Stanford’s Morris Fiorina, one of America’s leading political scientists, has published a new book titled, Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Fiorina’s key thesis is that the American electorate is not nearly so polarized as many think – rather, the political leaders are polarized. This would explain, perhaps, a pattern of sharp and quick backlash against uniparty government in the last two decades – witness the voter repudiation of Democratic Party control in 1994 after just 2 years of controlling both the executive and legislative branches; of all Republican government in 2006, after just 4 years; and now, it increasingly appears, of all Democratic government in 2010, already shaping up after just one year of Democratic power. Given the full reins of power, each party seems to govern to the extremes of where the bulk of the electorate is.
Along the way, Fiorina makes a number of observations. One of the most important regards how Americans define themselves politically. Conservatives have, for many years, taken solace in polls that consistently show that more Americans define themselves as “conservative” than “liberal,” including a recent Gallup poll showing a whopping 20 percent gap in favor of “conservative.” Almost as a mantra, conservatives like to describe the U.S. as a “center-right” country. What Fiorina points out, however, is that rank and file voters are not defining “conservative” in the same way as the pundits and politicos. Fiorina’s polling data finds that fully one-third of those who call themselves conservative do not hold traditionally “conservative” views on either economic or social issues. These people might be deemed “attitudinal conservatives.” They are tired of gay pride marches, tired of anti-war protests, tired of what they perceive as liberal excesses seen in daily life, from crazy tort suits to school policies that expel kids for drawing a picture of a gun, fed up with what seems excessive, out of control spending. But they are neither social conservatives on issues such as gay marriage and gun control, nor free marketers on the economy. Fiorina finds that only about twenty percent of these self-identified “conservatives” are both free marketers and social conservatives. That means that roughly eight to ten percent of the electorate is defining itself as “across the board” conservative. (Conversely, while self-described “liberals” are about half as many as self-described “conservatives,” they are much more likely to hold “liberal” views on both the economy and social issues, thus putting about 12 to 15 percent of the electorate down as “across the board” liberals.)
This suggests that Republicans need to re-establish the Reagan coalition of moderates, libertarians, and social conservatives. This can be done, with each group finding the resultant product preferable to the liberal nostrums of the Democratic party. But doing so requires that people stop the incessant arguments about who is a “true” conservative; stop thoughtless “RINO hunting,” and cease defining everyone who disagrees with them on some issue as “not conservative.” This is, by the way, not a problem limited to any one part of this old Reagan Republican coalition – I see this tendency toward internecine war in all three camps. Reminiscent of the various guerrilla groups in Monty Python’s comic epic Life of Brian, libertarians, social conservatives, and moderates seem to hate no one more than the liberals – except each other.
It is true that other political scientists, such as Emory University’s Alan Abramowitz, have reached different conclusions than Fiorina, but I think Fiorina is the one who is more correct. What Abramowitz notes is that there are big gaps in the electorate on many issues. For example, 76 percent of Democrats favor government guaranteed universal health care, but just 31 percent of Republicans agree. But what Fiorina picks up on, that Abramowitz misses, are questions of tone and degree. Republicans and Democrats may sharply disagree, for example, on abortion or gun rights or gay marriage, on the war in Afghanistan, or on Obama’s regulation of the economy, but a great many Americans, if not most, would simply like to tone all these issues down, whichever side they are on. Pollsters push these voters to choose – “do you support the President’s surge in Afghanistan (or not)?”; “Do you favor Roe v. Wade (or not)?”; “Do you support or oppose the President’s plan for healthcare?” etc. If pushed between such bipolar options, yes, most Americans can take sides. But many may feel that there are pluses and minuses on both sides. They don’t want to be given the either/or choice that the pollsters demand.
Political leaders, like the pollsters, increasingly seem to benefit from forcing that either/or choice on voters. Of course, in a two party system (which I support), it is true that on Election Day voters face an either/or choice. But politicians have been trying to make that choice more stark than voters would like it to be, gambling that given two stark choices, the other side’s vision will seem the more extreme. This would explain why Democrats are always so eager to paint Republicans as extremist wackos, and vice versa. Republicans are happy if Jeremiah Wright and William Ayres are the face of the Obama administration. Democrats want Michael Savage to be the voice of “conservative” America. Each side figures that’s a battle it can win.
