Long Island 2005 - GOP Bad Omen
November 9th, 2005 | by Jersey McJones |When the Democrats victorious returns came in from the 2005 elections, the GOP talking heads were quick to point out that the races were local-issue oriented, and that the mud-slinging turned off the suburban (read: Republican) voters. The idea being that this election was no national referendum on the White House or the GOP majority on The Hill. In New York City, New Jersey, California, Detriot, San Diego and Virginia, this line of argument seems reasonable - but not in Long Island.
Long Island has been a GOP stronghold for years. It is the prototypical suburban, white-flight, elite electorate. If this demographic turns on the Republicans nationally…
Let’s just say 2006 can’t come fast enough.
18 Responses to “Long Island 2005 - GOP Bad Omen”
By Doug on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
My free tip to Republicans would be to spin it the other way. The national Rep leadership is unarguably catastrophic. If I were a party member, my spin would be to blame the central leadership and start arguing that Republican ideals are still attractive to mainstreet America. Plus, it has the benefit of being true.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
Doug (is that you? - from Liberal Forum?), you may be right about the “ideas” being attractive, but they are failing left and right. A great example of this is Iraq: federalism, theocracy, universal gun ownership - all failures. You may be right in your advice, but even won’t last forever. Eventually, the ideas themselves will be shown as failures, as opposed to just the failures of those who espouse them.
By Doug on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
Different Doug, I think, although it is me, technically. I think the ideas of small government, deregulation, minimum federal intervention and low taxes haven’t failed. Those were the values of the Republican party for fourty years. Iraq, theocracy, getting up in everyones business are pretty anomolous to the party.
That’s kind of my point. You portray the Republican leadership perfectly, but I do think the Republican party of 1964-1992 might govern pretty well now. These guys all have to go, though. If I were a Republican, the last thing I would be doing now is defend them.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
Funny, you sound exactly like my friend Doug, an ex-pat conservative in living in Britian. Well, at least you are honest! I beg to differ, but I do it with respect.
Just out of curiousity, though, can you name one dereg that has improved what was deregged?
By Treason on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
Jersey,
Congrats on the biggest win in American election history!
One question for everyone here. I guess we can assume all the voting machines are working just fine since y’all had such a great day yesterday. All the fraud and shit has been fixed. Great to know so that November 7, 2006 there isn’t any bitching and moaning from your side. Seems like when you Dems win there are no problems and when you lose it’s all fraud. Just great to know that everything is fixed and elections here in the good ‘ol U.S.A. are back to no problems.
Congrats on the greatest day in Democrat election history yesterday. I for one have given up and thrown up the white flag because there is no way we can come close to you guys 11/7/2006. The whole country is now blue.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
Well, Treason, they certainly weren’t rigged in Long Island, huh?
By Doug on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
Deregulation probably wasn’t exactly what I meant, just a prettier word than “reluctant regulation.” I would argue that airline deregulation and free trade are deregs that work well. I’m an employer with a small (35-person) staff and I think the labor regulations and protections are overwhelming, especially here in California.
To be fair to the case, in this over-regulated labor market, I’ve managed to triple the number of jobs at my company and wages are up since 5 years ago, so I won’t try a stab at the “job-killing” canard. The laws “protecting” my employees do have the following results, though:
1. It is hard to reward excellence especially when that means treating the people who love their jobs and do well at them differently from the slackers.
2. My staff receive compensation they don’t especially like such as really expensive worker’s compensation (I agree they should have some level of worker’s comp) and the family leave act in exchange for missing compensation they tell me they want more like cash benefits, better milage reimbursement and a more affordable health plan. I had to cancel our profit-sharing program and reduce raises almost directly because of worker’s comp costs, legal costs of a sexual harassment complaint and the family leave act.
3. (This part is opinion, not fact) I think labor regulations make it harder for employers to compete for good people on the basis of being a good boss. The good bosses are really limited by regulations and fear of lawsuits from acting on a lot of impulses to be creative for staff benefits. The bad bosses are really limited in their ability to do evil. I think in a deregulated labor market, being a good boss and prosperity would be much more linked than it is now.
Sorry for the loooooooooooooong comment. And I too am an ex-pat American, only I moved not to Britain but California.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
I love it! Ex-pat in CA! LOL!
I see your point.
Well, let me ask, exactly which labor regs would you change or dereg?
