This may be the moment for conservative Democrats. More Americans are conservative than are moderate or are liberal, according to a new Gallup poll. Forty percent of Americans polled described their political views as conservative, compared with 36 percent who said they were moderate and 20 percent who said they were liberal. Moderates and conservatives were tied in polling from 2005 through 2008, but conservatism has gained ground among independent voters, according to Gallup. Meanwhile, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll puts the Republican Party’s favorable rating at its lowest in at least a decade, 36 percent, compared with 53 percent favorability of the Democratic Party.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- george on Open thread 11/22
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
61 Comments
The comparison between the two polls is questionable, to say the least. Particularly since Gallup did not comment on party affiliation.
The movement to the right is interesting, and perhaps for someone who is not conservative, disturbing. However, the “independent” (aka, many foul weather voters) tend to reflect the irritation of the moment, and with Democrats in power, the irritation is directed towards “liberals” just as it was towards “conservatives” up to 2008 (which, by the way, is why the Republicans are going to win back congressional seats in 2010, barring a series of truly stupid, and therefore unlikely, mistakes).
It should also be noted that conservatives are still greatly outnumbered by combined moderates and liberals, and if self described conservatives representing the Republican Party continue to label those who don’t agree with them as “liberals”, they are still failing to learn the lessons of 2006 and 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQnmxW-UyKo&feature=player_embedded
No comment needed.
The ‘jawless fish’ questions a poll that doesn’t fit his square-hole peg board.
The word “conservative” has a lot of meanings to the average American. Someone who thinks the Government has no business making laws against gay marriage might consider their self to be a “conservative” for instance. The 26 year low for people admitting to being Republican is more telling.
BJ says “The 26 year low for people admitting to being Republican is more telling.”
But what its telling is not what BJ thinks.
Bush and the Republican leadership over the past 7-8 years have dragged the party so far to the left as to be undistinguishable from Democrats with the possible exception of 2 or 3 issues. Big government Rino’s have so angered conservatives that cons no longer ID themselves as Republicans.
I predict that the distinction and divide between ‘conservatives’ and the GOP is going to grow rather than heal.
Sarah Palin recently endorsed the Conservative party candidate over the Republican nominee in a special House election in upstate New York. Look for Palin to seek the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 but if she’s rejected by primary voters and the GOP establishment, expect Bull Moose Party II: Alaskan Boogaloo.
Will she split the right-leaning vote and hand the election to the Democratic nominee like Teddy Roosevelt and H. Ross Perot before her or will she bust through the current monopoly that Tweedle Dee (RNC) and Tweedle Dum (DNC) hold on national level politics in the United States?
Personally, I think Sarah Palin would make a lousy president. But I do hope that she is able to put a serious chink in the armor worn by the current political establishment.
I implied but did not specifically mention that the desertion from the Republican party was people running both to the left and the right Heckler. While there ARE any number of parties that claim to be the REAL conservatives, of these the “Republican” party is the only one that is politically relevant. Ever LESS relevant.
It’s a center-right nation. Always has been. Duh.
“GMC70″ –
Nah.
It’s a big ol’ moderate nation.
At least at its best.
FDR inherited about 10 years of conservatism. Look where that got us.
He responded with a center-left program that was working ’til the CONs ranted “Communism! SOCIALISM!!!!”
Since FDR had a huge ego. It wasn’t enough to him to win reelection in ‘36, he wanted a landslide and dialed back the New Deal.
So much for “reaching across the aisle.”
If President Obama were even a modicum of what CONs accuse, he’d decree Universal Medicare, attack and confiscate the only Muslim nuclear bomb in Pakistan and bring the troops home, invest all that Iraq/Afghanistan money into alternative energy sources and strategies, and let gays marry.
Doug Hoffman , “Conservative Party” candidate is leading a Democrat and a Rino in a New York state special election.
Hoffman has the endorsement of Palin and Fred Thompson.
The Rino has the endorsement of Newt. (I guess Newt’s brain went squishy about the time he did sofa time with Pelosi.)
If this holds the establishment R’s will be getting a bitshslapping they wont soon forget.
Most conservatives really wish for a time machine to take them back to those “peaceful and prosperous” 1950’s of myth. I was there. It wasn’t like “Happy Days.” There were the McCarthy witch hunts, the cold war, the Bomb, the almost daily lynching of black kids, the burning of rock ‘n’ roll records, a rule of bullies, gay-bashing as sport, the beginning of the rat race and enforced conformity. No paradise in sight! Nothing in the real world you’d ever want to go back to.
