The unremarked revolution.
By Paul J Cella Posted in Elections — Comments (64) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The surest way to aggravate a Liberal is to remind him that his philosophical opponents include a very strong majority of the American people. This fact lies at the very heart of the bitterness that has become almost the characteristic feature of the American Left. It amusing to observe the machinations with which clever men have engaged themselves in the futile effort to explain Liberalism’s unpopularity away. One of my personal favorites is the late revival of the “false consciousness” explanation: middle Americans tend to vote Republican because they have been duped into actually caring about the moral climate, as against the material affluence, of their society. If they would just be good Marxists and cast votes based on cupidity, which the Democrats would be happy enough to oblige, then the world could be set aright. Admittedly, Republicans have over the past five years betrayed much of the credibility they once had on fiscal matters, but it is worth pointing out, now and then, what that great Liberal John Stuart Mill said about men who derive their income from state largess: They should be stripped of their franchise, he said. We talk about corrupt politicians; a much larger problem, in a republic, is a corrupt voters.
In any case, that the settled sense of the American people is against the Liberal, is a source of great dismay and indignation for him. Witness the reaction on the Left to the unveiling of The Washington Post’s newest blogger, my friend and colleague Ben Domenech, who began his stint there with this: “This is a blog for the majority of Americans.” Ben could not have imagined Liberals would receive such a declaration with equanimity, and indeed they did not.
But if our Liberals could but sublimate their wrath for a moment, some things might become clearer to them, and to the rest of us.
(1) The Conservatism that opposes itself to them — the settled “deliberate sense,” as Publius had it, of the people — bridges parties, factions, and superficial labels. In 2004, all over the country, opposition to one of the premier Liberal causes, gay marriage, was vastly more popular than President Bush or any other single candidate for national office. Opposition to gay marriage cut way into John Kerry’s voting coalition in state referenda from Oregon to Mississippi, but yet it did not much help Bush. Skepticism of the status quo on immigration is just as much an impediment to the President’s aspirations as it is to Liberal aspirations (for reasons that should be clear in a moment). A similar skepticism of globalization (a skepticism that Bush has lately taken to labeling isolationism) occasionally asserts itself and dashes the hopes of the transnationalists in both parties. The project of democracy in the Islamic world, championed by the President and most of the vocal portion of the Republican Party, is viewed with wariness and suspicion by the people themselves. In short, the Conservatism of the American people — a harried, disorganized, distracted, but still vital force — is as much a problem for the professed right-wing party as it is for the left-wing one.
That being the case, (2) the center-right governing coalition cobbled together by George W. Bush has, as many times as not, advanced the cause of Liberalism against the settled resistance of the America people. Bush is emphatically a Liberal on immigration, and while his firmness in liberalizing immigration policy has so far met with legislative defeat after defeat, he yet pursues it, and may well emerge victorious over the deliberate sense of the people. It is certain that his firmness has provoked what amounts to open revolt within his party, but it has also, because it is lazily assumed that as Bush is a Republican his opinion must be the Conservative one, driven an entire majority of Americans into a marginalized position. His rhetoric has made skepticism of mass immigration almost a fringe position, though it includes about sixty percent of the public.
Bush has taken steps toward the nationalization of education, an accomplishment that socialists of previous ages could only dream of. He has given the marching philosophy of the Jacobins — “I believe in the natural rights of humanity,” he said on Monday — a kind of right-wing twist, and launched it as American foreign policy. He has reduced fiscal conservatism to a faction without a party. He has participated in an expansion of federal medical coverage punctuated by only the most meager of market-based instruments. Under his watch, under his wars, the once-strong and vocal resistance to the feminization of the military has been rendered inert and voiceless. We are a nation that sends its mothers, sisters, daughters to war — and brings them home in body bags — and no one says a word about it. He has presided over a stultifying expansion of bureaucracy, and done little but promote and sponsor those whose incompetence, negligence, or malfeasance has given us what may well be recorded for history as the most shocking and demoralizing series of governmental blunders in American history. Our government cannot prosecute terrorists; it cannot organize disaster relief; it cannot protect our territorial sovereignty; it cannot manage airline security; it cannot exercise the simplest oversight of our visa programs; it cannot bring itself to name the enemy, but rather insists on deceiving us about him; its intelligence agencies are discredited; its a law enforcement agencies hamstrung by political correctness; it is happy to write laws that restrict the political speech of the citizenry, but it will not abandon its plunder of that citizenry’s wealth in an endless charade of vote-purchasing. The list is oppressive.
