| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
The Price Of Victory
Submitted by Sean Oxendine on Sat, 11/01/2008 - 23:21
Even though this isn't my bailiwick, I thought I'd throw my two cents in on the debate on defining the next right. In one sense this is probably the most pessimistic post being bandied about, because it doesn't lend itself to an easy solution. Nonetheless, to find the correct solution one must first properly identify the disease, and I think this goes a long way toward identifying the disease.
Quite frankly, the Right is in many ways a victim of its successes. This is by no means unique to the Right, as the left was similarly victimized from 1938-1964, and from 1966 to the present. The public in democracies has never been particularly generous to parties or candidates once they fulfil the goals that they were elected to achieve; there's a reason Winston Churchill lost his post-World War II election.
When one looks back on what the Right was initially installed to do, at various times from 1968-2004, it becomes clear that it has achieved the vast majority of what is was sent to do (this does not equate with what it wants to do). Communism is more-or-less wiped from the place of the Earth. Al Qaeda has been largely dismantled, and Iraq has stabilized. Tax rates are well off their Post-World War II highs of 90%, and are even well below the rates brought about after Reagan's initial tax cuts; our present debate is over whether the top rate should be 35% or 39% and whether capital gains should be taxed at 15% or 20%. The crime spike of the 1960s and 70s is over, and now even a true-believing leftist like Obama professes support for the death penalty. The Warren Court excesses are reigned in -- while the Court hasn't moved as far to the right as many on the Right would like, it doesn't seem primed to recognize shopping malls as state actors again any time soon.
Even on things such as global warming and health care, the debate has moved sharply to the right. The solution to global warming is not a flat ban on emissions; instead it is a cap-and-trade system similar to that imposed in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Setting aside debate regarding the need for such a system in the first place (because that debate really bores me anymore), one must recall that thirty years ago the notion of government creating a market for pollution was a pretty radical one; even in my late 90s law school property class many of my classmates were appalled at the notionn.
In health care, we've gone from the left advocating single payer in the 1970s to a government HMO in the 1990s, to assisting people with obtaining private insurance. The fact that all three Democrats' plans were basically more regulated versions of RomneyCare in Massachuetts tells us much about the present frame of the debate.
What does that leave the Right with? Taxes can only come down so much, and I think most people intuitively accept that with a trillion dollar deficit coming down the pike, further tax cuts are unreasonable in the near term. Government can only ban gay marriage once (well, two or three times in some states if you count the law, constitutional amendments and statements of public policy, but you get my drift). Partial birth abortion was banned with substantial Democratic support, most states have parental notification laws, public funding for abortion is effectively off the table (sorry, but FOCA is going nowhere in this Congress, even if Democrats get a filibuster-proof majority), and Roe's strict trimester approach has been abandoned in favor of a regime that has pushed back the threshold for increased regulation substantially, and will continue to do so as medical science improves.
Instead the Right is left with policies which may make good sense, but are so radical that they are nearly impossible to sell to the American people. Things like school vouchers and private social security accounts are just tough sells, as witnessed by the defeat of a school voucher program in Utah of all places. I think private social security accounts will come in one form or another, but until we have a President who can spell 401(k), I think the idea is pretty well dead. The American people have never been broadly supportive of long-term foreign adventures, such as, well Iraq.
The trouble is that on these issues the Right is not being conservative in the sense that most Americans tend to be skeptical of change. It is being profoundly radical, something it is not good at, and which sets the American people on edge when either party tries it. Indeed this is Right's major challenge: It has picked the low- and even medium-hanging fruit, and is now left with issues where it is the agent of change, and Democrats are, in effect, conservatives, defending generations-old social programs.
And so that's the challenge facing conservatives. Having accomplished most of what modern conservatism set out to do, the Right is left with issues with a pretty narrow range of appeal. It may be that incremental approaches on things like private accounts may work -- accepting the Democrats' offer in 2005 for private accounts outside of social security to get more people used to the idea of investing, is probably a good start, but obviously that will have to wait for the stock market to rebound, which will take some time.