And The Tinfoil Hat Brigade has been playing their “I’m more reactionary than you” game with each other for so long that now they’re kowtowing to Genghis Khan and proclaiming that they’re the “new” conservatives.
It’s truly a world gone berserk when Newt Gingrinch is considered “liberal.”
Honestly, I’ve lost all conception of what the Republicans think is “Conservative.”
In fact, I haven’t understood since the days when it meant looking after the spending very carefully.
Now that it creeps into redoing the Constitution to more closely resemble the Bible, I don’t wonder why there are sides taken and political differences.
lindainks55
Posted October 27, 2009 at 3:12 pm | Permalink
It’s truly a world gone berserk when Newt Gingrinch is considered “liberal.”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ain’t that the truth? The current crop of conservatives would attack Ronald Reagan based upon his willingness to work with Tip O’Neil and for signing off on socialist ideas like the Earned Income Credit.
Linda,
It’s all a matter of interpretation; they interpreted the bible to mean that they’re on top for eternity, and now they’re doing the same thing to the Constitution. The WASP Male is attempting to assert his god-given supremacy once again, and will sting at anyone who disagrees in the slightest. Even poor Newt somehow offended these insects!
I guess I’d have to agree with the whole concept of moderates. In some ways I would have to look at myself as a moderate.
Do I agree with abortion in the cases of incest, rape or the mother’s life is in danger; yes I do.
Do I agree with a womans right to choose abortion as a birth control device; absolutely not. The woman has the right to “choose” to keep her legs closed or to make sure the guy, wraps that rascal.
In someways it is true that the conservatives do wish for the 50’s. Back before the liberal philosophy of “make love, not war”. Thats all fine and good as long as everyone goes along, (see saddam, OBL, kim jong il, pretty much any somali warlord).
Back before the libs decided that the only way to improve things was to throw guvment money at it and hope. Supposedly we were going to end poverty and yet where are we today?
You’ve “grown” a generation or two of people with their hands out. You’ve got people, one day after a hurricane hits, standing there saying “where’s the guvment with my water, where’s the guvment with my food, where’s the guvment with my new house?” You’ve even got people being rescued, in the middle of a hurricane, IN THEIR NIGHTGOWNS!!!
You libs have a black man as president. You can all pat yourselfs on the back and tell yourselves what open minded, diverse, wonderful people you are. But at what cost? You put a black man in the presidential office, Yippee. NOW what, do we really have to go through another 4 years of Carter, to make you all feel special??
Too high of a price if you ask me.
There will always be more conservatives then liberals in a society that has access to the freedom of press.
People who can look at the past, read about it and then can see what has worked and what has not worked, can readily identify why the ideas that are being pushed by the delusional left today will not work in the future because they have already been tried and failed.
Of course the fact that liberalism routinely fails is not lose to liberals. The reason? It’s the CONS fault. Thus we see the concerted effort to marginalize and make personal strawman attacks against CONS. The mere popularity on the liberal side of the term “CON” lends support to this assessment.
Liberals would rather marginalize, make up names and beat a make believe strawman then discuss the demerits of their own philosophy.
Phinatic,
Bingo!!!
“The WASP Male is attempting to assert his god-given supremacy once again”
I know, Jed. It makes me appreciate the other males even more — those who genuinely respect each person.
That explains exactly the libs jumping on Rush and his comments that he wanted obama to fail.
They will NEVER accept that Rush does not want obama to fail as a person or as the president, he hopes his policies will fail, because they have failed in the past.
lindainks55
Posted October 27, 2009 at 4:17 pm | Permalink
“The WASP Male is attempting to assert his god-given supremacy once again”
I know, Jed. It makes me appreciate the other males even more — those who genuinely respect each person.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean men like Neville Chamberlain, Linda. How many MILLIONS died because of that man’s respect for each person, especially Herr Hitler???
Care to list some of those Democratic failures? How about listing some of the Republican successes?
I’m not being glib, but it is easy for everyone, no matter their political philosophy, to be general in making their side always right and the other side always wrong. When you get down to details and actually listing accomplishments, it easy ever as easy.