I do not lay all of this at the feet of George Bush alone; nor do I say that every decision which resulted in these things was unwise. I am deeply skeptical of the democracy-promotion project, as any reader of this site well knows, but I do not think it indefensible. I cannot censure the President excessively for acquiescing in a Medicare drug plan that was demanded by the people. I am well aware the Congress is equally at fault for the fiscal imprudence.
My point is not to excoriate President Bush, a man who still retains my affection, if no longer my trust or firm support. My point is rather to lay out what can only be a sketch of a great and largely unremarked fact: that under an ostensibly conservative President and center-right governing coalition, the Conservatism that still characterizes the American people, and still infuriates men of the Left, has suffered blows far more crippling than any since the 1960s. A man thought to be almost revolutionary in his conservatism has in fact achieved a vast consolidation of the gains of the Left. A revolution in political sentiment has been accomplished, but few seem to have noticed. I hope this amazing development will attract the notice of Ben Domenech, who does indeed, on a great many issues and to the outrage of the Liberals, speak for the American majority.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | The Sunday Morning Talk Shows - a review — Comments (32) »
The unremarked revolution. 64 Comments (0 topical, 64 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I'm surprised this made it to the front page of RedState, though it is the truth. I must register a disagreement, though. I don't believe the mass of Americans are in any principled sense conservative. They are conservative in inclination, like the bulk of people everywhere, but their moral vocabulary and professed principles are decisively liberal (thank you, public schools and television), and their conservatism depends therefore on an unstable structure of unprincipled exceptions.
and also labled a "liberal conservative", what ever that means, I must agree with your observation, of course I would.
I cannot offer any stats or reports or journalistic interpretations of what may be out there concerning the numbers of moderates that think and do things much like you described. I do see many people who feel this way. I've even met some that have claimed that they vote every 4-8 years or so for any party that is not in power, to always keep a balance, they don't even care what the issues are, the platforms, the candidate, they only want a consistant balance of power through the decades.
I have friends that are extremely conservative and liberal and vote down party lines all the time with both liberal and conservative viewpoints.
So I guess what I am saying is, without pandering to the middle and the power that lies in that spectrum, there is not much of a chance to really win over the long haul. Perhaps "pandering" is a poor choice of words, but it may be just that to some people.
By alienating the middle, I think we're in for some hard times, and that's what I believe has mostly happened.
How to bring them back? Better platform, new ideas, change of attitude, more tolerance for fellow Republican's and the middle voter and a more coopertaive attitude to those we need.
Sometimes the tide breaks the levy, and it's difficult at best to stop it at that point, let's get those sandbag in place before anything else can occure.
While it has long been fashionable to predict an imminent conservative crack-up, it has also been equally fashionable to defelct such criticisms by pointing toward the continued electoral success of the Republican party, the disarray and pathology of the other party, among other considerations. Nevertheless, it may well be the case that these factors, as well as the others that could be adduced, might not be the dispositive ones, over the long term, inasmuch as the discontent now simmering within the ranks of Republicans and conservatives, unaccompanied by the paranoia and delusions of their leftist counterparts, is indicative of a certain hollowness: the hollowness that arises when there remain few substantive reasons to support a political faction, few reasons to continue to abide the compromises necessary for the maintainance of a coalition or Big Tent, given that significant numbers of each constituent part of the conservative coalition have been disillusioned by the policy drift of recent years and perhaps even by the presence of certain other members of the coalition, save the bare fact of the Republican party not being the Democrat party. In other words, the present season of discontent may be indicative of a rather telling reality: while the Democrats and the liberals have long plied the trade of being the negations of their opposites, perhaps that is all that increasingly causes the conservative/Republican alliance or coalition to cohere.
Needless to say, it ought to be obvious that one never achieves a positive end by means of mere negation, especially when that negation is, in the end, merely one of caricature and pretense, as devoid of substance as a shadow without a body to cast it. Leave the shadows to their pretend boxing, one might conclude to be the course of reason, if in the end the two shadows prove to be one.
...which pretty much means that he may post as he pleases. Some of us do voluntarily seek out feedback before we put up a particular front-page article, but that's an informal arrangement.
that there exists both good and evil, both right and wrong - that they will continue reject liberalism. I do admit that for most it has moved from a mental realization to an emotional response which is not a good progression. Fewer and fewer people can defend conservative principles and the need for human morality in a logical argument but at least many still instinctively feel that way.
Liberals actively work on overruling Man's natural gravitation away from relativism. They've made amazing strides but there is a long way to go.
...conservatives don't fear an honest discussion of ideas.