But does this leave an opening for a more moderate approach, one that does not fudge on core beliefs, but leaves more space for nuances of opinion, for degrees of agreement and disagreement? I think so. I have argued that the winning Republican ticket in 2010 and 2012 will be some sort of return to “normalcy,” if I can use the term Republicans used to win landslide victories in 1920, 1924, and 1928. After a pair of high stress, crusading presidencies (Bush abroad, Obama at home), Americans, I think, will want someone who promises NOT to turn healthcare upside down; who does NOT try to make major changes in social security; who does NOT fan the flames of culture war from the left or the right, and who does NOT seek to radically change the American relationship to the world (something both Bush and Obama have undertaken), but merely to defend American interests and use American power prudently. (See my piece on how Sarah Palin won in 2006 and became an incredibly popular governor – tactics she abandoned in 2008).
The failures of the Obama administration and the intellectual vacuum of the Democratic Party (has there ever been a party so bereft of new ideas; is there anything in their platform not from 1946 other than the disastrous “cap and trade”?) give Republicans a great chance to restore the Reagan Coalition to power. No one got all they wanted from that coalition, but is there really any doubt that all elements got something, and that America came out the better for it? But returning to power requires all oars in the water, pulling toward victory against the common foe, not arguing over who is the “real” conservative or demanding complete adherence to a single vision of the good life. We are in a position to seize a win of historic proportions, if we don’t self destruct first.
55 responses so far
1 sinz54 // Dec 5, 2009 at 9:45 am
The polarization of the electorate, which is real, is hidden by these national surveys that Fiorina alludes to.
That’s why I prefer to analyze Americans’ attitudes on an individual district basis.
And surveys of individual districts have revealed that there has been a consistent trend toward more and more so-called “landslide” districts: Districts in which a Dem (or a Repub) always wins by decisive margins. An extreme example is Serrano in NY-16. In NY-16, the Dem candidate always beats the Repub by huge margins. (Serrano won last time by a 60 point margin.) And conversely, there are fewer and fewer “swing” districts.
So while the national electorate doesn’t seem polarized, each congressional district is becoming more and more polarized. Politically, the country seems to be self-segregating; conservatives prefer to live in conservative districts, and liberals prefer to live in liberal districts.
And a centrist running in such a polarized district will be viewed by those voters as an accommodationist with the other side.
2 DBKP FLASH Headline News » RINO Writers: Biting the Ankles of a Not-So-Big Base // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:25 am
[...] result is something like FF’s latest: The Not So Big Conservative Base. It’s one voice of a spineless harmony by noted writers of squish–notably David Frum, [...]
3 RioRancho // Dec 5, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“How Sarah Palin won in 2006″ is about the most useless reference point I can think of. Hers was a fluke win in a very, very small state. In the primary, she received a grand total of 51,443 votes; in the general, she received a grand total of 114,697 votes, winning by 7,400 votes.
4 franco 2 // Dec 5, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“But returning to power requires all oars in the water, pulling toward victory against the common foe, not arguing over who is the “real” conservative or demanding complete adherence to a single vision of the good life. We are in a position to seize a win of historic proportions, if we don’t self destruct first.”
The problem remains that the moderate Republicans have simply gone to the well of “the Democrats are worse” too many times with the nomination of McCain, the overt betrayal by Specter (who was formerly a closeted insurgent) endorsements of Obama by elected Republicans like Chuck Hegal and nominal Republicans like Colin Powell even when a Republican moderate was there as an alternative, and this latest debacle in the NY congressional race where the so-called Republican candidate endorsed a Democrat over a conservative. Moreover, the wimpy Republican crowd BLAMES conservatives for these effects.
It seems that moderate Republicans lean too far left given the agenda of Democrats and Republican complicity. Moderate Republicans are always claiming the Democrats are boogeymen when trolling for conservative votes, but then they turn around and vote with Democrats on important legislation, endorse Democrats who have a leftist agenda and blithely switch parties to save their skins, that is, when they are not openly bashing other Republicans who are more conservative to gain favor with media types. With friends like these who needs enemies?
Most conservatives are not demanding purity or anything close to it. We are demanding political accountability and representation, not sell-out after sell-out. Until you guys accept that Specter and Hegal and Chaffee and their ilk are bad for the party or at least stop defending them, your claim that conservatives are purists is laughable. We just want to defectors and the traitors absent from our midst, is that really too much to ask?
One of the things that is wrong with the corporate model is that the near term always takes priority over the long term and that thinking, that kind of desperation, is just as problematic in politics. I would contend that now that the nation is getting a taste for the REAL Democrat agenda, the Republican party is looking a lot better. Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war. And it IS war (by other means). Each issue is part of a drift. We are drifting leftward and now steaming full ahead. Now people can see that these things are crucial. Government spending and takeovers of private industry and banks and more intrusion into private individual rights is built into every piece of legislation, like it or not and if we don’t have principled pols in to guard against these threats we are doomed.