Workman’s comp always seems unnecessary until you break your leg. Sexual harrassment always seems unnecessary until someone solicits your wife. Insurance… until you get sick. The family leave act… until you have a baby. The discrimination regs… until you get discriminated. Unemployment… until the plant burns down.
It seems that libertarians are simply people who are very lucky - who never had a bad break.
Do you see my point?
By Doug on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
I do, Jersey, and I’d love to debate but have to run to a meeting. Here’s fodder, though:
Leaving out worker’s comp and unemployment which I think are important safety nets from which workers and employers benefit (California’s worker’s comp I think is overindulgent but I wouldn’t scrap all of it,) I would argue that harassment and discrimination law all assumes that if my employees no longer work for me, they won’t eat and my business will continue as before. My experience is that keeping good staff is the most important factor of business success. If I treated my staff badly, my competitors would be glad to hire them to work while they ate up all of my revenue. Plus, does the poor female employee who might want to date the boss deserve no consideration?
By Jersey McJones on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
Doug, this is fun!
A woman who wants to date the boss is not a harassed woman (though the boss better be wary…). Sex is a powerful force. It drives people to do very, very bad - or stupid - things.
Now, your Smithian take on the labor market is unrealistic, in my humble opinion. If all bosses treat their employees like shit (I never work for Americans, myself) then there goes that theory.
I think it comes down to a common misconception - that somehow the government is bad and the private sector is good because Adam Smith say so. It’s like the efficiency theory - that somehow public bueaucracy is somehow more efficient than private bureaucracy. I never found that to be the case in practice.
Human nature is what it is. People make bad decisions for the wrong reasons all the time. A civilized people realize that and put in the regs necessary to reign it in.
By Doug on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
I don’t believe the free market is better than government for most things because Smith says it is. I believe it because I’ve found it to be. Probably 99% of the jobs in this country are replaceable.
I see it more like vaccinating everyone for dengue fever because anyone might go to India. If all bosses mistreat staff and a single one of them defects and starts treating employees well, that person will have a line out his or her door and be able to choose the best people. Then they’ll eat all their competitor’s lunch.
Regulation assumes two things, first that the regulation will change what it is intended to change in the direction hoped for. Second, that individuals making their own decisions won’t do the right thing on their own. As I said before, regulations get in the way all the time of doing things for my staff that they ask me for. So why do the regulations apply to good working relationships?
I suspect, but don’t know, that if all the harassment and discrimination law now on the books were repealed there would be no measurable increase in discrimination or harassment and that racism and misogyny would probably decrease. I may be wrong, but it is what I think and it is how I’d vote if there were still a small government party to vote for.
I agree with your last paragraph except it’s conclusion. People make bad decisions for the wrong reasons all the time and suffer the consequences. A civilized people can trust each other to do their best and to correct one another in relationships far more effective and informed than that between a colossal and distant government and tens or hundreds of millions of individual scoundrels.
By Doug on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
Was that it, Jersey?
By pia on Nov 9, 2005 | Reply
Jersey Doug’s my friend, and has written for Bring it on!
Doug’s an idealist and a gentleman. The definition of the phrase “Compassionate Conservative.” I know; I had problems believing that also.
He would never harrass a woman; he would be civilized, and he assumes that other people would act as he does.
If more people were like Doug we wouldn’t need regulations.
In many ways I admire thinking like that. But I have seen too many people treated too poorly
When I was 20 I told my boss I was leaving; he tried kissing me; it was a huge room, I ran. He followed me and told me how much I reminded him of his starving hippie son which made no sense as I was very much a girl
Fortunately I was faster than him, but he had tried sticking his tongue down my mouth. And that’s a funny story.
The point is that as long as there are people there will always be a need for regulations because as much as I would love them to be, People aren’t civilized.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 10, 2005 | Reply
I’m back. Had a busy day yesterday. Yes Pia, Doug seems very nice.
I think the problem libertarians have is that they have an almost paranoid distrust of anything governmental, paired with an almost blind faith in the power of free markets.
When, Doug, you say that “regulations get in the way all the time of doing things for my staff that they ask me for,” I’m sorry, but I don’t believe you. Not that I think you are lying. But that I think your judgement is clouded by your ideology. You cited a few regulations but were not able to counter my justification for each and every one of them.