In fact when you start making the lists, some that everyone wants to claim will end up being compromises. Our extreme partisanship does nothing, accomplishes less, and degrades each of us along with our country.
Will history end up linking;
Chamberlain – Hitler
Obama – Amadinijad or Kim Jong Il
linda says “It’s truly a world gone berserk when Newt Gingrinch is considered “liberal.”
Honestly, I’ve lost all conception of what the Republicans think is “Conservative.””
Gingrich is no Liberal. He has apparently been infected by beltway-itis, which seems to occur to some folks when they hang around the “beltway” for too long. He’s acting like the elites in the party who, by the way, always hated Reagan and probably Gingrich himself back in the nineties.
It appears he’s going to get a wake up call from Conservatives letting him know that he’s strayed from the path of Reagan.
Of course he has strayed from conservatism. He has endorsed a candidate that can truly be called a RINO. True conservatives do not want that.
Conservatives will stand up for ANYONE who stands for true conservatism. That is why I say that if Palin is as conservative as she SAYS she is, then she will get my vote.
You put a true conservative female on the ballot, THEN you’ll have your first female president.
Liberals push for more government intervention to make everything go the way “it should”.
However, the law of unintended consequences seems to plauge every liberal initiative.
Just one Example.
Liberal philosophy theorized that if owning a house is good, everyone should own a house and the government can make certain laws and easing of credit requirements to allow for everyone to own a house. This is the rosy scenario offered by liberals. Sounds great right?
The result is the boom and bust of the housing market. Did anybody really get ahead in the past effort to get low income people and minorities into homes? Did anybody get burned?
I think the answers to those questions is obvious. The effort by liberally minded government beauracrats to artificially intervene and make good things happen fell back on itself and do more harm then good.
The liberal redux is that since we suddenly do not have enough credit (due the housing bust and the excessive lending practices) we need to pony up the government to create more credit and that will solve the first problem.
However, that totally ignores the source of the housing bust/ credit crisis to begin with.
I can go on and on about liberals always thinking that the government can somehow pass the right rules and throw their weight around in the right way on matter of personal morals and finance and then everything will come out perfect.
However, the government is too big and too impersonal to be making decisions and incentives that people should make themselves and receive the full consequences (good and bad) for those decisions.
Essentially, liberals are afraid of freedom. Freedom to choose to work and make decisions and earn and receive exactly the consequences (good and bad) of those same decisions can not be circumvented by the government. The end result is frustration and confusion and waste in society as people are not making good decisions because they are not personally responsible for them.
Let Freedom happen. It’s going to be okay, it has worked for hundreds of years in America and has resulted in one of the greatest places to live in history of recorded civilization.
Let the government do nothing else but ensure that men and women in American are Free and that their inalienable, God given rights are protected. We can take care of the rest ourselves.
It is a pendulum swing, one party is up, the other is down. For example, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/07/politics/07dems.html?_r=1
talks about how the Democrat party, among other things:
“a new analysis argues that Democrats cannot return to power by energizing liberals alone,”
The Democrats were down while the Republicans were up. This is a pendulum, with an almost predictable swing. The media had many articles in the 80’s about how the Democrat party was irrelevant, was in demise, etc. Wasn’t true then, and the demise of the GOP is not true now.
Linda you asked for some of the failures, let’s take education for instance.
For years and years all we’ve heard is throw more money at schools, throw more money. And what do we get? We have schools lowering standards. Instead of making kids want to succeed we are lowering the standards so that more will “feel” better.
You’ve got teachers who won’t use red ink, because red indicates there is a problem. Well there IS a problem, the kid didn’t provide the correct answer. Well little jimmy, you TRIED, that is all that matters.
You’ve got parents that see school as a day care. Parents who get upset because you gave my little Jimmy a bad mark. How is Jimmy suppose to get into Harvard with a bad mark? Well Jimmy better start paying attention and doing better in school. Kids are applauded JUST for showing up. Didn’t I read about a district that is PAYING kids to show up at school?
And yet when Bush brought in NCLB to demand that schools show performance and not just shuffling kids through year after year, HE’S the bad man.
When a local high school near me, predominantly black, wanted to segregate the boys and girls and see if separating them might help kids concentrate on their school work instead of each other, that might do something to improve scores. This was immediately jumped on by the local libs and the ACLU as a bad thing. Nope they said, just keep throwing more money at it. It’s all NCLB’s fault.