I find it quite interesting that some Republican pundits like Mr.Smith and David Frum will write long essays telling us how we need to work together and pull for the team as though the team is what is important, not principles or ideas. Since they don’t really hold hard principles they can’t understand why some people won’t compromise their principles. They do it all the time…”it’s easy, why can’t you guys just come with us to grab the power? ”
They refuse to understand some very basic political concepts. People have a right to vote for the candidate and party they choose. If the boat is traveling in the wrong direction jumping aboard and rowing isn’t a valid option. But they are political operatives. For them it is more important to be in the boat rowing than what direction the boat is headed. They put their finger to the wind and then find arguments to validate the popular course.
When they mischaracterize legitimate philosophical disagreements conservatives have with moderates as a quest for “purity” they reveal a kind of chauvinism that rivals the global-warming-is settled-science attitude. In fact, it is THEY who are the purists – as soon as a real conservative shows his face in the Republican party, they don’t just stay home, they defect to the other side! They are the ones who actively legitimize left-wing Democrats and their agenda in preference to being associated with conservatives, and they defend the Specters the Powells the Hegals as somehow justified in their actions.
Perhaps they have taken too many political science classes to be able to step back and look at the situation as it stands. They can see forests, but not trees. There is something intellectually disingenuous about their arguments. They say conservatives are few in number that most people are somewhere in the middle, yet they keep trying to convince conservatives to fudge on their principles once more, to prevent left-wing Democrats from gaining or holding power, as though the conservative vote is vital. Which is it? If conservatives are inconsequential to the Republican party then you guys don’t need them anyway. And if Democrats are so bad how can they also justify Republicans who vote with them endorse their candidates and bash their own side?
And it a fools errand trying to convince those of us who have strong opinions and clear ideas to abandon them to help moderates who change with the wind, to gain power. So they can do what, vote with Democrats half the time and continue to demonize conservatives? No thanks.
Oh, they will say it is all so complex. Yes, it is and you guys will need a few more degrees in poli-sci to understand all the nuance and complexity of the forests, and you will still not know what a tree looks like.
I am a tree and there is a giant forest of us. Get a clue.
5 sinz54 // Dec 5, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Franco:
You consistently slander center-rightists and centrists as lacking principles (you claim). You claim that all we care about is power.
I consider myself to be center-right, with a lot of centrist views.
Here are a couple of my principles:
1. No ideology is perfect: Marxism-Leninism, laissez-faire capitalism and isolationism are purist ideologies that have now been shown not to work. At best you can have a philosophy which biases you in a certain direction, but doesn’t force you along that path. What that means in practice is that you can call yourself a conservative (i.e. you share a philosophy of conservatism) even if you support a significant number of non-conservative positions.
2. Devotion to objective truth: I was an engineer for 25 years, with a deep abiding respect for science. I don’t advocate policies that would put me at odds with the scientific community.
3. We’re all Americans: Unlike some on the Right, I do NOT consider liberals to be the near-Satanic enemy of all that is good in America. Nor do I equate mainstream liberalism with Marxism or socialism; not every liberal agrees with Howard Zinn on much. Mainstream liberals have a different point of view. I think I understand it, even though I disagree with it.
Frum doesn’t want power for its own sake. What he believes is that no matter how pure your motives, you can’t accomplish anything if your political opponents enjoy a veto-proof majority in the Senate.
This is a diverse country. People like you will continue to dominate conservative Red States and Red Districts. But to win a majority, you have to expand into Blue and Purple areas where people don’t agree with you on some things. No matter how pure your principles and no matter how much you advocate for them, Blue and Purple people won’t necessarily vote for you.
In a two-party system, each party has to be as diverse as the country is or else it can’t command a permanent majority. Unlike the Marines, the GOP won’t be effective as “the few and the proud.”
6 BarryS // Dec 5, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Is Franco still a birther?
7 Reason60 // Dec 5, 2009 at 2:38 pm
“1. No ideology is perfect: Marxism-Leninism, laissez-faire capitalism and isolationism are purist ideologies that have now been shown not to work.
2. Devotion to objective truth: I was an engineer for 25 years, with a deep abiding respect for science. I don’t advocate policies that would put me at odds with the scientific community.
3. We’re all Americans: Unlike some on the Right, I do NOT consider liberals to be the near-Satanic enemy of all that is good in America. ”
If there is a shred of principled conservatism left, this would be its platform.
Seriously, the essence of conservatism has always been a scorn for ideology, a disdain for religious certitude of Marxism and its mirror image, Objectivism. The modern conservative movement has become a cargo cult of the worship of capitalism,invoking its symbols and practices without the understanding of its purpose.
Conservatism seeks balance, reason, and above all else, faithful adherence to empirical evidence.