But by and large, the next few years are going to be spent fighting a rear-guard action to keep our gains from being eroded too heavily, and waiting for the Democrats to hand us issues on which to run (like we did for them with corruption, out-of-control spending, and Iraq). I don't think it will take that long, as I don't think 2008 is the massive mandate for liberal change that many Democrats envision, and while there may be an emerging Democratic majority, there is an enduring conservative majority; the lingering association of the New Democrats of the 1990s with the latter is one of the major driving forces for the former. Nonetheless, the fact that we're basically left defending our most popular efforts doesn't really lend itself to a strong strategy going forward.
One other thought on the netroots and the direction of the rightroots. The effect of 50-state strategies or Kos-supported candidates in bringing about years like 2006 and 2008 are grossly overstated. Candidates like Jim Webb and Joe Sestak didn't win because Kos funnelled some cash their way. They won because the netroots succeeded in a different goal of theirs: Creating their own noise machine. The "culture of corruption" motif didn't get pinned on the GOP by accident; due diligence done by the left-o-sphere was instrumental in this effor, both in terms of framing arguments for supporters, and in terms of getting stories to the MSM. Heck, if an intrepid young Democrat with ties to Not Larry Sabato hadn't been following George Allen around wtih a videocamera, Republicans would almost certainly still control the Senate.
In other words, Jon has hit the nail on the head with his post here. The Rightroots' goal in the short term needs to developing effective communication and organizational tools. The rise of sites such as Redstate and, yes, TheNextRight, are important steps in this direction.
The internet has always been the msot successful for groups in the wildernss. It's the reason that the Left found such fertile territory there in the wake of the last six years of the Clinton Administration,and its the reason that Ron Paul was so successful online. With time in the wilderness looming for conservative Republicans regardless of who wins the White House, the time to begin organizing is, well, yesterday.
Promos
Recent blog posts
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
1 comments
TaylorD
0 comments
FMeekins
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
cringinghere
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Recent comments
-
Joseph Hertzlinger
-
samuelajanaku
-
Robin1
-
OzarkGuru
-
dean2
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
agenda - THE 15% SOLUTION, stopping O's Socialism
it's a point taken that movements sometimes exhaust themselves, but I think you are wrong that such is the case here. Most of the conservative agenda has NOT been accomplished:
- Education is still soviet style monopoly for 90% of kids and accountability and standards are barely better and in many cases worse than 25 years ago. Where's our school choice
- Dittos on retirement choice
- Dittos on health savings accounts, getting medicare 'fixed' via private insurance, and the need for cost reduction with more direct payment in health care; McCain's 'buy from any of the 50 states' is a good idea, but why wasnt it passed already?
- more to do in govt spending reduction
- more to do in pushing back on liberal judicial activism, repeal of obnoxious rulings, including roe v wade
- stemming the tide on marriage and fully and completely protecting traditional marriage, not there yet
- The 'flat tax' or "FAIR tax" or golden era of low tax rates for all
What does that leave the Right with? Taxes can only come down so much, and I think most people intuitively accept that with a trillion dollar deficit coming down the pike, further tax cuts are unreasonable in the near term.
Taxes can come down more, and spending can come down more. Our goal needs to be a specific GDP limit for Federal spending - I believe we can make 15% the reasonable mid-term (10-year) goal. With that, you can eliminate income tax for 80% of Americans!!
Beyond that, the Right goals need to be to STOP some really bad ideas ...
Even on things such as global warming and health care, the debate has moved sharply to the right. The solution to global warming is not a flat ban on emissions; instead it is a cap-and-trade system similar to that imposed in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Setting aside debate regarding the need for such a system in the first place (because that debate really bores me anymore)
... but that IS the debate - do we even need to do anything? Correct answer: NO. There really is no regulation of CO2 needed. Global temperatures have stopped rising and have clearly trended away from where the IPCC models that the global warming fears are based on, claim would happen. There is no crisis, and measures simpler and far less draconian than cap-and-trade, eg simply providing enough incentives so we build lots more nuclear plants, would suffice. I will say right now that cap-and-trade is the worst solution - its Enron+corruption+loopholes/giveaways ... it's a masteful act of special interest destruction of the common good.