I am one of those voters that is pretty much straight in the middle. I believe in fiscal responsibility, personally responsibility and states rights. I do happen to be somewhat liberal on some social issues - I am not against marriage (I do not think the issues has any impact on my life whatsover) and while I strongly dislike the concept of abortion, I do not think it's practical to put a blanket ban.
One way you can bring back some of those in the middle, is to return to the core principles of states right and fiscal responsibility. If your party really stands for states rights, than it shouldn't impose it's own views on a state that has chosen to differ - all the talk about gay marriage ban ammendment turned so many of us away from the republicans. Also tone down some of the religious references. I am a scientist-in-training (aka grad student), so when I hear Bush saying that creationism should be taught in public schools, I want to pull my hair out. It's already bad enough that 80% of students in my department are from over-seas (admissions tell me that it's so difficult to accept americans cause they're just so under-quailified on average), it certainly doens't need to get worse.
well, that's my 2 cents for you.
should we sacrifice what we believe in on the off chance that you might vote with us when we've demonstrated through at least three election cycles that we can win the presidency and improve our position in the house and senate by playing to our base?
No thanks. Vote for us if you want to, don't if you don't want to but there is no reason to alienate 37% or so percent of the electorate on the chance that half of the self-identified moderates will be impressed. We tried that under Bush41. Didn't like it.
It doesn't mean that we are interested in changing our basic moral beliefs. It means that you can be in our party and disagree with some of those beliefs. We'll still accept your vote, don't worry man.
Moral relativism is for the democrats.
I'd like to make several comments.
First, Bush has been steady throughout his poliitical career on at least 3 of the issues you consider examples of Bush's liberalism, immigration, education, and globalization. On globalization, however, Bush has done considerably less than Clinton did.
Second, I confess that I have been surprised by the revitalization of isolationism. I had believed until recently that Bush's response to Sept. 11 had permenantly marginalized isolationism.
Third, and most important--you seem to be suggesting that the Republican Party should not be considered a conservative party--at best, it is a party where conservatives are part of a coalition. How important are they to Republican success? Clearly, they matter when it comes to winning elections. At the very least, if you're correct, there is a great opportunity for the Democrats to seize on Bush's liberalism and run against that. Not that it will happen in my lifetime, but it could be done.
This brings me to something I've been thinking about for some time--have our notions of conservativism and liberalism become little more than a constellation of issues that represent the views of one coalition or another? I suspect we need to do a great deal more examination of our fundamental beliefs and values in order to have a more coherent and substantive debate on the vital issues that confront us.
I do believe that conservatives are way ahead of liberals on this, since Marxism and various post-modernismisms have proven to be intellectual dead-ends, there is little ground for liberals to stage their defense.
One more thing--I know you didn't address the "What's the matter with Kansas" argument directly, but in some ways, you seem to share the hypothesis of Frank's book--people have voted for a party they believed was conservative, but in reality was far more interested preserving the interests of the economic elites than in than moral issues that animate them.
an answer on Paul's behalf, I would just state, for the record, that what has been argued is not that the conservatives in the Republican coalition have fallen victim to a "What's the Matter With Kansas" sort of false consciousness, according to which those moral concerns are illusory (this is a critical element of the theory, yes?), but that they have been made to play the role of Charlie Brown. They believe that they are voting to increase the probability that their concerns will receive the attention of policymakers, but instead receive either liberalism in the form of the ratification of the liberal advances of the previous generation, even where those advances had hitherto been purely rhetorical (ie., Medicare), or find their issues relegated to second-tier status by the dominant cluster of interests (No prizes for identifying them, though).
The status of the Republican party as the natural political home of conservatives is precisely what has been rendered problematic by many of the defections and spasmodic liberal jerkings of the Bush years: perhaps conservatives, regardless of their success in mobilizing voters and writing party platforms, simply do not constitute much more than a vocal faction of the party.
I am in much the same boat as you. I am state's rights, small government, fiscal conservative. I personally am ProLife but don't think it is feasible at this point to put a blanket abortion ban in place. While I would like that and believe it to be the moral thing to do it would drive many women and teenagers to unsafe situations for abortions. Also on Gay Marriage I don't really care and don't see how it would effect us much. As long as no man wants to marry me I am good.
All that being said when I look at what the other party represents more and more it scares me even more. I am a reformed jew who believes in God and that he and references to him have a place in our lives and society. Do I believe in creationism? Yes and no if I look to the bible as a metaphor of what happened I can see it. If I had a choice between a blanket ban on abortion or a blanket allowance of anything at any stage and no parental consent it would be no contest. I firmly believe in the war on terror and protectiong our citizens from the isalmofascists around the world. I do not want to be so PC that we can not call them on this and as a US Army vet do not believe in waiting until they hit us.