The correct solution or policy is not invoked from abstract theory, but based on evidence- a solution that was incorrect last time, may well be correct this time, and vice versa. We change course as evidence and need demand.
Bruce Bartlett, one of Reagan’s supply side architects, argues that today we need tax increases, not cuts; not because he is a lilberal, but because he believes the economic data indicate it is useful.
The supply side adherents who feverishly claim that one more cut in the capital gains tax will somehow erase a mammoth deficit, are like the Stalinists who insisted that yet another round of farm collectivization would produce a bumper crop.
Conservatism comes from a desire for a civic order, a balanced community based on respect and responsibility- today’s conservatives see us as an atomized assortment of private interests, with no collective responsibility aside from our individual greed and personal desires. They divide us into those like themselves who are “real” versus those who are somehow inauthentic, dangerous, illegitimate.
The conservative movement has become its opposite- it mimics exactly the habits and mistakes of the left that it fought for so long.
8 RioRancho // Dec 5, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Put me down for what sins 54 & Reason 60 said.
9 balconesfault // Dec 5, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Reason60: Conservatism comes from a desire for a civic order, a balanced community based on respect and responsibility
Exactly. This is what I mean when I talk about “the conservative in me”, a term which sent MI-GOPer into hyperplexy the other day.
10 franco 2 // Dec 5, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Sinz
There’s that “purity” slander again. Sinz you obviously can write so it follows that you can read, but you provide little evidence that you are able to read my simple statements.
Perhaps my post is too long for you and you can’t take it all in. If that’s the case, better to not comment on it.
You might not be able to see how intellectually offensive your post is as it IGNORES nearly all my points. So I won’t repeat them here. Read my post again. I didn’t use any words you don’t know the definition of (I don’t think)
The “no ideology is perfect” statement is a dodge, and I have news for you. You have an ideology. Know what it is? “No ideology is perfect” And if it is true it includes YOURS. It is a paradox and you might not be capable of grasping it. It is a completely false to charge conservatives like me to having some kind of rigid ideology that has to be followed by the letter. We just want to go in a certain direction generally. There is not one Senator in congress who I agree with on every matter. I have never agreed entirely with any POTUS either.
There is a difference between compromise and surrender and too many Republican candidates surrender and call it compromise.
To be a centrist is to be in the middle, in between two (or more) schools of thought. You don’t really have one of your own you are just at effect of those who do on both sides.
You like to think you are making up your own mind but it appears you are simply navigating between two opposing fronts and calling that your opinion.
Please note that when I say leftist Democrats I am NOT saying all Democrats are committed leftists. I am talking about the large subset of Democrats who are leftists. The liberal Democrats are essentially drones, useful idiots to the left. They are people who mean well, and also some of them don’t really mean well but wish to be seen as meaning well.
I am in fact a “liberal” in the truer sense of the word because I am for individual rights. Most modern liberals are for group rights, and this plays into the hands of Socialism and Communism. Back in the New Deal era we could afford some of these big government programs that re distributed wealth, and like anything, wasn’t ALL bad = some good came from these programs, but the country can only afford so much largess and redistribution before a tipping point is reached.
You argue as though we are talking in absolutes, as though an elected conservative can repeal the last 50 years of leftward drift in a single term. Like we are going to have a true lassez faire economy with one election. As it stands Federal State and Local Governments take nearly half of all transactive wealth in this country and once these percentages go over 50% we become slaves to the State.
You wimpy Republicans are unschooled on the effects of socialism because if you were you would see the threat clearly. If government takes too much from the private sector, the incentives diminish for work investment and productivity. Then coercion and more interference from the State becomes necessary and the next thing you know we are Cuba Venezuela and possibly worse.
“Unlike some on the Right, I do NOT consider liberals to be the near-Satanic enemy of all that is good in America. Nor do I equate mainstream liberalism with Marxism or socialism; not every liberal agrees with Howard Zinn on much.”
The effect is the same however when they vote with the leftists, and it is the same whether Republicans do it too.
But there is a problem here. You don’t mention the Democrats (and quite a few Republicans here) who think conservatives are the equivalent of “Satan” and everything that is bad and wrong for America. Why not? There are scores of conservatives who don’t agree with Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on much either. So why, as a centrist you claim to be, aren’t you seeing both sides here and smearing me with your crude stereotype?
“2. Devotion to objective truth: I was an engineer for 25 years, with a deep abiding respect for science. I don’t advocate policies that would put me at odds with the scientific community.”
First a red flag “scientific community”. It isn’t a community. There is no scientific monolithic “community”. In fact the word community is political in nature and therefore unscientific. Gallieo was at odds with the scientific community (not just the church) and in fact so was Einstein for quite some time.
