The Candidates
Featured Archives
Well, my collection of pessimistic posts on the future of the GOP and American conservatism seem to have begun a trend.
The Economist has penned a must-read piece on the twilight of American conservatism and the nation’s imminent leftward swing. Patrick Hynes responds, as does Patrick Ruffini. I would recommend perusing all of these pieces in order to gain a better understanding of the gathering storm; my two cents on the matter follow.
First, I agree with the consensus view that America is about to experience a pendulum swing to the left. It is a common mistake, and one that I often make, to rest the blame for this sea change on the back of our national GOP establishment. It is assuredly the case that decisions made by President Bush and congressional Republicans have basically gutted the GOP brand name for the next election cycle or two. But corruption and incompetence and even unpopular policy decisions have a very short half life. No, the emerging liberal majority has little to do with Iraq, the Internet gambling ban, Mark Foley, or “macaca.” It has everything to do with global economic changes, a generational shift in cultural attitudes, and demography.
This was the folly in Rove’s Potemkin permanent Republican majority. Political parties do not make majorities. National and world events do. Political parties can only harness the electoral power of political majorities, as the GOP did from the late 1960s to the present day, which will be remembered as one of the nation’s great conservative periods. The conservative majority was not a product, though, of Nixon’s Southern Strategy or even of Ronald the Great. Instead, these leaders were a product of a conservative majority fed up with the size and scope of government.
The conservative majority that sprung onto the scene 30-40 years ago was the result of a nation in which government had gone awry. On the economic front, Americans found themselves unable to live the American Dream — a nice, comfortable, middle class life — due to egregious income tax rates and federal regulation as far as the eye could see. The government was crippling America’s standard of living, and Americans naturally turned to politicians who would lower taxes and shrink government. On the social front, a myriad of meddling politicians and unelected judges had decided that it was their job to use government as an agent of social change. From Roe to the ERA, Americans saw the state attempting to socially engineer them from on high. America is neither a socially conservative nation nor a socially liberal one from a governmental perspective. Instead, what Americans want is to be left to change the culture or not change the culture on their own without self-righteous busybodies telling them otherwise. The Left’s attempt to use government to force cultural and societal changes resulted in an electorate also seeking politicians who would prevent the state from acting in this arena as well through the appointment of judges who understood their constitutional role and through the election of politicians who favored limited government. The result: on both the economic and social fronts, Americans three decades ago decided they wanted a smaller, less-intrusive government. The conservative majority was born.
But no majority is permanent, and every political majority comes to an end once a) it accomplishes all of its feasible goals and b) the economic and social landscape changes and results in an electorate with different desires from government. As both of these conditions have been met, it is no surprise that the conservative majority is coming to an end as the pendulum begins its swing leftward.
Truth be told, most of the goals that conservatives set out to accomplish three or four decades ago are complete. The days of 70-percent tax rates are over; when even liberal Democrats can’t stomach a top tax rate over 40-percent, conservatives have won the debate on that issue. The median Supreme Court Justice is now the center-right Anthony Kennedy. Those who remember what the average SCOTUS Justice looked like during the days of the Warren Court can appreciate the seismic shift this has meant for our nation’s jurisprudence. Welfare was reformed; a Democratic president proclaimed the end to the era of big government. And the major foreign policy issue that conservatives had assembled around, the destruction of Communism, was accomplished.
But a political coalition’s victories are truly a double-edged sword, as each successive victory whittles away at the coalition’s raison d’etre, resulting in a political majority that exists only to retain power. This is enough to deal a serious blow to any coalition, but the death knell can usually be found in a changing world.
Globalization is the key culprit behind the economic swing to the left that is going on in the country today. In the 1970s, government was the main impediment to Americans’ ability to build a comfortable, middle class life. Now, government is no longer the problem, and many Americans see it as the solution. Today, Americans are squeezed by an economic world in which marketability means lots and lots of post-high-school education and job training. The Americans who get to live that nice, middle class life are those who are highly-skilled and hyper-educated due to the global, post-industrial economy in which we now live. This means that Americans must invest heavily in acquiring this training and education, all of which leaves folks indebted for the rest of their professional lives in many cases. Americans, preferring not to feel like economic slaves, want more government in order to give them the tools they need to acquire marketability without giving away the store to get there.
Related to this issue are immigration and trade, both of which have not only upped the skill requirements needed to succeed in America, but which are now also seeping into white collar America and threatening its livelihood. White collar workers now find politicians suggesting that immigration should be increased on the part of highly-skilled foreigners. Others find their professional jobs being outsourced. Americans are disinclined to allow the US to become a nation of WalMart employees, and these frustrations will result in a call for more government to seal the borders, to reduce immigration, and to make trade fairer.
And then there’s health care. Rising health care costs are crippling individuals and small businesses and are compounding the economic problems of the already-strained middle class. As individuals and employers become unable to afford health care, Americans view a lack of accessibility to treatment as just another impediment to a comfy, middle class life, and one that more government is needed to solve. Of course, these Americans also want Social Security to be there when they retire, as retirement is also part of that middle class life that Americans want. But Social Security is also strained, and cannot be sustained due to its structural problems that will assuredly bankrupt the system in the near future. Again, Americans want government to step in and fix this problem.
But all of these fixes cost money. At some point, Americans will realize that they can’t have all of these new entitlements without higher taxes. And when given that choice, Americans will remember that Bill Clinton seemed to demonstrate that tax rates could be raised a notch or two without endangering the economy. And so Americans will accept higher taxes, probably in the form of some sort of European-style VAT, to offset the costs of the many new programs that Americans desire from government.
On the social front, America is still that tempermentally conservative nation that doesn’t want government to push social change. That’s why same-sex marriage, as both Patricks note in the aforementioned columns, is a winner for the GOP in the short-term. But what Pat Hynes doesn’t consider, and what Pat Ruffini correctly asserts, is that a generational change in cultural attitudes will make these issues into non-issues in the long-term. That’s because there is major social change going on within society that is replacing the aging “culture war” with broader cultural consensus. The culture war is largely a relic of the ’60s, in which massive changes in society polarized a generation — the Baby Boomers — and set into motion the age-old battle, as Camille Paglia once put it, of hipsters versus prudes. But the ’60s are over, and Americans under 40 don’t really care about fighting proxy wars over everything from Vietnam to Vatican II to contraception to the feminist movement to affirmative action. Instead, generational changes will ensure that these issues are largely resolved in the public mind, some favoring conservatives and others favoring liberals. My gut check of the situation, without pulling out any fancy schmancy statistics on the matter (though I have before, and will again) is that conservatives have won the debate over gun control and affirmative action as we move into an individualistic, post-racial society. Meanwhile, the increased secularism of the newer generations yields little appetite for state enforcement of morality though magic buttons on computers that can take away Internet porn, or via bans on Internet gambling, something that left every under-40 conservative I know foaming at the mouth. As the nation becomes less religious, as is the trend out west and among the young, there will be little desire for government to promote or enforce sectarian values. And “gay issues” aren’t issues at all as far as my generation is concerned, where gays are accepted into civil society, where even the religious harbor much skepticism towards the idea that some deity or other has a problem with homosexuals, and where there is no market to push gays back into the closet as we (gasp!) think of the children. This is a generational shift over a cultural norm that is taking place throughout the Western world. It’s not going back. It just isn’t. Concerned about the courts putting into place same-sex unions? Don’t be. Just wait a few years and watch them be put into place by legislators and governors, by congresspersons and presidents.