This is no more than one more swing of the political pendulum. In the 70’s and 80’s there were many media articles about how the Democratic Party was irrelevant and down and out. This swing back and forth is almost predictable. One party is in power for a while, then the other. It is a constant part of American politics.
“Liberals would rather marginalize”
That’s a hoot! All you cons are ABOUT is dividing people. Right down to the individual. “You’re on your own baby! You can do it! You don’t need any help. Let go and let God!” and other such platitudes meant to turn one person against another. It’s easier to control and exploit people when they have no safety in numbers. The REAL meaning of conservative for today’s con is “I wanna conserve money and power to myself!”
We will see conservatives further marginalized once people see the Government actually start functioning again. Cons only even want to be in Government so they can SEE to it that their belief that Government can’t do anything right is made so.
“The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule”
By Thomas Frank
“Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild”
Michelle Malkin
“The Big, Bad Book of Democrats: Rogues and Rascals of America’s Senior Party”
Lawrance Binda
“The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault”
Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.
ok….lots of books out there. Does that mean one is more accurate than the other? Not at all.
#
Regular
Posted October 27, 2009 at 12:47 pm | Permalink
The ‘jawless fish’ questions a poll that doesn’t fit his square-hole peg board.
========================================================
Troll-monkey did exactly the same thing when the kansas poll was put up on the blog. Funny how that works, huh? Pot meet kettle.
Bush was the Uniter. He united Americans to vote for Barak Obama!
united? let’s check the numbers, shall we?
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html says there are over 230 MILLION eligible voters. Of those, 66 million voted for bho…a whopping 28% of eligible voters.
yep..quite the uniting there…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Please, both the DNC and the RNC, die.
Both of your ignoramus parties want to get into my life and try and tell me how to live. I and millions like me resent you and will never stop trying to expose and destroy you.
Filthy scum, get your religious dogma and your welfare state outta my country.
28% of eligible voters… not bad. Good enough.
I don’t think people really understand what it means to be liberal or conservative. If they listen to Faux news they’re sure to think liberals are some evil group of people who want to take away everyone’s rights.
Rather, the opposite is true.
Many of them just vote who their pastor tells them to.
David..no question it was good enough, but barely over a quarter of the eligible voters doesn’t seem very “united”.
I don’t know exactly when it was that I realized I was a Democrat. It was a gradual process and I did often look back.
But it’s been a LONG time since the last time I looked back. Every time I look right I wanna run ten more miles to the left.
This is a funny viewpoint from the fuzzy left:
“It should also be noted that conservatives are still greatly outnumbered by combined moderates and liberals” Agnatha
“Let me explain:
“It should also be noted that liberals are still greatly outnumbered by combined moderates and conservatives.”
Get it?
“don’t know exactly when it was that I realized I was a Democrat”
BJ it probably occurred seconds after you stretched forth your arm with your hand extended open and your mouth full of “gimmee”.
With the con side splintering.. the next couple of election cycles should prove interesting…
A third Super Duper Conservative Party?
And really, who cares what a beggar on welfare thinks?
The poor people deserve pity for sure. But from them in America, never a leader of men or nations.
You’d have to log off to accomplish anything of substance with your life.
Just a noisy child.
Back when Conservative meant actually thinking in a Conservative manner I referred to myself as a Conservative. Evaluating the situation, taking into account the facts and the possibilities for the sound solution.
I am a moderate, perhaps force to that conclusion by the far Right and having to peg myself since they are too far to the right. Ridged as to the conclusion based not on the facts and reality but by their Ideology.
But seeing how the term Conservative has been so distorted by the far right.
Saying I am Conservative is as much admitting to being almost Fascist.
The majority of the American people are Conservative but not in the sense that the “Conservatives” have it.
The majority is prudent, logical and responsible, that is not limited to the GOP or the DNC.
They want the Government to be as fiscally responsible and prudent as they themselves are forced to be by their earning potential.
That is not to say they do not understand the want and need to sometimes go beyond the fiscal limitations.
History can be a good teacher, but where the Republicans and the Conservatives take different lessons from history. Conservative talking head often point to WWII as a good lesson though the lesson they see is not one most would.
They point to a justification for the use of military force to impose and force a outcome as Japan and Germany. The lesson they see is we declared War on Japan and Germany, defeated them and imposed a Democratic form of Government. Now those two nations are strong Democracies and real allies.