Devotion to objective truth is not a principle. In science something is either proven or not. Until something is proven it is merely a hypothesis. My God, we are all devoted to objective truth! (as we each define it of course) and there is the rub. So “Devotion to objective truth” is meaningless as a citation as proof of principles.
I don’t know where you are getting the notion that conservatism is somehow unscientific. I too have a high regard for science. I also know that science is fallible and gets things wrong. The fact is that much of what many call science is pure belief. Ordinary people don’t know there is global warming or cooling ,they just believe what certain scientists say over others. As we have seen now and before, science is not immune from personal and political agendas. To everyone who doesn’t have direct experience it is all hearsay. That is not to say it isn’t right but in the end we are relying on some form of authority which we trust implicitly, be it the New York Times, Al Gore, or the University of East Anglia. To have true respect for science one must be vigilantly skeptical.
“Frum doesn’t want power for its own sake. What he believes is that no matter how pure your motives, you can’t accomplish anything if your political opponents enjoy a veto-proof majority in the Senate.”
Everyone thinks their own ideas are great and they want to implement them. I’m not saying Frum is lusting for power like some Golum he just wants to work, write and have a job. The fact that he allows himself to give comfort to liberal and leftists cable TV and PBS crowd for a fee is a strong indication that he is more interested in promoting himself than any cause. And the only cause he seems to advocate is for Republicans to moderate so they can gain power over Democrats, and he is doing it loudly to a very sympathetic audience which isn’t helping the Republican cause even as it exists today at all.
I don’t want Democrats to have a veto proof majority either, which I why I want Spector to be defeated and why I want those who are, let’s say, unreliable Republicans, out. If you have 42 Republican Senators and three or four of them are unreliable then you really don’t have 42 Republicans do you?
And what exactly is a Republican? Someone who is a centrist? Someone who is a pragmatist (ooh another ideology). Someone who isn’t a Democrat? Someone who never votes with Democrats; sometimes votes with Dems; or often votes with Democrats?
When a Republican votes for cap and trade or more government largesse or for opening our borders I have no use for him – may as well be a Democrat. You see, certain things are game-changers for those of us with the courage of our convictions. If for example we get amnesty then I am for withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan since there will no longer be a sovereign state to protect anyway.
As I said YOU guys are the purists because you can’t abide conservatives in your party and you wish we weren’t here. We conservatives have been the tolerant ones until now.
And as I’ve said before in other words, you who have more maleable principles will need to adapt to us or else you will lose. You are not going to convince us with your feeble arguments. You aren’t going to convince us by defending outright traitors to the party and those who endorse Democrats whilst calling themselves Republicans. You are alienating us by accusing us of demanding purity when all we want is some reasonable representation of really basic values such as limited government.
You see we conservatives would have lost either way with McCain. The country is drifting leftward and it is almost at the brink the tipping point of no return. Had McCain won he would have been a one-termer and he would have enacted much of the leftwing agenda even more than Bush II did in his last 4 years and then we would have had a two-term leftist to take us over the waterfall. As it stands today we have an electorate that is beginning to understand just what these Democrats are up to and we will be able to win control and stop the hemorrhaging.
11 1fingerwillie // Dec 5, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Franco,
You write:
“I am in fact a “liberal” in the truer sense of the word because I am for individual rights.”
What if those individuals are gay, drug users, or gamblers…do you believe in their individual rights too?
1fw
12 1fingerwillie // Dec 5, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Franco,
You write:
“the overt betrayal by Specter”
What exactly was Specter’s betrayal: the fact he voted for a bill you didn’t like (stimulus) or the fact that shortly thereafter he switched parties?
1fw
13 1fingerwillie // Dec 5, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Franco,
you write:
“even when a Republican moderate was there as an alternative”
Anyone following the campaign knows that McCain was NOT a moderate. I was a fan of JM for a long time and was planning on voting for him at the beginning of the primary season.
This is McCain as a moderate:
“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”
This is McCain introducing his VP pick (who is undeniably an agent of intolerance):
“I am very pleased and very privileged to introduce to you the next vice president of the United States… Governor Sarah Palin of the great state of Alaska”
Please stop referring to the 2008 version of McCain as a moderate. It pisses moderates off.
1fw
14 Moderate // Dec 5, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Umm, I’d leave a better comment, but after seeing the sidebar graphic (http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/613/wut.jpg) all the blood seems to have left my head.
15 Reason60 // Dec 5, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Franco-
You seem rather fond of calling yourself a true conservative; well ok, lets go with that.
But what are these “conservative” principles you support?