The one social issue that I didn’t mention — and perhaps the most important one — is abortion. The reason is that abortion deserves an asterisk as the major social issue on which the country remains deeply divided. But the abortion issue also has a half life, and its salience as a national issue will end just as soon as Roe v. Wade is rightly overturned. This will allow Americans to come up with a political solution to abortion just as every other country in the western world has been able to do. This solution will likely result in first trimester abortions remaining generally available with other abortions becoming generally unavailable. Whatever the case, it would soon become apparent in a post-Roe world that the broad national consensus would be opposed to a national policy.
The one set of issues that I haven’t mentioned deals with foreign policy. The reason is twofold. First, foreign policy is largely a product of both the times and the president occupying the White House at any given time. Who’d have thought ten years ago that Neo-Wilsonianism would constitute the Republican foreign policy of today, for example? Any majority party must rise to the foreign policy challenges that face the nation or it will not be trusted to lead America. It remains to be seen whether Democrats who hope to harness the emerging liberal majority on domestic issues will be able to recapture the spirit of FDR and Truman as they face the threats from abroad. Secondly, I think it’s entirely possible that the Global War on Expansionist Islamism will be much shorter than John McCain suggests. It’s entirely possible that Islamism is a lagging, not a leading, indicator in Arabdom, and that an intra-region war or two combined with generational changes in cultural attitudes among the young Middle East will result in a dearth of Islamists in the decades that follow. In any event, foreign policy remains a wild card.
The result of all of this is a brave new world where, on the domestic level, Americans want more government on economic issues, which will yield more spending and higher taxes, and want less government on social issues as the nation becomes less religious and more secular. This is by definition an America with a center-left majority. This brings me to one point where I disagree with Patrick Ruffini, who believes that we can craft a new Republican majority out of all of this without becoming Democrats-lite. We can’t. The reason is that the issues that the country wants addressed are by definition liberal issues. A Republican Party that focuses its agenda on these issues, even in a market-oriented way, with an agenda that includes providing everyone with health care, education, child care, etc, while necessarily nixing social issues, is a Democrat-lite Republican Party. It’s David Cameronism. It’s Arnoldism. And it’s probably inevitable, just as Bill Clinton’s Republican-lite governance was inevitable during the conservative era.
So what does all of this mean? Yes, we’re going to spend the next few decades headed toward the ideological minority. And yes, we’ll be the caretakers and managers who make sure the Left doesn’t overreach. But there’s no point in lamenting that fact because, ultimately, there’s nothing that can be done about it. This isn’t pessimism. It’s realism. The issues of the day have resulted in a public that demands a new form of liberalism. All we can do is temper that liberalism by coming up with alternatives to the Socialized Medicine Act of 2021 that don’t threaten to send us down the path of Old Europe. Is the pendulum swinging? Yes. Can anything be done about it? No. Should we give in? Never.
August 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
[...] post by DaveG and software by Elliott [...]
August 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
ZZZZZZzzzzzzz.
Sorry, but I’ve seen and heard about far too many people trying to write the obituary for Conservatism. Every time, they have been wrong. Yes, we have experienced setbacks (1992, 2006), but I have a hard time believing Conservatism is dead.
It may take a Democratic President to prove it, but LIBERALISM DOES NOT WORK. Look what Liberalism has gotten Europe, high taxes, high unemployment, a nightmare healthcare system, a declining population, immigrant riots, etc.
It may take a Carter-style dose of reality to wake Americans up, but the damage that liberal policies would do to the county is, I think, too much for Americans to stomach.
August 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
depressing read on a Sunday morning…
August 19th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
‘It may take a Carter-style dose of reality to wake Americans up, but the damage that liberal policies would do to the county is, I think, too much for Americans to stomach.’
The next Democratic president is unlikely to follow the same policies as Carter. If you watch the race closely, you’ll see that Hillary is positioning herself as a moderate. You may doubt that she will actually follow through on that when she is president, but I think that she would want to be re-elected. Power is the most important thing to Hillary. She will push through some liberal measures (like SCHIP), but nothing drastic.
Of course, she would pull us out of Iraq, which would be tragic for the Iraqis. But that is unfortunately in line with what a majority of Americans want. This country no longer has the stomach to fight long wars, it wants the easy way out. Even if that leads to greater trouble in later years.
August 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
If you want to see which party is in more trouble, take a look at what the base of each party consists of:
Republicans – families, churchgoers, white collar workers, those who are modestly wealthy or financially well-off
Democrats – Unions, Gays, Feminists, the poor, younger Americans
Well, families are not going away, and America is still overwealmingly a Religious nation. White Collar jobs are replacing blue collar jobs, and wealth only increases over time.
On the other hand, unions are loosing influence, and Gays and Feminists don’t reproduce. Poor people are not going anywhere, but they are also a group that could be convinced to support a party that will get them out of poverty rather than help them survive it. Finally, younger Americans do not vote in high numbers, and those who do do not stay young forever. Young people eventually grow up, get jobs, have families, and become more Conservative.
Add to that the fact that Conservatives have more children than liberals, and that children are likely to have the same political views as their parents. Also consider that younger Americans are not as secular and anti-religious as you may think. This might be a reach, but I would argue that, at least in some parts of the country, teens and 20-somethings are more religious than their piers from the past.
While Economic Conservatism might be reduced, I don’t see social conservatism going away, the same with foreign-policy conservatism.
August 19th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I generally disagree with everything DaveG has to say and this article is no exception.
August 19th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
well, I can see the case (not that I support it), for liberals taking the lead on economic policy. I think people may, at least for a while, be welcome to the idea of government aid.
However, I disagee that Americans are going to try to get rid of “moral policy”. I think that, as people get older and have families, they are not going to want their children exposed to things like porn, drugs, violence, etc., and that they are going to want government help to enforce those policies. America is still a religious society, and I don’t see that changing. I see America becoming more religious, not the opposite.
As for military Conservatism, its not going away, at least until we solve the terrorist issue.
August 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Bill Buckley, back in the 50’s used to say that Conservatives are people to stand athwart the tide of history and shout STOP! We could go back to that role, but I doubt it. America is very lucky to have the example of Europe to look at, because Europe is destroying itself. As the social pathologies there, and here for that matter, mount, Americans will learn the right lessons. Some of DaveG’s points are valid, however, and inexorably lead us to the importance of next year’s election. I believe that we can win it. In part that’s due to a confluence of circumstances that give reasons for hope, not the least of which are that we have two exceptional candidates in Mitt and Rudy, the caliber of which are rare in Republican politics. Match either of them up against Bob Dole or Gerald Ford, e.g., and I think you’ll see the point.