Anyway sorry for the rant but when I see the democrats of today and what they are turning into it scares me. I am proud to be a republican where I see this as the party that accepts my beliefs with dignity and allows all types of us in. Try going to any liberal rally and saying you are pro life. It won't be pretty.
There's all kinds of people who call themselves moderates, centrists, or independents. The middle is where most of the apathetic voters, the ones who don't care, can't be bothered to show up to vote very often, or only pay attention every 4 years are. Many of them do not believe in states rights or fiscal responsibility, if they even care about either. Some are easily swayed and oscillate back and forth on the issues. Many believe the correct answer must always midway between the right and left positions. Some just vote on personality, gut feel, and emotion.
That is why playing to the middle does not work. You need to have principles and educate the public on them. This is something Reagan did very well. Bush does not do it nearly so well (where he even supports the conservative position).
It's also something the Democrats naturally have an easier time with, since they are peddling the easy answers (not your responsibility, create a new program, throw more money at it, give away free stuff, etc).
Most Americans do not understand the core differences between a conservative and a liberal. Perhaps, they believe conservatives are against abortion and for the rich. Maybe they think liberals help the poor and are "pro-choice". This shallow concept of conservatives and liberals is the main reason why the conservative's main adversary is a liberal instead of a libertarian. If the majority of Americans were a bit more autodidactic on important issues, the liberals would cease to be a political threat. Americans must come to the realization that modern liberalism is just a euphemism for Socialism and that Socialism has been proven to be inferior to capitalism.
I think the most important thing the Republicans can do is publish an easy to read digest or "Conservatism for Dummies" book that explains the issues in a very clear, cogent but simple fashion. The target audience: women, college students, and blacks. The true opposition to conservatism is not a liberal political party but an uneducated public.
Isolationism is the easy answer to the GWOT. It is seductive... it does not surprise me that more and more people are falling into it. People get tired of war. 9/11 seems like a distant memory for many... some are beginning to think it was a one time fluke.
As far as the What's the Matter with Kansas argument, I think it's false and not what is being argued here. People know who they are voting for. If they didn't in 2000 they certainly did in 2004. I wasn't "fooled" by Bush, I voted for him because he was the vastly superior choice. I don't expect any candidate to be conservative in every respect, or to share my views on every issue. And even if they did, that doesn't mean the outcome will be to my liking. There is plenty of compromise that has to happen in the political process.
"...should we sacrifice what we believe in on the off chance that you might vote with us when we've demonstrated through at least three election cycles that we can win the presidency and improve our position in the house and senate by playing to our base?"
...because we can't expect the Democrats to remain fools on national security forever?
but don't call it Conservatism for Dummies. We don't want to insult anyone on their way into the big tent.
How about "Conservatism for Independents"?
post zuiko. Well said sir ! I understand the frustration that my comrades on the right have with this administration. I feel it myself sometimes. If you don't mind I'm going to print your post, enlarge it, and tape it to my refrigerator. That way I'll see it at least four times a day ! LOL!!
It appears from the range of views expressed by posters so far that many avowed "conservatives" try to appeal to the moderates only when it suits them: when they need the vote. Otherwise, they view any equivocation from the straight and narrow as that nasty "liberal" tendency they label "moral relativism." Methinks their tent is not so big, and space is given grudgingly and only if one keeps one's moderate views to oneself.
I thought the article had many valid points. But, I wish we'd drop these outdated labels. On both sides. The "liberal" label you're using so generously applies to a rare bird indeed, and simply obscures the issues at hand. Most of us agree on (1) protecting the nation, (2) encouraging business and entreprenuership to ensure a strong economy, (3) low taxes, (4) the self sufficiency and privacy of the individual, (5) small government, and (6) honesty instead of corruption in government.
This administration (President and Congress) has indeed violated the basic principles of BOTH parties bases. Instead of conservative leadership, we have an intrusive & bloated government, expanded corporate welfare, a massive increase in entitlement programs, mountainous debt, and corruption.
We must learn to work together. I'm not sure that the Republican party has shown itself to be inclusive to the moderate view nor has this administration shown any willingness to work with anyone.