The traditional Goldwater/ Reagan version of conservatism had three main ideas:
1. Fiscal responsibility (i.e., balanced budgets);
2. Limited government (i.e. limited scope of government power);
3. Assertive defense posture towards the Communist Bloc;
Would you agree that the conservative movement of 1994- 2006 was not terribly concerned about balanced budgets? And even now is not really serious about it? I say this, because not one of the leading thinkers or pundits has even suggested anything remotely like a balanced budget proposal.
Would you agree there is a disconnect between a conservative movement (meaning Palin/ Beck/ Limbaugh) that advocates something called “limited government” and yet whole heartedly supports even the most extreme versions of Executive power, such as warrantless wiretapping, NDS electronic surveillance, and detaining American citizens without charges, without trial or habeas corpus (such as the Jose Padilla case)?
Notice that I am not attacking the conservative movement for being conservative; I am attacking it for being the opposite of conservative; they are being radical and reckless.
16 franco 2 // Dec 5, 2009 at 5:52 pm
1fingerwillie
“Franco,
You write:
“I am in fact a “liberal” in the truer sense of the word because I am for individual rights.”
What if those individuals are gay, drug users, or gamblers…do you believe in their individual rights too?”
Yes. Why shouldn’t I?
Franco,
You write:
“the overt betrayal by Specter”
What exactly was Specter’s betrayal: the fact he voted for a bill you didn’t like (stimulus) or the fact that shortly thereafter he switched parties?
“Overt” means the latter, “closeted” means the former and other things, so the answer is BOTH . I try to write clearly, really I do, and to be asked this question is a bit tiresome. And why does it matter to you?
“Anyone following the campaign knows that McCain was NOT a moderate.”
“Sara Palin …undeniably an agent of intolerance”
I didn’t know that here at Frum Forum we can just make assertions and then say they are “undeniable” – can I use that in my debates here? it must be fun! No need to make a coherent case – just assert and be done with it. Case closed!
What happens, you champions of tolerance when there is something or someone you can’t tolerate? Intolerance! So the virtue of “tolerance” means nothing to you. Admit it.
17 franco 2 // Dec 5, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Reason
“Franco-
You seem rather fond of calling yourself a true conservative; well ok, lets go with that.”
Please cite where I called myself a “true conservative” Really, do you people know how to read (as opposed to read INTO) ?
I am conservative. I disagree with other conservatives on some things, I disagree more with many Republicans and I disagree quite a lot with Democrats and I totally disagree with leftists. I am only representative of some conservatives and would NEVER claim I am any “true conservative” So I don’t really care what Goldwater said or what you learned in leftist academia what their definition of conservative is/was. Y’all are guilty of stereotyping conservatives if anything and it is as obvious to us as racial prejudice is to a black man or gender bias is to women. We are all the same to you folks. You can’t understand that there are nuanced opinions that are different than your own. It is convien It is so funny for us to see y’all reveal yourselves as disingenuous and callow , not knowing it and accusing us of some imagined ideology that you ascribe to us that serves only to bolster your insipid worldview.
“Would you agree that the conservative movement of 1994- 2006 was not terribly concerned about balanced budgets? ”
No, because it wasn’t inherently a “conservative movement” but a REPUBLICAN movement. Yet those Republicans were pikers in spending compared to Democrats of today, so they were better. Not perfect, but better.
“(meaning Palin/ Beck/ Limbaugh) that advocates something called “limited government” and yet whole heartedly supports even the most extreme versions of Executive power, such as warrantless wiretapping, NDS electronic surveillance, and detaining American citizens without charges, without trial or habeas corpus (such as the Jose Padilla case)?”
“Would you agree there is a disconnect between a conservative movement (meaning Palin/ Beck/ Limbaugh) that advocates something called “limited government” and yet whole heartedly supports even the most extreme versions of Executive power, such as warrantless wiretapping, NDS electronic surveillance, and detaining American citizens without charges, without trial or habeas corpus (such as the Jose Padilla case)?”
You mean Obama Clinton Beck Limbaugh etc? Obama hasn’t rescinded the Patriot Act . So apparently it is settled politics and there is a consensus. I think there could be problems with the Patriot Act going overboard and being mis-applied but Padilla isn’t a very good example. The RICO act is basically the same thing – they can do this stuff with mobsters why can’t they have the same power with terrorists?
There is more government intrusion in our daily lives with taxes Social Security (did you know you are really a number and not a human?) the IRS – police checkpoints, red light cameras and a drone “law enforcement”, the war on “drugs” and safety mentality than any “wireless wiretapping”. I think you don’t have the priorities straight. If the government wants to go after terrorists they can have that power. They are ALREADY able to come after me an American citizen.