August 19th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
‘Well, families are not going away, and America is still overwealmingly a Religious nation’
Sure it is, and it will remain like that. The question is whether those religious people will seek to shove their religious rules down the throats of other people who might not share them. I think not.
‘Also consider that younger Americans are not as secular and anti-religious as you may think. This might be a reach, but I would argue that, at least in some parts of the country, teens and 20-somethings are more religious than their piers from the past.’
And is this based on research, or on wishful thinking?
‘However, I disagee that Americans are going to try to get rid of “moral policyâ€. I think that, as people get older and have families, they are not going to want their children exposed to things like porn, drugs, violence, etc.,’
No one wants to see his children exposed to such things. Do you really think that even the most socially liberal Democrats want their children to become porn-addicted cokeheads at age 12?
‘I see America becoming more religious, not the opposite.’
More wishful thinking?
August 19th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I agree in principle that Americans won’t tolerate government inaction anymore (read laissez faire conservatism). However they also won’t tolerate liberal incompetence (exhibit Jimmy Carter).
Democrats by their fantasy driven idealism won’t be able to competently run government. Bill Clinton only pulled this off with a Republican Congress enforcing reality. However Republicans with a “government is evil philosophy” won’t competently run government either.
We will find which ideology runs America when one of them tempers its idealism and embraces realism. I believe Republicans are well prepared to do this because some GOP Governors (Pawlenty
) already have.
Americans will tolerate some social meddling (see anti-discrimination legislation). They won’t tolerate it if it’s more about power than about improving their community. That’s why I’m typically in favor of incremental popular social conservative policies. By the way the trend toward radical individualism can’t go much further. The pendulum will swing back towards community eventually.
In short Republicans will be the party of tomorrow if we examine what Americans want and figure out how to provide that in a sustainable and responsible way. Democrats are too divorced from reality to do this in power. So I believe we are well positioned to return to power with Tim Pawlenty in 2012.
After Hillary in ‘08, Americans will be Ready for Pawlenty of change!
August 19th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Masterful article Dave. I want to weigh in later in detail after reading the Patricks and the Economist, as well as the book that I think gets more to the heart of the overall, long term drift to the left that the US and all of western society is on, ie
Slouching Towards Gomorrah.
I think the oveeall, long term leftward drift is inevitable due to human nature in an affluent society, but I do think we can slow the slouching through reasoned arguments and persuasion, especially given the victories that even Bill Clinton acknowledged.
the keys will be if we can devise a strategy to reduce the size of government with a transition phase that reduces the pain to the middle class. Especially in health care and soc security.
The war being waged against us may keep us in power and so, enable us to try and fix the domestic problems. Americans simply reject defeatism abroad.
I do think that the public is less divided on abortion that you think and am confident that a post-Roe US would see policy changes in most states that cut back on abortion on demand.
Moreover, while I do agree that most Americans have accepted the out of the closet gays that won’t go back, votes of democrats in blue states show that gay marriage is not desired.
more later
August 19th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Dave, yes, we must maintain the Buckley role standing athwart history yelling stop, but
WE MUST DO MORE
If we had a democrat party that was strong on national defense and understood good v evil like JFK, the limited role might be sufficient, but
given that the dems are crazy and dangerously naive,
and given that we need to actually reduce government
we must learn to govern
and the ONLY wat republicans can do that is to advocate comprehensive reform and articulate it well with an explanation of how we get from A to B and why B is superior.
more later
August 19th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Awakened, have you not heard Hillary’s speeches that are out and out socialism? She wants to do away with individualism and wants to take the Oil Companies’ profits. She wants to raise taxes.
The MSM says 24/7 365 ad nauseum that she is positioning herself in the middle, but if you read what she actually says, you will see that she is between Lenin and Marx.
August 19th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“Well, my collection of pessimistic posts on the future of the GOP and American conservatism seem to have begun a trend.”
…Yes, the liberal MSM loves to report on how the GOP may be dissatisfied with itself. They love it even more when they can reference a “conservative” while gleefully reporting this eternal doom of the GOP and conservatives.
Conservatism is not dead. At worst the lazy, slacker, forgetful Americans need a little dose of the fruits of liberalism for conservatism to become stronger. If that is what it takes, so be it.
Liberals can’t seem to understand that people are the source of this nation’s greatness and power. The people support and sustain the gov’t by their tax dollars etc. It cannot be the other way around.
August 19th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
DaveG, the thrust of your commentary is probably correct as things presently stand. I think you are correct in the economic and social/religious issue trends that you cite, but how the “body politic” would respond to an unexpected event remains to be seen. Would such an event alter these trends or are they so structural in character that they would not change for a generation? Who knows? I do fault the post-Cold War conservatives/Republicans when it comes to economic issues and policy. We did not follow through on the intellectual victory over statism/socialism (won during the ’70s and ’80s) with SOLUTIONS based on free market principles to problems such as health care, retirement security and tax policy. Our guys only gave lip service to these issues. There was no follow through. While I agree that much of what you identify is the result of secular politico-demographic trends, the GOP/conservative movement post-Reagan dropped the ball even when we had all or most of the instruments in hand. Congress in the ’90s and the total GOP government from ‘01-’06 can be characterized as a period of repeatedly missed opportunities, incompetent management, and in some cases wrong-headed policy. As you pointed out, the policy became: maintain power (whatever the cost).
August 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I think the conservatives are summed up nicely by ACT Blog as:
“Republicans – families, churchgoers, white collar workers, those who are modestly wealthy or financially well-off”
Note the these are the types of people who are most likely to support the gov’t by paying taxes, working hard, they don’t whine for more entitlements / rights etc.
The liberals:
“Democrats – Unions, Gays, Feminists, the poor, younger Americans”
Well, You can decide which group needs the government and which group supports the government.
August 19th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
DaveG, you are absolutely correct. To all the people who are criticising Dave’s article saying that “Conservatism is not dead,” I don’t think Dave ever said conservatism was dead. What he’s saying (which is absolutely right) is the pendulum is swining, and soon, conservatives will be in the minority and lib-*ahem*excuse me, “progressives” will dominate American domestic and foreign policy. Yes, one day, the pendulum will swing back again and America will appreciate conservative principles again, but our era is coming to an end.
To ACTBlog: Just wait and see how those families, churchgoers, and white collar workers that Republicans supposedly have a lock on start voting Democrat in the next couple election cycles.
August 19th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
We have an opportunity to make Rove’s perennial GOP majority a reality. There are demographic trends that are very much in our favor. The magic number is 2.1; i.e., 2.1 births per fertile female. Anything over that number and a population increases; anything below and that population is headed toward extinction. The numbers in Europe are way below. Russia, for example, lost more than 700,000 people last year.