How to bring them back? Better platform, new ideas, change of attitude, more tolerance for fellow Republican's and the middle voter and a more coopertaive attitude to those we need.
when moderates show some tolerance and support of conservative positions. When so called moderates like Chaffee and Specter are put on the ballots, we are told to vote for them because its important to hold the majority. When identifiable conservatives run in places like Virginia and win primaries, moderates boly the party and run as independants. Conservatives are tired of that crap.
especially modern American liberalism,is just a euphamism for socialism, is ridiculous in the extreme. Can you name one plank of the Democratic party platform that is the least bit socialist? Are they for employee representation and voting rights on corporate boards? Do they want to nationalize any industries? That is what real socialists want. They won't even come out in favor of a single payer health insurance system when one is so obviously needed. (And if that makes me a socialist, well then you have no idea what the word "socialist" means). Heck, most of the so-called liberal elite in this country won't even stand up for union rights anymore.
That's a reasonable expectation. The mindset of the radical left is immune to reason, and they control the democratic primaries as well as the MSM. So even the message of the so called "crucial middle" doesn't penetrate their defenses.
While I will grant that it might be possible for a party in opposition to Republicans to be pro-defense, I do not believe it will be a Democrat party.
I've never read What's the Matter with Kansas, so I can't say for sure whether or not it's a "false consciousness" argument. I will say that I have no patience for the false consciousness argument--I find it deeply troubling, and I was not attributing it to Paul. Rather, I was pointing out that the two positions are not altogether alien to each other. It seems that Paul's post raises the question regarding whether or not voters who vote Republican on the basis of what he describes as conservatism are well served by that.
I think globalization gets at the heart of the matter here--one could make the argument (though I would disagree) that pushing free trade is hostile both to the economic interests and the values of conservative voters.
about the "moral climate" of the country, why isn't it better. Sure, people vote against gay marriage, but the divorce rate is still high, and highest in the red states (uber-liberal, gay marriage Massachussetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country). Abortions are a terrible thing but the only way to actually stop people from having them is to make them illegal. Hollywood puts out trash and pornography is rampant, but guess what, if consumers, including those in the moral red states didn't buy it, it wouldn't be produced. It always cracks me up to cross the border on I-80 from Utah to Wyoming and see the Wal-Mart sized Adult book stores full of cars with Utah plates.
of the country is conservative in any educated or principled sense, perhaps instinctively or reflexively the number increases. I do know that you can not, must not, call a liberal a liberal. Remember the fury that fell on the head of Bush 41 for calling liberal Dukakis a liberal. Kerry and Clinton spread themselves around like ink from an octopus, but liberal? You could more easily call them lepers. So the discussion over who is what takes on a surrealistic turn with a right wing but no left wing. Imagine the French revolutionary assembly with one wing, imagine a bird with one wing! But this is America and this is the American media so nothing is too surrealistic.
then you may only be in error. It is however a socialist position as noted by authors like Hayek who actually got to see it up close and personal.
To the list of Democrat positions that correspond with Socialist positions I would add our current social security and unemployment programs. The constant undermining of our military by underfunding it, feminizing it, and only sending it when American interests are clearly NOT at stake are also consistent with socialist methodologies for destabilizing governments so that revolutionaries can launch the final strike to bring about "the workers paradise."
So, yes the modern Democrat party platform is largely indistiguishable from socialist doctrine.
Oh yeah, and the consistent attempts to register and sieze small arms from law abiding citizens is another mark of Nazi (National Socialists for those of you who forget), Socialist, and Communist stategy.
...at least, that it won't be a reasonable expectation after November '06. After all, the average Democrat is not a frothing lunatic - and while the utter disinterest (by our standards) of the average American voter is indeed awe-inspiring, they'll notice the crackup that'll result if the... people ... currently driving the Democratic Party perform true to type.
I am increasingly of the opinion that this is in fact the DLC's plan for '06: allow the enthusiasts to thoroughly muck things up, then come in with the mops.
One hopes, at least. I'd rather not go with plan B, which involves splitting the GOP into the conservative and libertarian wings...
I meant it in the spirit of the "teach yourself" books, not in a condescending or insulting manner.
show that about 20% of the population is dogmatically liberal while about 30% of the population is doctrinairely conservative. This suggestst that both sides can count on a majority of the American people rejecting their arguments, at least in purist form, and that whoever is willing to buck their extremist wing to seek the vast center of the elctorate will have a stable governing majority. So far neither side has been able to achieve this.
many people who are called moderates indeed have strong and well formed opinions, Its just that their opinions on many issues do not line up with either the far right or left. Although I have always considered myself a conservative. I now realize that on many issues some people would regard me as a moderate.