I mention this mainly to point out that - for now - conservatives will have to be standing athwart the liberal trend yelling STOP. Phil Gramm did yoeman's work in 1994 saying that govt-run healthcare would pass over his politically dead body. HillaryCare didnt survive the year; his career did. Mitch McConnell held off CFR for 10 years. WE WILL NEED SIMILAR EFFORTS TO SIMPLY STOP THE BAD IDEAS, WHILE WE REBUILD A FUTURE AGENDA.
The long-term agenda: 15% solution. The shortterm agenda: Stopping Obama's socialism (either in the election itself or in the next 4 years).
Conservatives failures are the cause of the problem
AS you go through the TSA security screening line at the Airport, it is impossible to believe that conservatism has been successful. While American citizens are treated like criminals, the border between Mexico and the U.S. is left unsecure in order for business to have cheaper labor. While having my shampoo confiscated, the U.S. still refuses to inspect most cargo entering the U.S.
Eight years after Republicans won both the White House Congress, the national debt is $5 Trillion dollars bigger, the government has gotten bigger, entitlement spending has increase, and there are still a huge number of liberal government programs from sugar subsidies to 8A minority set aside contracting.
While middle class white Americans voted for Republicans by huge margins, the Bush ADministration spent eight years pandering to blacks and Hispanics who will never, ever vote for Republicans. While Bush spend eight years running a white house that will go down in history as the most incompetent adminstration ever, middle class Americans saw their taxes go up, their neighborhoods decline, and their schools filled with the children of illegal immigrants.
If what the Bush Adminsitration has done is considered success, I would really hate to see failure.
The first step to overcoming a problem is admitting that there is a problem and the first step is admitting that the leadership of the Republican Party has zero interest in conservative issues and needs to be fired.
That pretty much sums up what I was going to write
So rather than repeat, I'll just add a "hear hear".
The Republicans have left the country in a mess.
Your biggest problem is that strict conservatism never succeeds as a governing philospohy.
Sean, I know you've written before about the Right's need to catch up with the Left in the blogosphere. I am loathe to give advice that will help the Right, but it will never happen as long as right wing blogs continue to have the authoritarian top down mentality that prevails. Look at RedState and Race42008. Disagree? You're banned. The moderators have authoritarian intolerant policies. RS is funded by a right wing organization. It's not a community in the sense that the participants have much of a say. You will never grow and succeed unless that changes. This site and your old site were good examples of a better strategy.
Also, you're wrong about the 50-state strategy. Success was never going to happen all at once and the changes were going to first take place in the downticket offices. We are seeing that. Rather than ignoring states that are a long shot (writing off the South, for example), people were put in place on the ground, offices were opened and money was spent. It's undeniable that has had an effect that is not insignificant.
Please define...
"strict conservatism"
Nah
I never realized you had a bee in your bonnet about illegal immigration (which is 95% of what superdestroyer's post is about).
Anyway, nothing of what is being written here is inconsistent with what I wrote. If you step back to the 1970s and 1980s, when conservatism began its run (and a good part of that run is an astounding 25 years where we are now entering only our second true recession), it has accomplished most of what it wanted to do.
Heck, Obama's campaign in Virginia is about how government can't fix everything, how we need to give a tax break to 95% of Americans with tax rates rising to Clinton levels for upper earners, and how he believes in the right to bear arms. Such a campaign by the Democratic nominee would have been inconceivable in the 1970s and 1980s. If one of the most liberal members of the Senate is running a campaign reminiscent of Clinton's second term, then you have to say conservatives have won an awful lot of battles. What that leaves Republicans (which does not necessarily equal conservatives) with are their policy proposals on the pretty far right of the spectrum, and that are either easily demogogued by Democrats (private accounts, vouchers), unworkable outside of theory, or both.
As for the blogs, you know how I ran my blog (the only person I ever came close to banning was Lib, given a penchant for posting purely insulting posts, though she improved over time), you see how this blog is run, and you see how other blogs are run. Part of the theory of TheNextRight is that the right needs more online community sites. From what I can tell, the left-o-sphere is an amalgam of top-down and bottom-up sites, and the right-o-sphere is pretty much just top-down. We're trying to change that. And from what I can tell from the left-o-sphere it is not a font of reasoned left-right discussion, though I've only infrequently posted there and may be incorrect. (and there is plenty of money flowing into the netroots from established left-wing institutions).