So it makes sense to them that we should do the something now with other nations.
Waging War is never a Conservative thing to do, but that is the lesson they took from WWII.
Solving a problem by doing nothing is not being conservative nor is it a solution. Nor is keep pointing to the same solution as the correct solution.
Cutting taxes is prudent when the economy is strong and the need is to fortify business and personal value.
But that is not a sound solution when the earnings are down due to a failure of the economy.
You make less money the tax rate is not an issue.
There really maybe a dividing of the party into Conservative and Republican.
As the far right sounds off and thinks they are a majority within the party.
More Republicans will find themselves as I did not even recognizing the GOP as the party they felt closest to. They will either try to stand against the Cons and take back the party.
Or as I suspect many of the Independents are, former Republicans who could no longer associate with the party. But neither can the bring themselves to switch to the Democratic.
Senator Olympia Snow is a Republican and probably more liberal than some Democrats.
One size fits all does not describe a political party.
There are all sorts of mindsets in the Republican party.
What this poll shows is that Republican leaders have been major idiots. The majority of America leans right and yet we have a leftist government. So, if and when they stop being idiots, conservatives and more moderates will again identify themselves with, and more importantly, vote Republican again.
outlander
Posted October 27, 2009 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
What this poll shows is that Republican leaders have been major idiots. The majority of America leans right and yet we have a leftist government. So, if and when they stop being idiots, conservatives and more moderates will again identify themselves with, and more importantly, vote Republican again.
=========================
I can understand the Republican party’s dilemma.
The bottom 50% pay less then 3% of the total income taxes. That group is strongly Lib, wants more Government hand-outs, and loves it when taxes go up because they don’t pay any!
The Democrats have this bottom group.
The Republicans used to cater more to the middle and upper income brackets.
But with the bottom 50% now growing larger, to 55% or 60% of the taxpayers, the Republican base is shrinking.
Do the Republicans switch sides and fight for the same group the Democrats already have? That’s their strategy if their primary goal is to keep power, as opposed to actually representing and standing for any principles.
The 6 years of Republican rule in Congress under Bush, clearly showed how they increased spending and Government programs trying to buy the Democrat vote. But in the process, the Republicans lost their base.
Now, the Republican party is at a crossroads, and must deciide, will it be a party representing conservative principles, or will it be a party with the primary goal of staying in power?
I’m betting – the latter.
Cutting taxes is prudent when the economy is strong and the need is to fortify business and personal value.
But that is not a sound solution when the earnings are down due to a failure of the economy
====================================================
Likewise, raising taxes isn’t such a hot idea either.
And I suspect you are correct in the growing number of independents reflects former republicans of all types. But madder than H republicans did defect and cross over in this last election and probably at more than national level. There is no where else to strike out – how better to rebel? Vote for a dimwit. But I’ll bet many are regretting it now.
Gotta go. Smell something sweet burning.
“And really, who cares what a beggar on welfare thinks?
You’d have to ask “Regular” about being on welfare “American way”.
Oh yeah, you ARE “Regular” and “American way”.
Funny, once a DEMOCRAT has been elected President, the Con/Republicans have suddenly been reborn as FISCAL conservatives.
Funny, once a DEMOCRAT has been elected President, the Con/Republicans have suddenly been reborn as anti-NATION building isolationists.
Funny, once a DEMOCRAT has been elected President, the Con/Republicans have suddenly been reborn as free-market advocates after previously supporting tax incentives and tax breaks for corporations.
Funny, once a DEMOCRAT has been elected President, the Con/Republicans have suddenly embraced the label of hypocrite.
Funny, once a DEMOCRAT has been elected President ………….. all previously held positions of the Con/Republicans are null and void.
Writerdog eventually you are going to have to see that this country is in a place where you have to steer left to go right.
Bluejay I am almost convinced to declare Independent myself, the party is on a road to self destruction.
Unless more of us are able to turn the party back to being more pragmatic life is about problems.And the problems do not come in one side fits all, nor can every problem be solved.
I really hate the thought of giving up, been a Republican since 18.
LOL how does the old saying go? I did not leave the party… It left me!
There does not seem any room for someone that does not blindly spout the party line no matter how dated and irrational the line is today. A real Republican is like the old Bull in the joke about the young Bull and old Bull on the top of the hill.
