this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023

113 points (98.3% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7177 readers

1450 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

113

Ex-GOP candidate says ‘pure democracy not the way to run a country’ (www.msn.com)

submitted 1 year ago by DevCat@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Former Republican Pennsylvania Senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum has said that Ohio’s vote to back abortion rights and marijuana legalisation shows that “pure democracies are not the way to run a country”.

The rightwing commentator, who was booted from CNN after making disparaging comments about Native Americans, appeared on the far-right network Newsmax on Tuesday night to take part in its election coverage.

top 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 48 points 1 year ago

"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy."

[–] DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.

-David Frum, Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 year ago

Lmao what kind of liberal bullshit is this? Quoting David Frum? Seriously. You may as quote fucking Paul Krugman or David Brock. What do all three of those people have in common? The country is built for them and yet people like you, who the government isn't for will hold them all up as people that should be listened to instead of ridiculed.

[+] Narrrz@kbin.social -15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

wasnt the republican party the democratic party back in Lincolns day?

[–] Saxoboneless@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A bit of a tangential question, but one I know a little about. Mostly correct, but I'd phrase it differently: up until the civil war, the Republicans were generally left-leaning and Democrats were generally right-leaning.

In terms of what lead to the switch, after the civil war, there weren't a whole lot of politicians in the south from either party who supported abolition. A solid number of those politicians likely saw a need to work together if they wanted white supremacy to succeed in a nation that just rejected their racist bs so hard that they fought and won a war with them over it.

Initially, the Democratic party was to remain the bastion of right wing regressivism, but the lines weren't firmly established until democrats started voicing their support for civil rights. Most majorly, Truman voicing his support for civil rights began the redrawing of the lines, and LBJ passing the civil rights act cemented the switch. All remaining Democrats who opposed civil rights switched to the Republican party, where they would cultivate and appeal to voters who shared their opinion on civil rights by developing and implementing the southern strategy.

This is the foundation of the modern Republican party - they were the party formed to oppose and undermine civil rights, a role they've maintained to this day.

[–] brambledog 8 points 1 year ago

Growing up in the age of Clinton and Bush, my father used to always say, "I didn't leave the democrats, the Democrats left me."

My jaw hit the floor when I read that very same quote out of politican's mouth in writings from that era. Over the next few years it dawned on me that my father was 5 when the civil rights act, and his grandfather was a minor figure in the Texas Democrats back in the 30s.

[–] DreamerofDays@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That depends upon how you mean those terms, and would be aided by capitalisation.

Do you mean lower-case “d” “democratic” (likened to the concept of “democracy”) or upper-case “D” “Democratic” (of or related to the party that goes by that name? If the former, more or less yes, if the latter, no. The parties kinda swapped alignment middle of last century on a lot of issues though.

[–] Narrrz@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

was the republican party's opponent called the democratic party back then? I thought they had other opposition, which was how they managed to be the left leaning party of the time.

[–] DreamerofDays@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

It was the Democratic Party, but it also kinda wasn’t. Particularly around the Civil War politics were, not surprisingly, rather fractious.

In the 1860 election, the last before the outbreak of the war, four candidates won electoral votes. The Democratic Party splintered a bit, with two of the candidates coming from it(one who sought a form of compromise over slavery, and one who was a pro-slavery hardliner).

I’m not sure how useful in practice “left” or “right” leanings are for discussing the parties back then in relation to now… that’s something I’ll leave to people who study this stuff more intently.

But there have been other parties in the mix in the US, and there was one that scored electoral votes in that election. This was also just after the dissolution of the Whig Party(which had been the party of four or so presidents).

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 29 points 1 year ago (2 children)

...appeared on the far-right network Newsmax on Tuesday night...

Nobody of any consequence appears on Newsmax. It's only slightly better than Infowars. Republicans and Conservatives pushing for autocracy has been their whole schtick since the Trump Admin.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

I put Newsmax, OAN, Fox, and InfoWars all in the same box of useless and crazy. They may not all be on the same level but they all belong there.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This guy used to be a US senator though. Gross name though, someone should tell him.

[–] cjoll4@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For those who might not get the joke, someone gave Rick Santorum's surname an unpleasant alternate definition in order to shame him for opposing gay rights.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Gross name, even grosser human being

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People really need to press him on why he wants government interference in reproductive rights.

https://www.salon.com/2012/01/06/karen_santorum_did_not_have_an_abortion/

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

That's easy for him, he will simply say that it is murder and everyone agrees that the government can criminalize murder. Any other ethical positions do not matter to him, or republicans, on this point, so it doesn't matter how stupid you make him look to people from an out group.

[–] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OK, yes pure democracy has problems. There should be some limits on what can be democratically decided. Something like the Athenian process of ostracism probably felt good, but it's pretty ripe for abuse. Or say, should slavery be put up for a vote? I'd lean towards "no". But, something like legalizing marijuana seems like a pretty good place for democracy to step in and stop decades of stupid by our politicians.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A major problem with majority rule is the tyranny of the majority.

What happened in Ohio was the majority of voters acting to protect certain minorities. Women who have a need for abortion services are a minority. Marijuana is only illegal so that people in minority demographics can be convicted of felonies and have their voting rights taken away.

[–] Narrrz@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

so, an example of democracy working how it ideally should, instead of how it could be expected to.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, and it makes it very clear which voters are only thinking of themselves, and which voters are thinking of society at large.

[–] Narrrz@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

insert principle skinner meme

"am i out of touch with the will of the people?

no, the people don't know what they want!"

[–] voidavoid@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/santorum

[–] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Turds and lube, turds and lube, everybody hates those turds and lube!

[–] DarkenLM@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I was very confused, as I had heard of the Latin sanctorum meaning "holy" before.

It has a comedic value to attribute something rather opposite to the true meaning of the word, but mostly confusing.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

There they go again, saying the quiet part out loud!

[–] bobbyfiend@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

This is a standard flip-flop. Conservatives swear we're not a democracy, we're a republic, we need Wise Old People as representatives, not mob action, etc. Until it's convenient to swear that the founding fathers wanted grassroots action at every turn, that people getting directly involved is the best kind of democracy, that insurrections by--

I'll stop there. Anyway, it's a phrase they trot out when things didn't go their way.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Too bad it wasn't a school shooter. Apparently the Founders were VERY CLEAR when it comes to making sure people can shoot up schools.