As for the 50-state strategy, what you're seeing is what we see after every wave election; there's nothing unique or unusual about it (see,e.g., Steve Stockman ,Patrick Flanagan, and John Hostettler). We'll see how well it holds up if and when Obama overreaches.
liberal hypocrisy cold comfort to conservatives
I get your point about the power of conservative views, but it's a cold comfort that the liberals are engaged in electoral hypocrisy - the homage liberals give to the power of conservative notions. Instead of comfort, I get the sickening feeling that Obama campaign now outdoes Clinton in the dishonesty department. we are left with a guy who WILL nominate more Ginsburgs to the courts - the Ginsburg who said NO to 2nd Amendment in her Heller dissent; who talks about rates at Clinton levels but who ACTUALLY is delivering a 40% marginal tax rate for people making only $40,000 a year. who talks now about tax cuts but 6 months ago was for raising payroll, income, and cap gains taxes - who knows where he will be in 6 months when he figures out he cannot pay for $800 billion in spending promises he made. (see:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/exposing-obamas-tax-cut-lie.html
We were here in 1992 - Clinton's middle class tax cut was the fastest broken promise in electoral history.
If one of the most liberal members of the Senate is running a campaign reminiscent of Clinton's second term, then you have to say conservatives have won an awful lot of battles. What that leaves Republicans (which does not necessarily equal conservatives) with are their policy proposals on the pretty far right of the spectrum, and that are either easily demogogued by Democrats (private accounts, vouchers), unworkable outside of theory, or both.
We've seen this BS before, and maybe the only reason we cant hold obama to account is because the run-right govern-left scam has been done by a few too many Republicans. Again, I dispute the agenda exhaustion theory, mainly because much of it hasnt been implemented (I listed them earlier).
We have a tough cycle now because the economy and other things are causing a rejection of the current administration. There is not an ideological driver for this, but the liberal establishment will surely take advantage of whatever power is given them.
"authoritarian intolerant policies"
I had not noticed that places like Kos allowed a great deal of conservative viewpoints to be posted there.
As for Redstate, it's run by liberals. Moe Lane is a liberal Democrat who jumped ship because of the war. The sites authoritarian policies are a reflection of it's liberalism, not it's conservatism. If it makes you feel any better, I was banned for objecting to somebody there calling Senators Sessions and DeMint "fascists". That's how right-wing Redstate is. Your calling Redstate rightwing is rather like Stalin calling Trotsky a fascist.
authoritarian personalities vote republican
big daddy bush tells them what to do.
Conservative viewpoints are posted on kos all the freaking time. My favorite poster on kos was a republican (he's now posting on salon).
It All Comes Back to the Messenger
As I've said elsewhere on this site and as Sean alludes to, it comes down to the messenger. A flat tax and privatized spending accounts are all great things, but if the person delivering that message does so awkwardly or sounds like a crank lunatic, the people aren't going to develop any sort of resonance with them.
This is one of the (many) reasons that Obama has resonated with the American people this election cycle. To be sure, the people were looking for someone completely new and different and outside of Washington -- or who at least appeared that way. But, they were also looking for someone who delivered a message they could believe in and agree with, even if that message made no sense, had no coherence, and if thought about logically was really something they probably would oppose. The majority of Americans oppose socialism when it's explained to them and outlined how it impacts them ... from rich to poor. Yet, a majority of Americans are likely going to install Obama as president. This is because he has an eloquent ability to speak and explain himself without ever saying anything at all. When we find someone able to do that without sounding like a lunatic, then we too, will have a similar measure of success. Newt captured that lightning in the bottle briefly before going off the rails. Ron Paul had that on domestic policy but never for even the briefest of moments on foreign policy. Others like Thompson and McCain don't appear capable of coming off as eloquent enough, but rather just as the good ol' boys in the room,
What Republicans and conservatives need is a candidate who is capable of speaking and answering questions honestly and truthfully while sounding sincere, but without sounding like some hick from Texas or some old fogey. Some things are tough sells ... like vouchers. Others, like a flat tax (be it income or sales), are probably something that we can all agree on if we had the right, mainstream messenger, not odd folks like Neil Boortz or Steve Forbes who are looked at as somewhat crazy (and, arguably rightfully so) by the majority of Americans.