The young Bull (Liberal) pointed down to the herd of cows, then said
“hey let’s run down there and impregnate one of those cows!”.
The old Bull (Republican) replies:
I have a better idea, let’s walk down there and impregnate them all.”.
Meanwhile the Conservative Bull scoffs:
“Huh, run down there and I might trip and brake my leg!
Walk down there and I might get closer and discover they are all already pregnant!
NO, I will stay here and just be content that there is no solution worth the effort!”.
Gene,
Sorry that the man we elected President doesn’t match your color preference. It’s only melanin. Get over it!
reggie,
“There are all sorts of mindsets in the Republican party.”
Yeah, and some of you have been doing your damnedest to drive out the ones who aren’t in your judgement “true conservatives.” Y’know, the RINO’s? Maybe if you did the math and figured out that the more people you run off, the smaller your party gets, you’d try to get a bit less extreme, but math was never your strong subject. Eventually, you’ll make it down to one true and truly ineffectual and lonely republican. And I won’t mind a bit!
When “conservative” is defined as “agin’ them in power” of course you will find more self-described conservatives. Some will even think it cool, though the saner ones will steer clear of the tea party crowd.
But what, exactly, have modern conservatism ever meant?
We were told that conservatives supported fiscal responsibility in government. Presumably “conservative” governance of the past 30 years gave us widespead graft, agencies headed by the very industries they were supposedly regulating, overpriced junk weapons systems, $1600 toilet seats and $454 hammers, a full criminal implosion of the Savings and Loan system (followed by a similar implosion of the entire financial system 20 years later), huge irresponsible (and deliberate) budget deficits, cutting taxes for the wealthiest during wartime, and a inability to be bothered with little things like a great American city (New Orleans) being wiped off the face of the Earth.
We were told conservatives supported limited government. We got: numerous attempt to amend the constitution to ban abortion, attempt to ban or label certain records out of existence, attacks of the patriotism of dissidents (and official spying on same), illegal spying on the private communications of Americans (which continues to this very day), illegal mining of foreign harbors, funding and supporting illegal wars (some secret), trading arms with an officially terrorist regime (Iran), advocating a alien form of government in which the Executive branch can act contrary to Congress and the Courts, and showing absolute contempt for basic human rights and rules of fairness, contempt for attorney-client privilege, contempt for Habeas Corpus and the Magna Carta, contempt for the Geneva Conventions and the Bill of Rights or indeed anything that might be regarded as limiting the power of the King.
I have little use for Ron Paul’s kowtowing to a more enlightened government of the wealthy, but I at least give him props for the having the decency to oppose the above power grab–which, it must be said, was enabled by many Democrats. But the champion of that BS were proudly self-labeled conservatives, indeed, many still dare to defend the indefensible in this forum.
Then of course there is the religious-right’s definition of conservatism, which embraces the Big_Goverment_As_Religious_Enforcer model (I noticed Dr. Paul had no problem kowtowing to those folks when he was trying to get the nomination). It was really an unholy work of genius, that Richard Viguerie and other architects of the Grand Coaltion produced in the late 70s. The RR demogogues had already convinced many of the Faithful that any attempt to stop government from shoving their religion down the throats of others was persecution!!!!. Out of control government!! Big Brother!
And so, they sold their souls to the more corporatist of the two major parties, and get tossed supported rhetoric and a bone every now and then. The only real concession: the judges. Appoint the most hard-right lunatics, it was thought, and victory is ours! And since these types also tend to be hostile to anyone else’s freedoms, it was okay if the Bill of Rights got trampled in the process. Someone over there you don’t like might get married! Change the Constitution to f$ck with them!
Damn liberals, anyway! They support the criminals, Bob Loblaw (the usual logically insane gibberish, yada yada yada).
So: For the past 30 years, we’ve a had a “conservative” movement that champions high spending without the money to pay for it, hugely expanding the powers of the government, and using it to intrude–by Amendment, if necessary–in the most basic and, indeed, aspects of people’s lives.
And none of the started with W, or stopped when Clinton won. His tepid “new Democrat” philsophy honored the destructive Reagan legacy (small wonder he lost the Congress). And it began in earnest with Reagan.
So, in a sense, I agree with Heckler. If one defines “liberal” as the presumed evils (big gubmint etc.) above, then both Reagan and W. were indeed great liberals, with W. easily surpassing FDR as the most liberal president of a century, if not in history.