In the U.S., the number for people who go to church regularly is 2.6, whereas the number for people who don’t is 1.6, so it’s easy to see which population is growing and which is dying out. Bush carried 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in America in 2004. Statistically, Democrats are approximately twice as likely to have abortions as Republicans. Since there have been 45,000,000 abortions since Roe, it would appear that the Democrats have let an occasional voter slip away from them.
August 19th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Any political movement or political party that has as its main argument is that it is not as incompetent as the other party does not deserve to exist. Republican leaders need to earn the support of the people instead of defaulting into their support because they are not quite as bad as the Democrats. There is nothing that Reagan supported that is currently being done by the Bush Administration. As long as Republicans are willing to vote for and support empty suit country club republican candidates, then the Democratic Party will be the dominate party.
Maybe if conservatism was ever tried we could discuss its benefits, but both Reagan and Bush deficit spent instead of cutting programs.
August 19th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
superdestroyer,
I agree, which is why I think Rudy Giuliani is the one candidate who can keep the Republican Party and the conservative movement alive. His cultural appeal will put all 50 states back into play for the GOP and will re-introduce them to conservatism from a less frightening perspective. Also, he is the only candidate I trust to actually significantly reduce the size and scope of government. He actually has a plan to cut the federal government by 20% by replacing only half of the 40% of retirees the federal government will be giving up in the next decade, and by requiring federal agency heads and Cabinet members to submit 5-20% budget reductions annually, it will be guaranteed that spending by federal agencies will be cut by 1/5 during one presidential term. Rudy is the only guy putting forth real, realistic solutions, and he is the only guy that can wage a national campaign, not a red-state campaign.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
‘Awakened, have you not heard Hillary’s speeches that are out and out socialism?’
The question is, compared to what? Compared to Richard Nixon, Hillary Clinton is a hard-core capitalist. And if her presidency will be anything like Bill’s (when it comes to economic policy), America will survive it.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
And, of course, right after I post #20, Rudy releases this op-ed describing in detail everything I was trying to explain.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
JS, you are missing the main point of DaveG. People expect government to do more for them. They do not want government to help them help themselves. They want government to help them – period. So, if Rudy does cut the government as he said, the services will suffered everywhere. The lines will be longer, and so on… People will think cutting the government is a wrong way to go and flock over to Democratic side coming 2012. We also need to make things more effective and effecient. Will Rudy be able to hire those kind of people on his cabinet? I’m not so sure. And yes, he has said he will have the monitor system, but you can only do it if you have the data. Since when have the government employees been happy about reporting their own performance?
August 19th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
“And if her presidency will be anything like Bill’s (when it comes to economic policy), America will survive it.”
well, it won’t. During the Clinton Presidency, we had the dot-com boom, the stock market soared, jobs were created, oil was cheap, and the nation was at peace. Even with the Clinton tax hike, positive economic factors outnumbered negative economic factors.
Going into 2008, we are on the downward part of the housing bubble. Economic growth is slowing, and oil is expensive. There is not going to be any major bubble to fuel the economy. If we see another round of Clinton tax hikes, I would expect the economy to enter a recession.
As for the “swinging pendulum”, even if Dave is right (I don’t think he is), the pendulum will swing back – my guess would be sooner, rather than later. If the GOP majority has really ended, then I think all long-term majorities have ended. If the GOP majority is really over, then I don’t expect to see any party keep control of Congress for more than six years at a time.
August 19th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I realize that many members of the right are eternal pessimists but I frankly think that Conservatism is where the liberals were in 1939 when FDR’s third term was in doubt, not 1968 in spite of the present war.
(1) While we are in the minority in Congress it is only barely, and we have far more congressmen than in the 1980’s.
(2) The last time that an ideological movement won seats in an offyear election, went on to win even more while seeing their Presidential candidate get reelected, and then loose effective majority control of the Congress in the next off election, that President was Franklin Roosevelt. Interestingly, FDR got a bare 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court in the same year his allies lost effective control of the Congress to the Conservative Coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans (the switch in time occured earlier, in 1937, but there was always the threat that the switch might switch back until 1938 when FDR’s ideological allies finally manged to get to 5 on the court.
(3) Obviously liberalism survived. Liberals had to go through a caretaker period to consolidate their power. I would date that as 1940-1958. During this time liberals reached parity, and then took a heavy advantage in the press, the education estabilishment, and the courts. This, it seems to me is what we need now. The courts are being changed ideologically and in the mean time, the New york Times, the liberal paper of record is failing just as Rupert Murdoch manages to transform the Wall Street Journal. Fox News dominates Cable news, and the MSM has to deal with a conservative blogosphere that’s teaming up with talk radio.
(4) Ultimately, conservatism could not have the luxury of falling into the situation liberalism did in 1968 because it never occupied the intellectual and cultural heights. Conservatism has not had that luxury, and so has not gotten as lazy. Meanwhile, if I am to believe this pessimistic post, Roe v Wade will be overturned, the Congress will continue to have a functioning conservative majority between Republicans and 40 or so Blue Dog Democrats (and 40 or so New Democrats) and at the moment Hillary is Trailing Rude according to Rasmussen. Also, according to Rasmussen, Rudy’s lead comes from younger voters compared to Hillary’s voters. Dosen’t sound like the time for doom and gloom to me.
August 19th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Well, as usual I reject DaveG’s pessimism. This is a center-center country.
There is an old saw in baseball “everybody’s gonna win 60, everybody is gonna lose 60, it’s what you do with the other 42 that count.” Politics in the U.S. is the same way. The political affiliation breaks down predictably — 40% – 40% – 20% (with some minor variation). It would be equally possible to argue that the long term trend in the U.S. is away from the two big parties and toward the middle.
I thank DaveG for pointing out these articles though!
P.S. I agree with Hillary’s comments in one of the debates. It is time to stop calling the Lefties liberals. They are progressive socialists. Historically, those of who believe in market capitalism and pluralistic democracy have been called “liberals” or even “neo-liberals”.
August 19th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
DaveG,
I could not agree with you more on this issue. You have hit the nail DEAD in the center of the head. I’ve read many pieces on the unavoidable leftward swing in this country and in the world, but none have put it as precisely, insightfully, or correctly as yours. I thank you for making other conservatives aware of this inevitability and hope I can do the same. If Republicans and conservatives cannot evolve quickly from policy dominators to mediating and centralizing back-seat drivers, new Americans will get completely fed-up and take a SHARP left turn as opposed to the gentle but steady that ought to occur. Think of conservatives as ushers guiding a frequent guest at a theater to the seat he has sat at countless times. He knows exactly where he’s going, but its up to the usher just how fast he gets there.
Texas Conservative.
August 19th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Awakened, Nixon isn’t running, and mere survival is not America’s agenda. Compared to any GOP nominee, Hillary’s policy proposals stand in stark contrast. She will raise taxes, appease our enemies, appoint liberal activists to the courts and govern based on a politically correct, cultural and moral relativism, 1960’s world view.
We “survived” Bill Clinton thanks to Newt and the GOIP takeover of Congress. We also now reap the fruits of Clinton’s neglect of national security and defining deviancy down. We reap the fruits of his Bader Ginsburg and Breyer.