Conservatism has been successful, but we have a long, long way to go. Government is enormous and I would agree that we have been dealt a tremendous set back to the 1990's by the 2000's. How can the Republicans as a whole argue, with straight faces, that they are a conservative, moral party when they instituted the largest government budgets, biggest debt burdens, and most enormous expansions of government (prescription drugs, Dept of Homeland Security) since the New Deal? It's laughable and it's sad and it's the reason we are faced with the prospect of a moderate socialist who is likely to walk up the steps of the Capitol Building to take the oath of office in January. There's no ability to draw a clear line between.
We need to find the messenger. Someone who is capable and willing to shoot from the hip with their beliefs, tell it like it is, and who isn't afraid of their own political shadow and rise above the fray. It has to be a state senator or governor, but in the current political climate, it may prove more and more difficult to find such a voice and more likely that an online, netroots movement finds that voice and pushes them to the forefront, giving them a broader voice and building them up -- providing them an outlet. If Sununu wins here in New Hampshire I'd nominate him as a candidate. He's conservative, clear-spoken, and unafraid to take a firm stand on an issue, whether it's in opposition to his party. He simply take his stand. He faces strong opposition in a rematch of his 2002 race against a former governor, and the influx of liberals from my three neighboring states isn't helping, but here's hoping. But we need that voice to stand up and vocally oppose the others without fear.
Without that voice, without that messenger, there is no movement and the rest of what is needed to keep America strong and to keep the socialist liberal tide at bay. There's only the media. There's only their constant attacks and spinning against the cause and for the larger government. It has to be someone young, eager and without fear to lead us and confront -- at every turn -- the mistruths spouted forth. They have to be willing to do two jobs at once, but if they succeed they can turn the tide against this onslaught.
It's not my intention to create more problems, I just have no idea from where such a person would come.
It`s more than the messenger
When pandering to illegal aliens, it does not matter how slick the messenger is. When pandering to inside the beltway elites, it does not matter who the messenger is. When starting pointless foreign wars while refusing to secure the borders, it does not matter whether the messenger sounds like a hick.
I think you are getting leadership confused with message control. President Bush has zero leadership ability so his administration has been a pathetic failure. What the Republicans needs is a forward looking leader who cares more about the middle class and middle American than in suching up to cronies.
I hope this is not what success looks like
Any more success like this and we'll be in real trouble.
Right Track/Wrong Track
Wow, that D Congress really tanked
I didn't realize the Ds in Congress were so unpopular. That must hurt. They took over with 29% right track and managed to lower it to 7-11%. Wow.
Thanks for your contribution
And welcome to the disucssion.
If you care to do the research, you will find that 29% was near the all-time rock-bottom ever recorded for polling that question. That level of dissatisfaction *led* to the 2006 wave. 11% is unheard of, never before seen, unbelievably bad.
Now, one of the tasks we have before us will be to refrain from easy, glib dismissals of situations and facts we would prefer were different. Such knee-jerk refusal to recognize the situation we are in will only prolong our stay there.
Get back to basics
Many of the "high hanging fruit" fall into the category. "answers to questions that aren't being asked".
When the existing health care system has pretty high customer satisfaction from those with insurance; not much of a market to muck it up to help the uninsured. Bret Schundler made a brave case in NJ that school vouchers would fix urban schools; the suburban swing voters tuned it out as irrelevant to their kids.
Voters are concerned about their own finances, their own security and their own families. When Obamanomics/Pelosinomics backfires, we will have a huge opening, but only if we respond properly.
We need to look "bottom up" at the problems and concerns of yes, the "Joe the Plumbers" around the country; rather than take DC think tank ideas and try and sell them to the mass market.
But that just "turns of the middle class"
So say the Palin-haters from both the left and the right. Which mean no matter who are nominee is, he or she will be demonized from the inside-the-beltway chattering classes. We need somone, who like Reagan in his day, could appeal directly to the people and run against the good for nothing elites.