And I, with my support for common sense, pragmatic efficient government; empirical, research, based decision-makingand first principles; am a conservative.
As for Barack Obama, well, his waffling and early acceptance of some very extreme positions (e.g. “preventative detention”) clashes violently with some of his more sensible positions, ideas that are labeled as “liberal” because what works has been defined as such by the sycophants of power at Fox News and elsewhere. And his failure of nerve at times when boldness is required–even though we know he “can’t do it alone”–makes one wonder how much of his campaign promises were hype (all the more despicable if so, but his remarkable insights showed he knows better).
I will credit where it’s due–there are major initiatives that have occurred under his leadership, but it’s looking more like he’s running ahead of the crowd these days than actually leading.
And while he’s stayed remarkably fresh with his message, words that are not backed up with bold actions (ready to veto anything yet, Barack?) may well lead to another ‘94 Clinton disaster. It’s put up or shut up time, seriously.
And so the jury is still out on what philosophy, if any, controls this age.
Heckler claims: “Bush and the Republican leadership over the past 7-8 years have dragged the party so far to the left as to be undistinguishable from Democrats with the possible exception of 2 or 3 issues. Big government Rino’s have so angered conservatives that cons no longer ID themselves as Republicans.”
That is truly just silly wishful thinking. The Bush Lite Administration, by design (essentially the Rove Plan), was consistently coalition conservative, in part to shore up the base and also to goad the opposition into anger. The problem is, when it comes to budgets such conservatism doesn’t work. Privatization of government functions does not save money, and therefore does not pay for tax cuts. And, too much of the budget is functionally no longer discretionary.
To call the Bush Administration liberal is just passing the buck absurdity resulting from refusing to take a hard look at the sort of conservatism that is marketed on faux news and at tea parties.
True budget hawks are rare, because they will push a very unpopular line, budget cuts plus tax increases.
AmWay quotes me: “This is a funny viewpoint from the fuzzy left:
“’It should also be noted that conservatives are still greatly outnumbered by combined moderates and liberals’ Agnatha
“Let me explain:
“It should also be noted that liberals are still greatly outnumbered by combined moderates and conservatives.
“Get it?”
Snarky, but a good thought.
The difference is this, AmWay. There is no liberal orthodoxy anywhere close to the extent of the conservative orthodoxy that currently prevails. True, there are consistent self described liberals, but they are surprisingly rare even in MA or the Pacific Northwest. For the most part, a block of ideologically consistent liberals is a myth (Viguarie actually admitted as much at one time). This is not true for self described conservatives. The higher percentages from the very Gallup Poll cited above indicate that.
The problem is this. A conservative/moderate “alliance” is very possible, indeed it has happened and will probably happen again. However, not if the conservatives define away the moderates as “liberals”. There is a much greater danger of conservatives defining moderates as “liberals” than the other way around. And indeed, the danger is that many self described conservatives will dismiss “inconsistent” conservatives as RINO’s. Witness Heckler’s posts on this very thread. The moderate-liberal “alliance” that voted Obama and the Democrats into power was largely a creation of the conservatives who overreached.
“And indeed, the danger is that many self described conservatives will dismiss ‘inconsistent’ conservatives as RINO’s.”
If not liberals.
Put another way, the Democrats became the big tent party in part because of foul weather voter discontent with self described conservative Republicans overplaying their hand. That tent is probably going to shrink a bit in 2010, both because it is not a presidential election and also because foul weather voters, by definition, will either act as if they made their point and will go back to old patterns (such as not voting) or, if they remain in a foul mood, will take it out on the current party in power.
However, if the Democratic tent remains big, it will be less because of what the Democrats do and more because of what the “conservative” Republicans do. The ugly fact is, the Republicans have driven people away more than the Democrats have attracted new voters.
You notice how people divide the electorate into three groups: conservative, moderate and liberal, but we only have two political parties?
If we examine countries with proportional representation, it becomes clear that even 3 groups is way too broad of a brush. Our two-party system forces some issues to be decided within the political parties instead of in the legislature — behind closed doors instead of in the open.
Just imagine if people could vote _for_ someone instead of always picking the lesser of two evils. Imagine if single-issue parties were viable entities. Imagine a US without the stranglehold of the 2 party system.
“aldenrw” –
The Constitution pretty much dictates the 2-party system.