We live today in the Reagan recovery, still.
Hillary ain’t Bill and Bill sucked.
America doesn’t suck, and thanks to Newt, Bill didn’t get to do much harm.
August 20th, 2007 at 4:14 am
OKCougar,
The U.S. is not split evenly. It is closer to 45% for the Democratic Party, 35% for the Republican Party and in reality less than 15% swing voters. In addition, the swing voters are getting smaller.
Demographic changes in the U.S. ensure that the 45% will continue to get bigger while the 35% get smaller.
Eventually there will come a time when more than 50% of the voters will automaticaly vote for the Democratic Party candidate. If blacks and hispanics voted at the same rate as whites the Democratic Party would be unbeatable today.
To anyone who believes that the Republicans can make a comeback, ask yourself if you really believe that the Republicans will be the majority party in California again?
August 20th, 2007 at 6:38 am
superdestroyer, you’re assuming Black and Hispanic communities will continue to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
Going back 30 years I could’ve said:
“Republicans will be extinct because ethnic Catholics vote overwhelmingly Democrat and they’re a growing group.”
In point of fact, Catholic growth slowed down and Catholics started moving to the GOP in droves, voting for the GOP in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. They became swing voters.
There’s no reason why other Democratic groups couldn’t be won over by a special leader and turned into swing voters.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Most blacks have never voted for a Republican candidate in their life. Most blacks see the Republican party is a strictly white party (which it is) and that there is no way that they are going to support it. Even middle class blacks who complain about high taxes, poor government services, lousy schools, etc still vote Democratic over 90%. The same thing happens at the Hispanic level except the number is 75% instead of 90%.
Even in states like Texas and Arizona, the majority of Hispanic are automatic Democratic voters. The only things that saves the Republicans in Texas is the poor turnout of Hispanics.
So you are arguing that the Republicans will eventually be the majority party in California because poor and blue collar hispanics will start to vote for Republicans without the Republicans losing an equal number of white middle class votes in the process.
Remember, all elections are now national elections and the message is contantly reinforced that no black or Hispanic should ever vote for the racist in the Republican Party.
Look at the immigration disaster. Karl Rove thought he could appeal to hispanic and all it did was cost the Republican white votes without gaining any Hispanic voters.
We should begin to face rality and discuss what the U.S. is going to be like as a one party state. Is Mass, DC, or Maryland the models that will the U.S. will follow. Do the primaries need to be moved into August and September when the general elections become a moot subject?
August 20th, 2007 at 7:13 am
[...] Race 4 2008 | The Swinging Pendulum [...]
August 20th, 2007 at 8:00 am
superdestroyer, I’m as pessimistic as you because I think conservatism will be irrelevant as we know it. However the Republican Party ought not to be.
A one party rule isn’t a stable situation in a diverse nation with fighting interest groups.
Republicans will change to attract the half of the electorate that is right of center. If the center moves so will they eventually.
As in Britain or Canada this probably means long periods of Democratic misrule followed by short Republican terms out of disgust for Democratic corruption and incompetence (what occurs with all parties that can take power for granted).
California, Maryland and Massachusetts have all had Republican Governors in recent history. They simply haven’t had conservative Governors.
I temper my pessimism because liberalism doesn’t work. When America has fallen into decay and economic chaos because of its corruption and weak morality, we will have to start over. This will provide Americans a chance to make the nation strong and good again.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Econ grad stud,
Agreed. We will not see the death of the Republican party because of the leftward lurch this country will take, but rather the death of the Republican party’s current positions. Our country will continue to hvae a two-party system with one center-left party and one center-right party. The only thing that changes is exactly where that center is.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:59 am
The problem with the Republicans is that only white voters move between the two parties. All other demographic groups vote Democratic no matter their views on ecnomic, social, or any other issues.
It is naive to argue to say that the U.S. will stay a two party system when their are many locals in the U.S. that function with one party Democratic rule. The liberal states may have had a republican governor but their states houses stayed firmly Democratic. As the Democratic party begins to dominate districting, it will be easy for them to eliminate the Republicans.
In the time of big money politics and identify politics, why would anyone become a Republican when they will never really be in power again and no one will donate money to them.
It will probably be a bigger moderating force on politics for all of the current Republicans to start voting in the Democratic primary.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:16 am
“We should begin to face rality and discuss what the U.S. is going to be like as a one party state. Is Mass, DC, or Maryland the models that will the U.S. will follow. Do the primaries need to be moved into August and September when the general elections become a moot subject?”
I think this is a little overblown. Look at states like Virginia. Sure Democrats win statewide office there, but Mark Warner is no Hillary Clinton. Jim Webb is no Chuck Schumer. Even in MD, we were able to get an Ehrlic in a year that wasn’t disastrous for the national party. There will always be a need for balance. The NC state legislature is Democratic, but the state always voted Republican at the presidential level. VT, RI, CA, and up until recently NY and MA all had left-of-center Republican governors. NE has a right-of-center Democrat senator in Ben Nelson. States will balance who they send to public office based on the political center of each given state. Whether that political center shifts from left to right or right to left every so often is inconsequential, especially since there are more Independent voters than ever before. The same will happen nationally. There will ALWAYS be a two party system in the U.S. Just as Democrats were forced to tack right to remain competitive in the 80’s and 90’s when the mood shifted, Republicans will tack left if that’s what they need to do to remain viable. And down the road when the entire country becames more conservative again (and it will sooner or later, just as it did in 1980) it will be the Democrats that have to move right again to be viable.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Econ Grad,
Hat tip. My page wasn’t refreshed and I didn’t see your post.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:22 am
superdestroyer,
People will always disagree on policy in this country. There HAS to be at least two parties for a nation to be satisfied. Sure, it’s possible that the Republican party might break up and disapeer. However, when that happens, a void will be created and a new party will emerge to fill it. There is no possible way that entire nation of over 300 million people (more by the time the pendulum swings) will agree completely on every issue. It’s impossible, and therefore, there will always be a group alienated from the center-left (wherever that may be) party. That alientated group WILL HAVE a party to turn to. Or, if there is no party to turn to, a new one will from. In a nation as large as ours a one-party system can only last for so long.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:22 am
On an unrelated note, Romney’s post-Ames bounce didn’t last long. He’s back down to 13 in the Rasmussen poll.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1
August 20th, 2007 at 9:33 am
“Romney’s post-Ames bounce didn’t last long”
I don’t know about that. He seems to have made gains on the state level since Ames, and I think he ususally does worse during the beginning of the week. We will see what the rest of the week brings, as well as his polling after the next debates.
Back to the original topic – Conservatism is not going away. If the GOP splits, a new party will become the new Conservative movement. If the pendulum swings towards liberalism today, it will swing back tomorrow.
August 20th, 2007 at 10:08 am
This is in response to DaveG’s initial posting:
Congratulations, DaveG, you have managed to write a full blown thesis that is entirely CONCLUSORY without any factual basis or other rational reasoning behind it.