That does not mean I am wishy washy or unconcerned. It means I usually disagree with extreme positions.
with your post is that Specter and Chaffee are not moderates. Chaffee is a liberal and I'm not sure what Specter is. They never appear "moderate" on any of their views.
at least for economic conservatives the football has been pulled out from under us many times.
Pushing free trade can only be bad to some people and only in the short term. Long term it helps the economy grow, (although I am not one of those who believes we should let our trading partners walk all over us).
Isolationism is not going to happen UNLESS we leave Iraq prematurely and it all falls to peices.
If that happens we will have no choice but to take a low profile, as no one will trust us again.
There might be reasons why there is a low divorce rate in Mass.(or anywhere else) that has nothing to do with any subjective wiew of morality. For instance, I would like to know the average age of marraige in Mass. as opposed to say Arkansas.
And say that parties have been succesful when they promoted moderate positions which were somewhat to the right or slightly Libertarian.
Or if they were able to portray the opposition as extreme.
The problem with this in the past, was that what was considered moderate continued to slide toward the left. Now, I think it has been sliding toward the right in recent years.
I've seen some posters on conservative blogs say they are pro-choice and people begin to consider them the devil. I highly doubt anyone who openly says they are pro-choice would be all that welcome at a rnc convention.
I do agree with you on the point that the dems need serious reform if they want to be credible on security. As of the moment I will remain an independent and vote based on the individual running and not their party letter.
I do not think there is anything wrong with the belief that God created the world. That is my belief after all. What I do not like to see is the literal form of creationism which some people want taught in schools - 6000 yrs old earth, and man and dinosaur living together crap. There is just no truth to that, you might as well teach the Earth is flat.
I do have strong principle and I am not a moral relativist. While there are certainly plenty of people who are just apathetic about that sorta stuff, you can't just generalize like this.
I highly doubt anyone who openly says they are pro-choice would be all that welcome at a rnc convention.
Der Gubernator? Rudy!? Laura Bush?
In the midwest or south I would be considered a moderate. In NYC where I live I am considered a conservative. However I not only vote every single election I volunteer for the republican candidates, I ran for state assemby as a republican in 2004 on the upper west side of manhattan and when I have money to contribute always do to Republicans I want to see in office.
I am fiercely in favor of vouchers for school, state rights, fiscal responsibility (Grew up with Reagan), and if there has to be abortion then it needs to have very tight control and parental notification and consent for a minor. I don't know if that makes me a moderate but I was at the 2004 National convention in NYC and proud to be a republican. As I said previously in this party even if people disagree with me we have good discussion and debate on the issue. When I deal with Dems and put facts in front of them I am usually called a fascist, nazi, or some other endearing term.
I don't think creation should be taught in public school. That being said I don't think it harms anyone to discuss that there are people and religions that believe this. Moreover I also don't believe that separation of church and state which doesn't exist in the constitution means 0 references to God in our lives or public discourse.
rather cryptically, perhaps, the way in which abstractions such as "the economy" blind us to the human impact of economic policies. That some people are hurt in the short term is not necessarily negated by the longer term growth in "the economy." Reifying commercial intercourse as "the economy" allows one to divorce economic considerations from moral ones, as the market becomes this fickle god who requires our constant propitiation and blind obedience. Rather than blandly pronouncing that "globalization" will enlarge "the economy," we would do well to consider who benefits and who loses. Commerce ought to serve human(e) ends. That more wealth is created, and that capital earns higher returns, does not logically entail that more people are happier or more virtuous, or even that very many of them are wealthier, either.
I must register disagreement with 2 points:
1) Immigration is needed. It is at the core of our nation's identity. Anyone else remember, "...give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...?" We are at a historical low with regard to immigration.
End ILLEGAL immigration. Then allow more Legal immigrants.
2) What, exactly, is wrong with allowing females to serve in our Armed Forces? Why is it you think they can't defend their nation, their families, and their friends? While I am steadfastly against Faminazism, which has done such harm to this nation and society, I fail to understand why you seem to desire that all women stay in the kitchen...
I was there for the convention and pro choice with tight controls regarding late term or anything beyond the first term. Also I belive that parental consent is a must. As I remember I was welcomed by the Texas delegation who invited me as a guest. In 2008 I will find someone to invite me to the DNC convention and start telling people I am pro life and let's see if I am around to talk about it the next day.
I don't know what this party is for, other than a machine for patronage, perhaps. Social conservatives toiled for years to provide the GOP with a majority in Congress and possession of the White House expecting, perhaps naively, that something would change once they had reached that goal. That is, implicitly, what they had been promised all those years. While it is no doubt good for our souls to be reminded not to place our trust in powers and principalities, having been rewarded for all those years of effort in the person of an LBJ clone whose first instinct seems to be to betray and attack those of us who voted for him leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
I suspect that it isn't, at least, that it won't be a reasonable expectation after November '06.