He or she not only has to be good at selling the message but destroying their critics from the media and the Democrat-socialist party. Making them out to be the tired old fools selling the same old crap that has failed before (no matter how they try to package it otherwise) which they really are. He or she must be sincere in this and appear that way to the average voter.
GOP - where next ?
As a european you will not be surprised to find me Dem leaning, however I like this site and the thoughtful and intelligent conservative comment herein.
As a reasonably informed observer, can I respectfully suggest that the GOP shows its best true colours at the centre right - folks like Bush 41, Reagan, Powell, Pawlenty, Mitch McConnell, Specter, Romney, Giulani, McCain etc etc represent the reasonable republicans with attractive conservative views.
The piece that people on this side of the world, and I suspect some folks in the US, do not understand is the "certainty" and the fervour in which the cultural and social issues are discussed. I know many parts of the US are deeply religious and that is laudable - the accusation however, that I think sticks, is that the GOP have moved significantly to the right over the last 8 years, away from 43 and McCain's natural instinct.
The GOP has a long honourable history with great statesmen and while Europe tends to follow a centre left model, there are many of us who would welcome the intellectual debate that you have with reasonable centre left Dems.
However, we do not understand Limbaugh, Hannitty and the obsession with matters of reproduction that some of your base have.
If Obama wins, there is nobody that can beat him in 4 years. Therefore, to identify a nominee, the GOP will need to pick somebody acceptable to the base - Huckabee, Palin ? I
In 8 years there will be a contest for the ages - the Dems have nobody credible coming after BO - possibly Tim Kaine ? Rahm Emanuel ? The real question is how the GOP respond to defeat in '08 (assuming it happens !!) and again in '12 - there are many excellent GOP options - possible Romney ? who could win in '16
Sorry for the long comment - I like your site - keep it up!
The Difference Between Europe and America on Abortion
The chief difference between the United States and the majority of Europe on the abortion issue boils down to how it was dealt with on a legal level. In the United States it was, as we all know, made legal through jurisprudence -- that is, through a judiciary deciding that it has to be made legal through rights found in the Constitution. For the most part, in Europe, it was made legal through referendums sent to the people or by legislatures representing the people who were then accountable to their constiuents.
These make big differences in the so-called culture wars because the people never feel like they had a say in the matters, so it becomes an ongoing issue that continues to make hay for Hannity and Limbaugh. To be sure they're vocal, but not solely on those issues. Their caricatures are fare more right-wing lunacy than they actually are, which isn't to say that those caricatures don't do justice to them!
The GOP/Republican party, however, has had its most success arguably as a party of the Right, not the centre right. When the left has come to our side as a country we've had the successes alluded to by the Price to Victory piece above.
I agree, however, that the intellectual debate has been watered down to sound bites making each others position seem trite, evil, and polarizing. What is necessary is that messenger I speak of elsewhere. Someone said in their reply, there is the need for a leader not a messenger, yet that messenger becomes the de factor leader that Bush 41 has not been capable of being -- someone standing in front of their party telling them to end their internal corruption and end their petty differences for the good of the country, lesser government and so forth.
Presuming that there can be that debate with a similar sort from the other side, the next presumption is that a reasonable press develops in America that won't water down the message into talking heads -- and a constituency on both sides willing to listen and thoughtfully consider the debate. These are all big assumptions and hearken back to an era when politics were bitter, vicious, and cut-throat, but not nasty and personal on the level they are now.
(In four years, presuming it is Obama in the White House, there will be a different Vice President nominee. The Democrats will not make the mistakes of the Republicans an not have an incumbent vice presidency to run in 2016. Depending upon the economy, I also would not readily concede the inevitability of Obama's easy return to the White House in four years if elected on Tuesday. But, these are all dicussions for a different thread elsewhere.)
I am going to disgaree just a bit.
First of all I challenge the caricature of conservative talk radio as being "right-wing lunacy" with the exception of Michael Savage (whom I don't consider to be a real conservative, just schyuster who his pretending to be a right-wing extremist in order to sell his schtick). But that is for another thread.
