to societies big problems.

So, the big question is, is that fundamental principle of conservative philosophy true?

Republicans say it is.

Democrats say it isn't.

If Republicans are right, we can't get there from here and the Republicans disarray in the house are the exclamation point of that fact.

If Democrats are right, we can get there from here.

Sorry, I'm an optimist and so I'm going with Democrats.

An interesting side note, here is an article on the John Birch Society and it's influence:

https://theconversation.com/the-joh...n-politics-60-years-after-its-founding-107925

 

My biggest issue with them is the refusal to have even a single discussion in good faith.

Saying they want smaller government would be fine if they actually did anything to promote that but simply refusing to govern seems to be their only actual policy position sprinkled with some religious control.

If people of this nation can look at how the current Republican led House of Representatives is functioning and believe they want more of that — If they want government so small that it can fit in a child’s uterus to force them to have their rapists baby but not so small that they cannot spend more than any administration in the history of the nation — then they need to vote Republican.

 

What do you think is "societies big problems"?

I'm not going to dispute what you say about conservatives. But Democrats are no better. They're on the opposite end of the spectrum now a days. Where they think that everything needs to have government involvement. Where government should be getting into every aspect of peoples lives.

Lets put it this way. In December of 2023 the Federal Registrar had over 90,000 pages of new laws and regulations added to it. Almost 80,000 in 2022. Every year since at least Bush Sr. has seen an increase of pages of laws and regulations. Each year consisting of 10's of thousands of new pages of laws and regulations.


LINK: The 90,402-page 2023 Federal Register contains 3,018 final rules and regulations. (forbes.com)

As you can see, neither side is actually benefiting America. But they sure do think they are. There comes a point when Government should just be maintaining the Status Quo. Not dipping its nose into every little detail. We have long passed that point. Which is why we now have politicians advocating for idiotic ideas and pushing idiotic agendas.

 

You are correct in that Democrats are on the opposite side of Republican's inability to govern. This is why in the last 40 years or so, democrats pass policies that work to solve problems, and Republicans don't pass... anything. The last two Republican administrations have been about tax breaks for the wealthy... Nothing that would benefit the country. And every time Republicans manage to take over one of the branches of government, all they do is obstruct so Democrats can't pass anything either. The latest bi-partisan Senate immigration bill is the best example: it contained previsions that REPUBLICANS believed would work to ameliorate (if not solve) the border problem. And they refused to even submit it to a vote. Even Republican legislators ADMITTED that they opposed it because solving immigration problems would be considered a "win" for Biden.

 

Well, I have learned, over the years, never underestimate the right's incessant propensity to engage in simplistic reasoning. Theirs is a black and white, either or, world, and nuance? What is that?

Your comment is the quintessential example of my above point.

I think it's specious to frame your premise on the number of pages in the federal register. In fact, it's simplistic. You seem to be implying that what's in the federal register are nothing but new laws and regs by Congress, but that makes up only a tiny portion of the register. Only a small percentage of bills proposed, which include amended versions, rewritten versions, noting that these versions go back and forth between both houses before an amalgamated bill is agreed on by both houses before it's sent to the resolute desk, so, only a small proportion (like several percentage points) actually become law. And still ,this is a small portion of the register, which the record of all activity is kept, not to mention all the congressional hearings, investigations, testimonies, which comprise the vastly larger proportion, it includes propose rules, notices, presidential documents, it includes documentation of the activities of all the federal agencies, their hearings, witness testimonies, and so forth. When laws are repealed, they are replaced by new laws, but they don't eliminate the repealed laws, the federal register is a record of all the government's activity since day one, not a stat for 'how big the government is', that's ridiculous logic because, naturally, the register is going to expand over time, even if a new law in congress was never written. If you've ever written a diary, note that it gets thicker as time passes, which cannot be interpreted as you having a bigger brain.

So, while the size of the Federal Register might indicate the scale of regulatory activity, it doesn't straightforwardly correlate with government efficiency or effectiveness. Using it as a sole metric to criticize government can be misleading, as it ignores the complexity and necessity of many regulations that serve important public functions. Thus, your skepticism about using the Federal Register as a definitive proof of "big government" failing America is well-founded.

Therefore, your premise 'Dems are no better', could have been a good argument, it's just that your post doesn't prove that point. You are barking up the wrong tree.

 

@Kal'Stang

Amending the reply:

Thus, your skepticism about using the Federal Register as a definitive proof of "big government" failing America is well-founded.


Was supposed to be:

Thus, MY skepticism about using the Federal Register as a definitive proof of "big government" failing America is well-founded.

Sorry for the error, I type really fast and sometimes my brain doesn't catch the mistakes.

 

Those were "final" rules and regulations, in other words, rules and regulations that were passed and are in effect. Not all the variations thereof. And they're not even the rules/laws passed by Congress. Those are just the ones passed by the various agencies under Biden. If you had read the link I had given you would have known this. Instead you jumped to conclusions and made assumptions. I've warned you about that before. You also would have noted that Biden stopped the streamlining that Trump was doing. As the article makes note of that also. Which means most of these are not about streamlining or amending rules and regulations.