18 1fingerwillie // Dec 5, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Franco,
You write:
“Yes. Why shouldn’t I?”
I didn’t say you shouldn’t. Typically people on the right are opposed to gay marriage and legalization of all drugs. That is undeniable…thus my question seems reasonable to me.
I understand what overt means. Some would suggest that publicly voting for a bill that the vast majority of Republican lawmakers opposed was an overt act. We can quibble about whether that is true or not, but I don’t really see any value in it.
You asked why this distinction matters to me. It matters to me because I am interested in the larger debate about the state of the Republican party. I think Specter is an interesting character, and I find it interesting that people believe he betrayed his party because I disagree.
If you think voting for a bill that your party generally opposes is betrayal than you believe that Senators should subvert what they believe is right for the sake of their party. I don’t agree with that line of thinking.
If you think Specter’s party switch is a betrayal, you have that right. To say that without acknowledging that his his party largely turned against him because of his vote on the stimulus bill is disingenuous.
Sarah Palin does not support equal rights for homosexuals. Thus, she is intolerant. I didn’t really think that this issue was up for debate. My apologies.
1fw
19 1fingerwillie // Dec 5, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Sorry, I missed this last part:
“What happens, you champions of tolerance when there is something or someone you can’t tolerate? Intolerance! So the virtue of “tolerance” means nothing to you. Admit it.”
Who can’t I tolerate? I am happy to admit that I am intolerant, but I would like to be shown an example of my intolerance first.
1fw
20 1fingerwillie // Dec 5, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Reason and Franco,
I have to side with Franco on this point:
“I am only representative of some conservatives and would NEVER claim I am any “true conservative” So I don’t really care what Goldwater said or what you learned in leftist academia what their definition of conservative is/was. Y’all are guilty of stereotyping conservatives if anything and it is as obvious to us as racial prejudice is to a black man or gender bias is to women.”
Lumping all conservatives together as some sort of monolithic movement is not representative of reality. It would be like me saying that all academic institutions and those within them are leftists–its just not right.
1fw
21 sinz54 // Dec 5, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Reason60:
Could I put my $0.02 in here?
I do NOT agree with you here, and here’s why:
In 1995, when Gingrich’s Republicans took power in Congress, they really intended to balance the Federal budget without tax hikes. Their staff, working with economists like Larry Kudlow, put together some $700 billion in yearly cuts to domestic programs they wanted to make.
Alas, they ran into the same problem that Reagan had run into in 1981 when he tried to cut domestic programs: The American public really doesn’t want the social safety net shredded–and Democrats will have the people’s support to prevent such cuts. Clinton, sensing this, put his foot down. A major battle with Gingrich resulted, in which parts of the government shut down for lack of funding. Gingrich lost the fight (and the Speakership), and Clinton balanced the budget his way–by raising taxes.
This is not the first time you have overlooked important events in American political history. May I suggest that the next time, you check your historical facts before making your claims.
22 ThurmanHart // Dec 5, 2009 at 9:47 pm
The Conservative Movement has never been pure – and anyone who thinks it has should pull out some old essays from Frank Meyer and William F. Buckley.
But I’m a liberal and could give a hangnail about the Conservative Movement. What I care about is the Republican Party. No political party in American history has ever been successful AND ideologically pure. Not the Federalists, not the Whigs, not the Anti-Masonites or the Know-Nothings and definitely not the Democrats or the Republicans.
Nor can a party survive with ideological purists and “moderates.” The “Republican Revolution” of the 1980s was an enlargement of the Republican Party that brought in the Southern Democrats that no longer felt at home in their party (funny – no one Republican talks about how Kent Hance or Phil Gramm abandoned their parties and are traitors for it). The resurgence of the Democrats after 2000 is linked to Dr. Howard Dean’s insistence on broadening the party to recapture southern conservatives and western libertarians.
The problem isn’t purism – as pointed out above, all ideologies are pure. The problem is one of toleration and humility. James Madison pointed out that moderation is generally the best policy, and the wisdom of the American system is that it forces factions to deliberate until they find a moderate path. Reagan’s advise to speak no evil of other Republicans was meant to ensure that ideological purity did not destroy the party – not to create a party of purity.
23 Reason60 // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Sinz-
I will concede your point- that Gingrich did want to cut government; Point taken.
But I still hold that the conservative movement- didn’t care too much about Reagan’s deficits, nor did they care at all about Bush’s, even when they held all the levers of power.
The proof of this is there is not a single important figure anywhere in the conservative movement, nor in the GOP, who is today making a SERIOUS attempt at balancing the budget. They throw around the words like confetti, without really wanting to make any cuts.