But technicallly the problem with the Roe v Wade, was besides the fact tha it unconstitutionally declared abortion to be a constitutional right ("from the emanations of the penumbra of the consitution" whcih is legalese for the court basically invented constitutional rights that don't actually exist in the document), but that it took issue away from the states. There four states that had already legalized abortion prior to the Supreme Court ruling. In other words states that one would expect to have liberal social policies got to decided the issue. But for the other 46, that issue was decided for them.
That is why Roe v Wade needs to be overturned, so that more socially conservative states like mind can decide what our abortion law is actually going to be. This of course is federalism and that consitution would actually intended for issues such as this one.
Not Right Wing Lunacy
yeah, sure, motherfucker. we'll call it proper like.
The ones who fund it, they call it hate radio.
Y'all don't want me to go find the essay on how self-righteousness is addictive, do you? We're working on the scientific evidence too...
Hey asshole why don't you to Kos
to post you hate-filled propaganda? You have apparently have nothing to offer but lies, hyspocrisy, and propaganda.
I have ears, dear
and if you don't want to enjoy my information, you have ears as well, to listen and learn. But when you refuse to use them, well, why are you here?
When I choose to discuss your side's propaganda efforts, I choose to discuss facts. You call them propaganda. I don't think this discussion will be terribly informative for me, but I think that is your fault, not mine.
Can you name five funders of hate radio? Have you interviewed any of them?
I'm pretty clear on when I'm being a propagandist, and when I'm telling the unvarnished truth, and this is one of the truth times. Pfft on you for not understanding that.
The funders are called adverstisers
You must truly be socialist as evdienced by your lack of understanding of how the radio and tv markets actually work.
yeah.... sure.
and scaife's paper runs a profit!
Motherfucker?
You must think that you are commenting at one of your left-wing sewers, where all the other "intellectuals" hang out and pretend to be experts on science, in between bong hits.
PI IS NOT THREE.
... you must live in Kansas
Great post Sean
I really appreciate this effort. I think it is hard for people who are always looking forward to the next change to look back and appreciate where gains have been made. You chronicle many of the issues where the debate has shifted to the right substantially. I'd add the major welfare reform effort in the 90s as another case of the GOP succeeding and then losing an issue.
I can't say I have any solutions right now. But the current issue set is not friendly to the GOP, especially among young people and even young professionals (formerly a strong GOP group). Some issues have not changes (abortion views do not correlate with age); but some issues are drastically different with under 30 voters who are getting their political habits set righ now. Specifically, same-sex marriage, environmentalism, and social justice/public interest efforts are not generally seen as issues up for debate. They are almost dogmatic to super majorities of younger voters. It's possible these same voters could support school choice, oppose union power grabs, or even support less regulation in general. But those aren't even the areas of major debate in determining the kind of "change" the country needs.
Best of luck in the search for answers.
Like you, Adam?
Specifically, same-sex marriage, environmentalism, and social justice/public interest efforts are not generally seen as issues up for debate. They are almost dogmatic to super majorities of younger voters.
You might let people here know that those are all YOUR positions. And that they run directly counter to any sort of conservatism with the exception of European style corporatism, that first cousin to socialism.
WIth people like Sean and Adam leading the way, the "next right" will end up being somewhat to the left of the DLC.
They are not all my positions
And if you cannot tell the difference between analysis and advocacy, that's your own fault.
Not "all"?
I can understand you very well. I know what you are advocating, and how your so-called "analysis" serves that end.
Moving the goalposts.
"Quite frankly, the Right is in many ways a victim of its successes."
Quite frankly, you generated this record of success by moving the goalposts. And on life, you moved the goalposts outside the stadium. That's a deal-breaker.
The Reagan Revolution was supposed to:
* Rebuild American military strength and roll back Communism.
* Get the government off people's backs, reducing bureaucracy and taxes.
* End Roe vs. Wade and bring relief for social conservatives in the culture wars.
Communism did not end, because Red China is still there, but what was achieved was so great that we should mark this as a huge success. There is no point in running as an anti-Communist any more, because the Republican Party produced the victory that people wanted, and the issue is closed. Also, the rebuilding of the American military proceeded with such success that we can say with no doubt: national security conservatives got paid. The support they put in was awesomely rewarded.