If the shellacking the D's took in '02 and '04 didn't do it, '06 won't either.
I didn't say anything about you personally or all moderates. The whole point is that there isn't a basket of "moderates" that you can really say anything about. They are all over the map, they don't stay in the same place on the map, and many aren't on the map at all. That is why it is foolish to try to appease the "moderates" to win elections.
I think the only revolution here is that Republicans are becoming intrenched as the party in power. That means Republicans are having to learn how to govern, just as FDR and the Democratic Congresses of the 30s had to.
One consequence of this, is that the sloppy language of our past coalition-building is causing confusion. I think many of us, in comparing the Republican party with the Democrats' explicit coalition of identity groups, didn't even really realize just how many factions the party has. And certainly it was easy to hide the factions after Ronald Reagan made 'conservative' a popular label.
When we were in the minority, the various factions of the Republican party could say whatever they wanted, because they wouldn't be able to accomplish much of it. So different factions would say different things, and perhaps not pay as much attention to other factions as they needed to. This has led to some factions surprising others:
- We've had the religious right looking to bring big government to the FCC.
- We've had business-oriented Republicans and libertarians looking to formalize the process of importing cheap foreign labor.
- We've had conservatives and the religious right trying to prevent the unnecessary killing of human life in sweeping abortion bans and national interventions in local life-or-death cases.
- We've had moderates and neoconservatives take a problem-solving approach to government entitlements, who look to fix problems with the programs seemingly without caring about reducing dependence on those programs.
If the Republican party is to govern effectively for a long time, I think we have to recognize that these factions do exist, and learn to argue more clearly with each other. Trying to label everything 'good' as 'conservative' and everything 'bad' as 'non-conservative,' as guys like Pat Buchanan, George W. Bush, and Fred Barnes have done, just won't do.
We're not all conservatives now. We're all Republicans, but that's good enough if we realize it.
According to every credible poll now available, more Americans believe in aliens than approve of Bush. Soild majorities of Americans say they would prefer a Democratic congress and solid majorities of Americans do not agree with the GOP on key issues like Iraq and the economy. And how could they?
The GOP led house has racked up an historic $9 trillion dollar debt and presided over 9/11, non-existant WMD's, Terri Schiavo, Valarie Plame, Katrina, Social Security rip off scheme, Abu Grabe, and warrentless wiretapping.
Rather than acknowledge the mess they have made neocons prefer to box with the liberal ghost. Apparently they are oblivious to the fact that only a small minority of Democrats identify themselves as "liberal".
So while they flail away at shadows, progressive and conservative democrats led by Iraqi war veterans will regain the majority in the house this fall
absolutely outlandish. It might give the Dems a factual rallying point if they actually operated in the "real" world. In the real world (where apparently the majority of the voting public resides), just because you say something, it doesnt make it true.
only a small minority of Democrats identify themselves as "liberal".
Can you name a Dem leader who is not a liberal?
Here in Illinois for instance both of our Senators, O'Bama and Durbin do not identify themselves as liberals. In particular O'Bama is a progressive
if you are going to say something this funny. Now I have to clean up all the coffee I just spewed over my monitor.
it is apparent you are both a Constitutional scholar and intellectual giant. Unfortunately, you apparently gained this status without ever learning the valuable skill of reading. Books on tape... right?
"The vast majority of the American public agree with me...", or words to that effect.
Must be the new talking point. I've noticed it with increasing frequency just in the last couple of weeks.
The only polls that count are called elections. Those are the ones that aren't biased by how the question is posed, or by how the poll-taker chooses to "normalize" the results.
See here, or my diary entry "On Avoiding Tyranny".
.. claiming that Durbin and Obama are not liberals, or seeing Obama spelled as O'Bama. What, did he turn Irish while we weren't looking?
but I must say, that in my observations through this sometimes very difficult and challenging life of mine, I have, perhaps likely in your eyes, wrongly conclude that it is the far and solid right that needs to offer the olive branch to the middle conservatives. Many have been wrongly lambasted for months or more and have some deep reservations and bitterness now, like myself, unfortunately.
I believe that many of my views, experiences and viewpoints are more wise and more forward looking than so many on the far right, and that's narcissistic at the very least I understand, but I have also learned to trust my gut as long as I have enough info to utilize that feeling when and if it ever comes.