And it is just one point of many that I could make. What you mistake for "simplistic reasoning" and "black and white, either or," blah blah blah is just the effects of not wanting to make dissertations. We're on a forum. Not in a college/university. Nor are we writing studies to be published in journals. We're simply talking on a forum. As such even the long ass posts that you write are simplistic. However you make my point for me btw. The fact that you thought those were about laws passed by Congress, when it wasn't shows just how huge a problem it is. Now, add in the things that Congress adds along with the things the various agencies pass, and you'll see just how bloated and huge our government is and just how much they're meddling, and regulating, everyone's lives.

 

Acknowledged. Makes no relevance to me though.

 

The US system of government is like a forest that has no fungi to rot the fallen leaves and branches.

What is needed is a fourth branch of government, a "legislature" with the sole function of repealing laws, retracting rules and regulations, voiding court precedents, and abrogating treaties in order to systematically clear away the detritus of 233 years of government.

 

Wait! Isn't that what Republicans do? Destroy much create nothing?

 

after reading this article, its 100% clear to me that they did the 100% right thing by not signing that bill
GOOD!

 

Not really. Both parties like to spend more money, just on different things. Both parties like to increase laws, regulations, and rules, just on different things.

The Republicans, or at least a faction, were for small government prior to Reagan. With Reagan the Republican focus was changed to focus on more spending on the military industrial complex and cutting taxes while running up more debt.

Both parties are big government parties with different priorities for expansion.

 

He who governs least governs best. I'd rather have a do nothing congress than one that thinks everyone requires their input on every aspect of our lives.

 

And the evidence suggest that the rules are getting larger and there fore more complex. And note congress does not actually do any governing the bureaucracy does and empowering bureaucracy against the people is never a good idea.

 

Clearly you don't know what you're saying. Without military, roads, education, social security... this country would be no better off than Somalia.

However, this IS what Republicans tend to drive us into when they come anywhere near holding any positions of power.

 

I would like to see the government spending a lot less. But it won't happen if they don't have to collect taxes to pay for things, it just gets worse.

 

Funny we got by without a federal department of education for more than a hundred and fifty years. By the way that's four departments why do you think we need the other 49?

 

Really? You're just playing tag. I called you simplistic, now it's your turn to call me simplistic. Nice try. No banana.

well, we're cut from different fabric. If you are dealing with a subject that beckons for serious treatment, I'm going to go there. If that blows your 'too much information' valve, just don't participate.

I don't participate for those with short attention spans. You have been warned.

No, I didn't think that. I thought it was YOU who were thinking that.
But, that you aren't, really doesn't change my point, below.

I hear this talking point by right wingers for some 60 years now.

You guys bellyache about the size of government, but when you get in office, you contribute to it, if not more, and it is often more, as well. Now, you made that point, which is good. But here's the thing, my point wasn't about who is the best regulator, who is the best deregulator, because, as you say, neither are very good at that particular function, but you miss, the point I make, in the OP, was that republicans cannot govern whatsoever, far worse than dems, and the reason is they don't beleive in government at all.

It's like this, if I wanted to destroy a business that I own and operate, I would hire someone who doesn't believe in business or private enterprise. The converse is also true given that Republicans do not believe in government at all, they hate government, they think everyone in the government employ are folks 'on the dole' they don't distinguish between valid gov jobs and welfare (maybe you don't, but a number of right wingers I've encountered do). As long as they hate government, there is no way they can effectively govern.
The output of the 118th congress is a pale shadow of former congresses.

Now then.....

Okay, the 'final' rules and regs only comprise 3% of the federal register, which, yes, you have indicated it (though you didn't do the percentage calculation), and ....

you make this conclusion?

As you can see, neither side is actually benefiting America.

That's nuts. How is that even logical. You didn't state your case, you just pointed to lots of figures, an assumed your point was true that all that equals 'bloated government'. If that were true, we could just cut the book in half, repealing half the regs with it, and would that improve society? It would probably wreck it, given that many necessary regs would be removed. That's a weak argument, if there ever were one.

Quibbling over what's in it is beside the point,

But my point still stands, unrefuted. Which is....

Your conclusion is specious. The federal register cannot possibly be used to determine 'both sides are the same'.


Look, this is a huge country, and a huge country needs a big government. Our government is the natural outgrowth of society's need to organize itself. That it's 'big' hard to manage, 'bloated' whatever term endears you the most, is simply due to it's bigness. Ever been in a big business? I have and they are bloated, as well. Bigness is always hard to manage, public or private, and what, you think you could do better, or you can vote for someone who can do better? No one can. That's virtually an unsolvable problem. Let's deal with problems that are solvable, like passing the Senate Border Bill.


No, the only things you warn me about or usually items that are irrelevant.

 

And we finally realized our education was falling way behind when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik.

 

And it has only gotten worse.
.
The wokesters now want to dismantle advanced high schools because Whites excel

 

So you don't understand that things change. Got it.

 

Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and because of their hatred of government, cannot make it work due to their hatred.

 

And it was another thirty years after that when we got a Department of Education and it's been all down hill ever sense.

 

Yes things change that one however did not make things better. Not all changes make things better.

 

Again who holds Congress has almost nothing to do with how the government operates, The administrative state is operated by the Presidency.