Taxes were reduced, so well done, but the government continued to grow. We can call this one a 50% success. Republicans are more credible than Democrats on low taxes, and that is good. But on shrinking the government, the Republican Party doesn't have a weapon, not because it succeeded so well that nobody could wish for less government but because they failed so badly that they are not credible promising to deliver it. So we can say economic conservatives got paid half what was wanted, at best, for their support, and the Republican Party is half credible at best.
On cultural and specifically on life issues, which is what I care about, the party failed so badly that there is a lot of suspicion that the Republican leadership phones in its support for pro-lifers metaphorically as well as literally. The party's performance is trust-shatteringly bad.
After decades of struggle, there are two (2) declared votes out of nine on the Supreme Court to get rid of Roe vs. Wade. Well done, thou good and faithful politicians? I don't think so.
In my opinion, your defining the state of affairs on life issues as so good that there is nothing left to do underlines the real state of affairs. The party doesn't really want to do better than it does, that means better than failing. On this issue, the party does not champion, it panders, and without credibility.
If that's where things stand, and it seems to be, then it's still worthwhile to support particular individuals who are honest and energetic, as Sarah Palin is, but there is not much reason to support the Republican Party as an institution.
The way things have been is: John McCain is an enemy to Wisconsin Right to Life (link), and Wisconsin Right to Life endorses John McCain (link), for lack of anything better and out of justified fear of Barack Obama. That's been the game of pro-lifers and the Republican Party in a nutshell.
It's a pointless game, because John McCain and the Republican Party are still going to lose. A party that's too smart, tricky and fake ever to deliver the results its supporters look to it to achieve will not achieve the levels of enthusiasm, active support and contributions it needs to be competitive against a Democratic candidate who with total credibility promises his supporters what they want (link). (The enthusiastic supporters heard from in that video believe Barack Obama is their champion, and he's going to deliver for them. I think the same thing.)
I also observe that the Republican Party has shown itself opposed to judge-imposed gay marriage mostly in even-numbered years.
The culture wars have not gone well, and the party hasn't been genuine on them. And here I think we can say that the party can't run on these issues any more, because it failed so badly that the culture has shifted, and positions that in the past might have been political winners are now losers.
The upshot is that from having three big issues, the party is down to half of one issue: the "cut taxes" side of "cut taxes and spending". And on that issue, it's not going to deliver anything on top of what it's already provided.
Of course, there are new issues to consider. To name only three: political corruption, secure borders and militant Islam. I don't think the Republican Party as an institution is credible on any of those issues.
* I don't think the party could have handled the scandal of William J. Jefferson of "cold cash" infamy much worse than it did, taking a straightforward case of Democrat corruption and turning it into a demonstration that Republicans love corruption so much they even protect their opponents getting into it.
* George W. Bush defined masses of Republicans on what he saw as the wrong side of the illegal immigration issue as people who don't want to do what's right for America.
* And George W. Bush's promise in his 2000 election campaign to get America out of the nation-building business fell by the wayside after 11 September, 2001. That was understandable because of the crisis, but endless struggle to build up Islamic states in Afghanistan, Iraq and who knows where else has not turned into a political winner. You can't keep running for office on a promise of more of that.
In sum: you see a lack of conservative energy resulting from satiation due to Republican success on every major policy issue, but I see burnout, the understandable human consequence of commitment to a cause of struggle that consistently fails to produce the expected or hoped for result.
If it's going to be Roe today, Roe tomorrow and Roe forever, then pro-lifers are better off praying - or going surfing - rather than supporting the Republican Party.
It's good to hear a little historical background
to make things make more sense. I think that Ross Douthat's Grand New Party is a good step forward. We have a decent core voting constituency in working class voters who have far more in common with the GOP than with the urban, coastal Democratic Party. The problem is that our missteps (e.g. corruption, Iraq) do not endear us to them. You are right that we are going to have to await a Democratic screw-up to take up an advantage. Normally, that would mean the depressing thought that our fate is not our own; when it comes to politics, though, a screw up at some point is as predictible as the sun rising in the east.
Ford won the Democrats the Senate
yinz took the bait. VA and Montana voted against racism.