I've enjoyed an extremely challenging life. Many of my experiences were learning ones, most of which were done the hard way. My moto; "If there's a pothole in the road of life, I've hit it". Clearly, no one person can know but a few things about anything at an expert level in our time here. However,...
...the simple concept of "Give and Take" and the flexibility that comes with it seems rudimentary to success in life, at least to me.
This is primarily reason why I was so concerned about this "exclusive unless your with us" attitude I have seen so much of. Again, I fear this could be hurtful to the party overall.
That is why our Constitution lays out layer after layer buffering the will of the majority from holding sway.
Very true. I was going to write a diary the other day when the New York Times endorsed a movement in Illinois that wants to direct its electors to cast their votes consistent with the national popular vote.
Just like the failed Colorado referendum (split electors), why anyone would voluntarily do this is beyond me.
Anyone who opposes the Electoral College because it's undemocratic must really hate the U.S. Senate, where all states have equal votes.
Get rid of the Electoral College, & 100% of flyover country immediately becomes irrelevant. Which, I suspect, is exactly the Times' intent.
and a Republican one at that, I deeply resent the notion that the "feminization" of the military is some nefarious socialist and Democratic plot to undermine society and the country. And she would be more than offended, she would kick your ass (and I hope that doesn't get me banned for profanity use) all the way from Kuwait, where she is currently serving her second tour. You and Paul should be ashamed to denigrate the service of women in the armed forces. I am extremely proud of my wife and you should be too.
As for the other plots you claim are part of some socialist agenda, all I can say is, rats you found us out, I'll guess I'll have to stop peeling those George Wallace bumper stickers off of cars and take down that Communist Flag I have up in my garage.
(That last snarky comment was an allusion to "Uneasy Rider" by The Marshall Tucker Band for those you not famaliar with classic Southern Rock)
You and Paul should be ashamed to denigrate the service of women in the armed forces. I am extremely proud of my wife and you should be too.
I am not denigrating the service of these women, including your wife. I am denigrating the honor of a society that sends its wives and sisters to war.
"We are at a[n] historic low with regard to immigration". I assume you mean legal immigration limits are the lowest they have ever been. This is not true, no matter how you look at it: raw numbers or percentage of current population.
"The period 2000-2005 appears to be the highest five-year period of immigration in American history."
Backgrounder
From an older 1998 article (read the whole thing):
But the recent immigration peak of 1990-1991 towers far above the previous record set in 1907
But in recent years, 2000-2001 were actually higher than 1990-1991!
Now, it's true that "[i]mmigration enthusiasts...[say you] have to look at immigration relative to the American population". If you accept that proposition (and the 1998 link above gives a few arguments why you shouldnt, because absolute numbers matter), even THEN Raven's statement is false. It is true that in 1910 the relative immigration rate was 10 per 1000 while in the 1990's the 1M+/year rate amounted to 5 per 1000. However, 5/1000 is NOT the lowest historical immigration rate. In fact, during the 1845-1920 "Immigration Era," the troughs dipped down to 4/1000 -- and in pre 1845 and 1920-1965 the relative levels were lower still.
So, we have the largest absolute numbers of immigrants and higher than the historical average of relative immigration. This is certainly NOT "a historical low with regard to immigration".
Yes, Julian L. Simon said in 1990 "Contemporary immigration is not high by U.S. historical standards." But he was wrong, and that statement has been disproven multiple times by multiple people. like here.
Now, I'm not against legal immigration. I'm open to discussing increasing legal immigration rates (as long as we don't start talking about amnesty for current lawbreakers). I feel this way EVEN given the fact that, contra Raven and Julian Simon, we currently allow rather HIGH legal immigration by historical standards, by relative OR absolute measures. But to say "We are at a historical low with regard to immigration" is simply false.
The correction. I was basing that off of obviously incorrect information from elsewhere.
In fact, Ben Domenech (whose column I found patronizing and kind of shallow, to be honest) does not speak for the "majority of Americans," but for the about 35% who idenfity themselves as conservative. Neither conservative nor liberal nor moderate can claim a majority, although liberal certain has historically run behind. More Americans are moderates than any other type. The breakdown of our countrymen by political philosophy hasn't actually changed since the 1960s.
This is good, and the way it should be. The direction of our country is decided by which way the moderates lean. Small moves in the middle in either direction can result in big party changes. In 1994, the middle moved to the right, and has been there ever since--resulting in GOP control of first Congress and then the presidency.
There's no "revolution" in this, just small shifts in public sentiment. Leaders on both sides have assumed that this means some sort of huge social and political mandate when it falls their way, when what people by and large want is prudent, moderate government.