Conclusory defined: providing conclusions without any premises behind the conclusions. Bare conclusions doesn’t a smart man make.
But even if your conclusory tripe is true, the solution is not a return to Rockefeller Republicanism, the solution is to start a new wave of Goldwater Conservatism.
For all on this board, it’s quite clear that DaveG is a REPUBLICAN first, and a CONSERVATIVE second. (Which frankly makes no sense…it begs the question why he’s a Republican in the first instance? Perhaps he’s a generational Republican who’s every view is liberal, but who simply cannot switch parties because of the family generational ties to the Republican Party. That, my friends, is a psychoanalysis far deeper than this discussion today.)
We don’t need more people who are Republicans first and Conservatives second. We need more people who are CONSERVATIVES FIRST.
DaveG’s worldview is so out-of-whack that I don’t think he has any core principles whatsoever besides some generational family tie to the Republican party.
Regards,
sjd
August 20th, 2007 at 10:19 am
And thus…DaveG’s support for Giuliani is explained.
sjd
August 20th, 2007 at 10:21 am
I think it is also worth pointing out that, the last time Republicans spent a long stint in the minority, THEY CAME BACK, and were just as Conservative as before.
If we are going to be the minority party for a while (though I don’t see any reason for that), then I think the solution is simply to wait it out. We take our victories where we can get them, and plan for a return to power. We keep our Conservative values of strong families, a strong military, and a strong economy, and, once the American public finds out that liberalism doesn’t work, we present our plan, and re-take power.
August 20th, 2007 at 10:27 am
sjd,
You’re really eager to put forth ad hominem attacks. If you so vehemently disagree with DaveG why not try to refute him and put out your own point of view rather than engage in childish attacks like calling his (whether you agree with his point of view or not) clearly well thought out analysis “tripe”? Don’t implicitly say DaveG isn’t a “smart man”. Can you demonstrate you are even in the same league? Are you? Some people may have their doubts. Just an FYI, using the “my friends” as an appositive in a sentence and landing the plane with “Regards, sjd” doesn’t make you sound any more intelligent either.
August 20th, 2007 at 10:58 am
To believe that that the two party state is natural is to be naive. Chicago, Baltimore, DC, PHilly, Detroit, etc are de facto one party states. In the upcoming Baltimore city elections, the real election is the Democratic Primary and the general election is insignificant and will barely draw any media attention since the Democratic nominee is the defacto winner. The same holds true in DC.
People keep thinking that the Democratic Party and the Republicans are the same thing. If you look at the county results from general elections, you will see that they are not. Most Democratic voters live in areas without a functional Republican Party. Thus conservatives who live in Mass, Mich, NJ, NY, etc who are interested in politics have no choice but to move to a more conservative state. People keeping talking as if blacks,hispanics, asians will vote the same way as whites where every eleection cycle demonstrates that they do not.
To believe that since things have happened in the past means that they will also happen in the future is comical. With the funds required to unseat an incumbent, there will soon be little reason for people to support the losing party. Also, given the huge barriers for starting up a new party, it is much more likely that the U.S. will become like California where a few district full of middle class whites will elect a few conservative who are not capable of achieving anything while the state remains dominated by Democrats.
The likeliest scenerio is that the republicans will reach a point where no one will donate money to them because they are not capable of winning. Then the U.S. will have only one functional political party.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:30 am
“Thus conservatives who live in Mass, Mich, NJ, NY, etc who are interested in politics have no choice but to move to a more conservative state.”
Which, if it comes to it, is exactly what they will do. Before you see the end of the Republican party, you will see Conservatives and Republicans moving to Conservative and Republican areas (south, plains region, etc). At the same time, you will see liberals and Democrats moving into Democratic and Liberal areas. Congress will likely become closely split if that plays out, moving back and forth every election cycle or two.
Looking to the long term, as we have established, Conservative outbreed liberals. The liberal areas will likely see lower birth rates and a declining population. The Conservative areas will see higher birth rates and an increasing population. That paves the way for Conservatives to move back into moderate and Democratic areas, leading to large Republican majorities.
It may take 30-40 years, but, that seems like what may happen.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Conservatives do not outbreed liberals. That is a mistaken belief based upon the growth of varous states. Texas is a fast growing state but it is due to Hispanic population growth and not because middle class whites are having a lot of kids.
Blacks and Hispanics are outbreeding whites by a large margin. Virtually no immigrants become Republicans. The demographic changes of the U.S. benefit the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party.
Anyone who thinks that the Republicans are going to make a come back needs to explain how the Republicans will become the majority party in California again. If you cannot create a scenerio for California, then you really do not believe that the Republicans can make a come back.
August 20th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
DaveG,
Well-thought out article. I think you’re right about people demanding the government do something about healthcare, etc. But what’s frustrating is that a lot of the problems we have with healthcare today are due to government interference and regulation in the first place. So now people demand government do something in a very unconservative way because government meddled in the first place.
This is why I like Governor Romney. I tend to be a conservative, but I could vote for a somone a who can appeal to moderates because I think Romney could actually satisfy the demand people have for “government to do something” without turning a potential fix into a giant government takeover, which would be a disaster. I think Romney can appeal to moderates while making conservative changes and keeping overarching government spending and mandates out of the way.
August 20th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Everybody listen up. This DaveG stuff is all nonsense.
All of this paranoia is based on one singular election: 2006.
I remember after the 2004 elections when the Democrats were all paranoid about a “Permanent Republican Majority” after a two-term president and a senate that consisted of 55 Republicans, ONLY 44 Democrats, and 1 independent. The Democrats were eminently paranoid.
Now all you RINO Republicans are grabbing the Republican paranoia and trying to move the party toward the center. It’s plainly obvious what you are doing. Yours is not analysis. Yours is a liberal AGENDA for the Republican party.
Conservative Republicans, hear me loud and clear. DO NOT be paranoid. Conservatism is alive and well. With stalwards like Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, O’Reilly, Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal, (compared to the 70s and 80s where there was no conservative media whatsoever), conservative is alive and thriving.
Regards,
sjd
August 20th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I have to agree that the source of the “doom and gloom” of DaveG. and similar is the 2006 election. Here is a challenge to those who the the GOP is dead:
Find me a President who did not loose seats in the sixth year of his Presidency or suffer a major defeat in another year.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
The more I read DaveG’s piece, the more I view it as comedy.
“Meanwhile, the increased secularism of the newer generations…”
I love how DaveG just blindly assumes that the next few generations are going to be pro-gay-marriage and pro-abortion. HAHAHA!
DaveG you are a liberal! HAHAHA!
Rush Limbaugh would have a field day with DaveG’s worldview.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
More DaveG comedy: “as we (gasp!) think of the children”
I respect all people, including gays, but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would I have preferred 2 gay men or 2 lesbian women raising me in my childhood. If you asked me as a child if I would have preferred 2 gay guys or 2 lesbians raising me instead of my mother and my father, and I would have said a resounding “NO!”
Every child deserves one mother and one father. Period.
DaveG you are a liberal! HAHAHA!