I think your argument falls apart right here:
“A civilized people can trust each other to do their best and to correct one another in relationships far more effective and informed than that between a colossal and distant government and tens or hundreds of millions of individual scoundrels.”
So, which is it? Trust the people (the millions of scoundrels), or not?
A friend of mine wrote me an email yesterday:
___________________
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 3:50 PM
To: (Jersey McJones)
Subject: RE: VIP ACCTS
It’s also weird if you own your private business and your sweat and efforts as a business owner have a set of ethics and standards that you abide by, isn’t it your right as a business owner to refuse service to anyone including gays and minorities? Is the system defined as where business that is public must be open to all? Do you have to hire less qualified personnel? (Affirmative Action).
___________________
Here is how I replied:
___________________
From: (Jersey McJones)
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 4:10 PM
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: RE: VIP ACCTS
Ahhh, the ol’ libertarian angle. Well, my fine young friend, allow me to explain.
When you live/work/do business/build/whatever in a society, you have to play by that society’s rules. It must be understood that without that society, you’d have no life/work/business to pursue. The very rights that you enjoy must be enjoyed by all lest no one enjoy them.
For example: You are given the right to set up a business on a public street. You enjoy the public utilities (water, street lamps, etc) and the public services (police, firemen, etc) that the society pays for colectively. The society gives you that. Now, if you want to set up a restaurant in the middle of the woods, on your own property, that’s fine. You won’t get much business, though. So, if you enjoy the privileges and rights bestowed by that community onto you, then you must in turn honor those privileges and rights back unto the society.
Another example: Take the pharmacists who refuse to sell birth control drugs. A pharmacist is a trusted and important profession. Therefore, they are licensed by the State to perform their duties - to prove they are, in fact, Pharmaceutical Professionals. That Profession has guidelines and principles. If you don’t want to perform the duties proscribed by those guidelines and principles, then don’t be a pharmacist. Society does not conscript pharmacists against their will. If you want to be a Pharmacist, with the society ordaining you, than you must do your duty as one. You can not pick and choose that duty. Doctor writes prescription, patient brings it in, you fill it. Period.
That, my friend, is the Social Compact. If you want to see what Libertarianism looks like - read about Somalia.
As for Affirmative Action-based forced hiring - there is no such thing. No law says that anyone has to hire anyone. Don’t let the overheated bullshit rhetoric of the Right pull you in. It’s a lie. Trust me. Read the laws and you’ll see what I mean. In fact, they all specifically ban quotas.
Ciao Bro!
__________________
(I should have mentioned that gay people pay taxes for all those services too…)
The point is that the government is what we as a people make of it. Ideally, there should never be a need for libertarianism. Besides, what is libertarianism but throwing up your hands and giving up?
Best regards my friends, Jersey
By Doug on Nov 10, 2005 | Reply
I’ll agree to disagree, if that’s alright. For the record, I’m not a pure libertarian, I just think we should be more judicious about what the government gets involved. Sometimes bad behavior is just bad behavior. It doesn’t all need to be illegal.
Pia, I do understand that there are bad bosses and some days I am one.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 10, 2005 | Reply
What I always want to know, Doug, is exactly which regulations or laws offend. What would you change, or do away with? I hear alot of generalities - this law is draconian, this one’s unnecessary, this one’s unfair - but when I ask for details, I never get an answer. You mentioned Workman’s Comp. Well, how would you change it?
By Doug on Nov 10, 2005 | Reply
Oh, well I believe in Workman’s Comp, I would pare down California’s which is very vague as to what diagnoses qualify and what treatments are appropriate and how clear it has to be that an injury is work related, but I wouldn’t repeal it by any means. I think sexual harassment law and discrimination law do much more harm than good and I would get rid of 95% of it. Mandated benefits other than worker’s comp (family leave act) bother me because they take away the worker and the employer’s right to negotiate the optimal compensation. Is that specific enough?
This does not mean I’m pro-discrimination, pro sexual-harassment or anti-family leave, by the way.
By Jersey McJones on Nov 11, 2005 | Reply
I’m utterly amazed that you would do away wiith “95%” of the Sexual Harassment legislation. I just can’t understand that. If your wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, grandma, niece were harassed, I am absolutely sure you would change your tune about that.
As for materity “negotiating,” that’s silly. This is why libs like me say - conservatives destroyed the American family. Period.