August 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
ACT, sjd,
I can just about guarantee that I am the youngest frequenter here at race42008. I frequent because I think it is very important for my generation to be completely informed on every side of the issue, and race42008 provides a source for conservative viewpoints that are very hard to come upon these days at my age. While most people my age are not paying attention to politics or even world events, because of the liberal dominance over the media, teachers, professors, and even high school textbooks, what little exposure to the world they recieve almost always has significant liberal bias. They have been brought up, outside of their homes (for I live in a very conservative middle-upper class area), to believe in liberal teachings and scorn those of conservatives as outdated and obsolete in this changing and evolving world.
IMPORTANT: elder generations CANNOT write this off as the typical hold liberals have over the youth until they mature and learn to embrace conservatism as so many middle-agers have and continue to do. Rather, this is a COMPLETE leftward lurch in society. Kids my age might grow up and mediate their positions somewhat, but that mediation might turn them into supporters of civil unions, first-trimester abortions, and 45% income tax brackets. Only a very select few will be to the right of the afore-mentioned positions, while many, many more will be to the left of them.
While I myself am a strong supporter of true conservatism, I find myself fighting a losing battle. Will I give in and turn to liberal ideology? Never. Will I continue to stand up for conservatism no matter how outgunned I am? Sure. Will I continue to wear my Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson shirts to school regardless of how many times more Obama and Hillary shirts there are? ABSOLUTELY.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Texas Conservative #53:
I am in the same generation as you.
Your assertion that young liberals will remain old liberals is conclusory.
You have no hard evidence to back that up, because backing that up is impossible without having a time machine. Last I checked, “Back To The Future” was a mere fiction…a movie.
The maxim: If one isn’t a liberal at age 20 he has no heart. If one isn’t a consrvative at 40 he has no mind. That holds true NOT because of generational shifts, but rather because of human maturity. Period.
The likes of you could have said the same thing with the 60’s generation. And, frankly, a fortiori, becauause there was ABSOLUTELY ZERO conservative media from 1960 to 1990. Yet, you will eminently fail to answer the question why young liberals in the 60s and 70s elected Conservatives to the White House in 5 of the last 7 elections.
In the year 2007, we have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, and the Wall Street Journal. From 1960 to 1990 none of that existed. None.
So if the generation from 1960 from 1990 eventually turned Conservative with absolutely no media, the 2000 generation will turn conservative in spades as they grow older with a source of media they can turn to for truth.
About the T-shirts. Hillary/Obama/etc. are mere FADS. Hillary is a fad. Obama, especially, is a fad. Every time Obama opens his mouth on foreign policy he sounds like a high school freshman on drugs. That is to say, Obama is frankly stupid when it comes to foreign policy.
Regards,
sjd
August 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
sjd: ‘I respect all people, including gays, but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would I have preferred 2 gay men or 2 lesbian women raising me in my childhood. If you asked me as a child if I would have preferred 2 gay guys or 2 lesbians raising me instead of my mother and my father, and I would have said a resounding “NO!‒
Would you have preferred another man and woman over your parents? The question isn’t about forcibly removing children from happy families and putting them with teh eeeevil gheys, it is about children who don’t have a family, or who were abused by their family. Would you prefer an orphanage to being raised by two gays? Would you want to be raised by a single parent (they are allowed to adopt in many states), or would you prefer a gay/lesbian family?
‘DaveG you are a liberal! HAHAHA!’
I believe the word you’re looking for is ‘intelligent’. Nice try, though. I’ll be charitable, you would have gotten the first letter right if you had used capital letters.
August 20th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
sjd: ‘The maxim: If one isn’t a liberal at age 20 he has no heart. If one isn’t a consrvative at 40 he has no mind.’
Were you a liberal when you were 20? I wasn’t. Apparently, I had no heart. Is it possible to grow one over the course of a lifetime?
‘That is to say, Obama is frankly stupid when it comes to foreign policy.’
Obama is stupid when it comes to any subject. But he’s likable and charismatic, and that seems to be enough to muster huge crowds.
August 20th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Awakened:
I never said gays were evil. I said gays should not raise kids.
So…nice straw man argument. You like to mischaracterize someone’s comment and then argue against the mischaracterization. It’s the height of immaturity. Yes, that’s immaturity. Not intelligence.
Furthermore, yes, I would rather wait an extra year or two in an orphanage until a mother and a father came along than go immediately into a gay/lesbian household to be raised. Any other examples you give are unreasonable and improbable anecdotes. Furthermore, it’s not just adoption. Your argument strengthens gays/lesbians making their own test tube babies (one gay/lesbian’s genes) through artificially inseminating a stranger, etc. Gays would create their own babies instead of adopting anyway.
Finally, and most distressingly, equating “liberal” to “intelligent” is absurd. You belong in the Democrat party and nowhere on this website.
Regards,
sjd
August 20th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
‘The maxim: If one isn’t a liberal at age 20 he has no heart. If one isn’t a consrvative at 40 he has no mind.’
You really don’t get it? Wow.
It’s a figure of speech to prove that what initially makes one “feel good” (i.e., 20 year olds’ decision making) actually leads to terrible policy after logically thinking about it (i.e., 40 year olds’ decision making).
In other words, Awakened, liberalism makes one feel compasionate but ACTUALLY has the opposite effect – suffering. Conservatism, properly understood, should both make one feel compassionate and ACTUALLY IS compassionate.
The abortion / gay-marriage debate is no different. That’s why you pro-abortion pro-gay-marriage people on this site are so foolhardy. Being pro-abortion is NOT ACTUALLY compassionate. Being pro-gay-marriage is NOT ACTUALLY compassionate. Both are the opposite of compassion. Both are very cruel to children, unborn children in the abortion context, born children in the gay marriage context).
I always find it funny when so-called Republicans fall for the liberal democrat playbook of “compassion.” So naive. So very naive.
The acronym RINO exists for a reason. Please exit the Republican party. Thanks.
The End.
Regards,
sjd
August 20th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
‘I never said gays were evil…So…nice straw man argument. You like to mischaracterize someone’s comment and then argue against the mischaracterization.’
Uhm… I never argued against ‘gays are evil’, I argued against what you said. I thought it would be funny to irk you a little bit, and I was right. You do respond in a hilarious manner.
‘Furthermore, yes, I would rather wait an extra year or two in an orphanage until a mother and a father came along than go immediately into a gay/lesbian household to be raised. ‘
That is fine. What about the children who would not rather wait an extra two years? Should they be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to be put in a gay/lesbian household, or do you want to impose your wishes on them? I find what you’re saying perfectly understandable, in fact, I myself think that children are better off with a father and a mother. But your assretion that you would be ripped away from your family to be put with two queers was ridiculous.
‘Any other examples you give are unreasonable and improbable anecdotes.’
Really? For many kids, it is not an ‘unreasonable and improbable anecdote’. Many singles adopt each year. So would you prefer being adopted by a single parent, or by two gay/lesbian parents?
‘Your argument strengthens gays/lesbians making their own test tube babies (one gay/lesbian’s genes) through artificially inseminating a stranger, etc. Gays would create their own babies instead of adopting anyway.’
So if they are going to do that anyway, why are you so worried about poor children being ripped away from their mother and father to be put in a family with two gays?
‘Finally, and most distressingly, equating “liberal†to “intelligent†is absurd.’
I didn’t do any such thing. Liberalism is anything but intelligent, but what DaveG wrote wasn’t liberal at all, it was intelligent. Yet you can probably not see the diffence, otherwise you would not have called him a liberal.
‘You belong in the Democrat party and nowhere on this website.’
Yet you were criticizing someone who writes for this website, and even called him a liberal. I guess that if we follow your reasoning, you don’t belong on this website.
Fine day to you, good friend.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
‘You really don’t get it? Wow.’
I do get it. But I was mocking you. It is amazing that you didn’t get that.
‘Being pro-abortion is NOT ACTUALLY compassionate’
Please explain why I’m an evil, monster who is not compassionate, for the heinous crime of being pro-choice.
‘Being pro-gay-marriage is NOT ACTUALLY compassionate. Both are the opposite of compassion. Both are very cruel to children, unborn children in the abortion context, born children in the gay marriage context).’
Mary Cheney didn’t get married to have children in a less than perfect home. She did it anyway. So how would that affect children?
‘I always find it funny when so-called Republicans fall for the liberal democrat playbook of “compassion.†So naive. So very naive.’
How exactly did I fall for ‘compassion’? The government isn’t there to be compassionate, it is there to make the country run. I’m not a ‘compassionate conservative’, like your President Bush.
‘The acronym RINO exists for a reason. Please exit the Republican party. Thanks.’
Be careful what you wish for. Without social moderates, the GOP wouldn’t break 40% in 2008.
Seriously though, you don’t seem to be very extreme. I hope you’re not offended by my comments. If you are, please de-offend yourself.
August 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Awakened can’t shake that straw man using him as a puppet:
Straw man argument: mischaracterizing an argument and then arguing against the mischaracterization.
I never argued that “children would be ripped away from their mother and father and placed in gay households” as you mischaracterized me as doing. I articulated that, as a child, I preferred a mother and a father, and as a child, if I were placed in a home with 2 gays or 2 lesbians, it would be better for me to instead be raised by a mother and a father.
And it’s been proven that children are better served with a mother and a father.
As for your pro-choice argument, yes, that stance is evil. Perhaps you also advocate a pro-choice infanticide law (mother killing 1 year old baby. I’m sure you would be consistent enough to advocate a pro-choice premeditated murder law (adult killing adult). After all, while I’m sure you wouldn’t personally commit infanticide against a 1 year old baby, that decision should be a woman’s choice. It’s between her and God right. And after all, while I’m sure you wouldn’t personally commit a premeditated murder of another adult, that decision should be a free choice. It’s between the murderer and God right? In fact, let’s repeal all laws against 1st degree murder and make this country a pro-choice 1st degree murder country. I wouldn’t do it, but man, ya know, it’s between them and God. I mean, dammit, why should I be able to take my beliefs on premeditated 1st degree murder an impose them on someone else?
Illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
You are not evil Awakened, but your position on pro-choice IS EVIL. (Judge the sin not the sinner). Go to sleep, I just put you to bed.
Regards,
sjd
August 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
‘I never argued that “children would be ripped away from their mother and father and placed in gay households†as you mischaracterized me as doing. ‘
You came very close to that. You said that you wouldn’t prefer two gays raising you, instead of your father and mother. And who could disagree with that? Yet for most orphans, that is not the choice. If they could have their parents, they wouldn’t be orphans int he first place.
‘if I were placed in a home with 2 gays or 2 lesbians, it would be better for me to instead be raised by a mother and a father.’
It would be better for everyone. But what about comparing that to being raised by a single (since they can adopt)?
‘Perhaps you also advocate a pro-choice infanticide law (mother killing 1 year old baby’
That makes no sense whatsoever. A clump of cells (which is what it is after fertilization) is very different from a full-grown and viable baby. Surely, you can see that. Or maybe you acn’t.
‘Illustrating absurdity by being absurd.’
I agree that you’re being absurd.
‘You are not evil Awakened’
Or maybe I am. Heh. Heh. Heheheh.
‘but your position on pro-choice IS EVIL. ‘
I think that your pro-life position is EVIL. You have no right to infringe upon people’s rights, as long as there is not another living creature involved.
‘Go to sleep, I just put you to bed.’
I suggest you also put your delusions to bed.
Fine day to you, friend.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
ACT #50
EXACTLY, the main reason for 2006 was that it was a Year Six grievance election. The fact is that the GOP simply didn’t have big enough majorities to weather it but did do better than any other year six.
The conservative movement is still young.
August 20th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
#25 PJT, I totally agree.
#48 Emtee, you make a great point about Romney’s potential appeal on health care and why I think Dave is wrong on conceding certain issues to the libs.
Conservatism is naturally averse to running government and so we must try harder to become the permanent majority. We can’t go back to just checking libs’ excess.
We have to come up with a detailed plan to get the big federal guv addicted American people off the drug by explaining
a- why smaller govt and state superiority is better
b-how we get their with a transition plan to wean the addicts off without hurting their standard of living too much during the transition
August 20th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Awakened:
What if your mother had aborted you? How would you feel about that? Please answer the question.
Thanks,
sjd
August 20th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
If my mother had aborted me, I think I’d be neutral on the issue.
One thing the Republican Party does very badly is to fail to encourage (i.e., support financially) younger, attractive, articulate people who want to run for national offices. If we have better candidates, we win more frequently. Gee, that’s not real philosophical, but it is a practical reality. One reason I and so many others are working hard to get Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a place on the Republican ticket is that she is, well, a winner. One national article (see my blog to find them) is agreeing with us is that we were “right from the start,” to coin a phrase. They are seeing her obvious honesty and conservative good sense — as well as her 90% approval rating — and are embracing the woman as the future of the Party. Please come join us.
steve
steve
August 20th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Uh…Stephen you obviously didn’t get the question.
No, Stephen, I’m asking you NOW…TODAY.
How would you feel about the notion of your mother aborting you? How would you feel about not having been able to live the decades you have lived thus far?
Because, frankly, if you are neutral or ambivalent about having lived the past decades of your life, it logically follows that you would be neutral ambivalent about the ability to live the future decades of your life. In which case…well, you get it.
Illustrating the absurdity of the pro-abortion stance by being absurd.
Thanks for playing. You just lost the argument.
sjd
August 21st, 2007 at 3:48 pm
‘What if your mother had aborted you? How would you feel about that? ‘
I’m not sure I would care. After all, I would never have existed if I had been aborted. I would prefer it over a life of poverty, misery and with parents who didn’t really want me.
August 24th, 2007 at 9:14 am
[...] a final note, I think DaveG’s missive today has some interesting thoughts in it. What I’m intrigued by, though, is this paragraph: Truth be [...]