But I guess the more serious reason I bring this up is that the conservative movement is detached from pragmatic solutions; the budget is the ultimate pragmatic problem- you either match revenue to expenses, or you don’t. There isn’t any room to BS or spin.
Instead, what I hear is a form of ideology based thinking- supply side is a guaranteed fix, tax cuts will always pay for themselves, and no government spending is the best government spending.
It is a form of magical cultish thinking, opposite of the flexible reasoned based party that conservatism used to dominate.
24 anniemargret // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:57 pm
From the October 2009 Quinnipiac poll :”American voters oppose same-sex marriage and they don’t want to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but by a narrow margin, they don’t want their states to ban it,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “And they don’t want to amend the Constitution on this issue. “Given a range of choices, they divide into thirds – for gay marriage, for civil unions, for a complete ban.”
By a 63 – 33 percent margin, American voters support the 1973 Roe v Wade decision. But Americans remain divided on the issue of abortion:
* 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases;
* 38 percent say it should be legal in most cases;
* 24 percent say it should be illegal in most cases;
* 14 percent say it should be illegal in all cases.
By a 54 – 40 percent margin voters nationwide support stricter gun control laws, but voters oppose 78 – 17 percent amending the U.S. Constitution to ban individual gun ownership.
American voters favor the death penalty 63 – 29 percent for persons convicted of murder, but when offered a different choice, 47 percent favor the death penalty for convicted murderers while 44 percent favor life without parole.
American voters oppose 47 – 40 percent President Barack Obama’s health care reform plan, and don’t want an overhaul that only gets Democratic votes, but they support key parts of the plan, including 61 – 34 percent for giving people the option of a government health insurance plan that competes with private plans, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.
And they don’t call social security the ‘third rail’ in American politics for nothing. Even the tea party participants would not like their SS or their Medicare cut off despite all their groaning about ’socialist’ programs.
American are not center right, they are center left. They are not leftists, nor are they rightists. The American people are common sense oriented. They understand all too well that real life is not as easy as the political posturings from either party. They are fair-minded, they are compassionate, they are hard-working, they are disgusted with extremism from either side of the aisle.
And the tendency these days to box in people is non-productive. The ultimate goal is to make a better America, which means compromise. Where is this word in today’s political rhetoric? I don’t see much of it. Meanwhile people are dealing with life issues and could care less whether or not either party get score brownie points.
I am a registered Democrat but I have some conservative ’streaks’ – thanks Balconesfault – I understand what you mean. The party that understands the compromise wins the brass ring.
25 sinz54 // Dec 6, 2009 at 9:02 am
Reason60:
You are correct that in the 1970s, balancing the budget stopped being the Holy Grail of conservatives. Conservatives finally realized that belt-tightening and budget-balancing had never won a national election for them; what voters wanted to know was how they would benefit from national policies. And so, led by men like Jack Kemp, the emphasis shifted from balancing the government’s books to expanding the private sector and growing the economy generally.
26 sinz54 // Dec 6, 2009 at 9:12 am
Reason60:
Sure, but Economics 101 tells us all that there are economic scenarios when the budget should NOT be balanced.
Both liberals and conservatives understand that. There is simply no way to stimulate the economy out of a deflationary recession without fiscal policy that incurs major deficits.
That was true in 1933, and it’s true today: The Fed has lowered interest rates all the way to zero, yet the economy has not responded. Because in a deflation, real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates remain positive, while wages and prices are deflating.
What liberals and conservatives do not agree on right now, is just what type of fiscal policies to enact to stimulate the economy.
So I don’t understand why you keep harping on budget balancing. In the 21st century, only crackpots like Ron Paul think that’s a top priority.
27 sinz54 // Dec 6, 2009 at 9:25 am
anniemargaret:
For political purposes,
we live in a center-right country, because of the way our political system is constructed.
The Senate gives sparsely populated states like Wyoming (which usually vote conservative) equal weight to a populous state like New York (which leans liberal). All the people who live in California and New York combined get no more votes in the Senate than the people of Wyoming and Montana.
Even in the House of Representatives, gerrymandering of minorities has pushed them into minority districts where they vote reliably liberal–but here again, a populous district like the South Bronx (which votes liberal) gets only one seat, no more power than a less populous district in Wyoming or Montana which votes conservative.
The Electoral College is a hybrid: A state’s electoral votes equals its representatives plus its senators. That means that each state gets a bonus of two electoral votes. For a small state that would normally only have one electoral vote, that triples its power to three.
This is why Gingrich’s conservatives were able to gain control of Congress in 1994, despite polls showing the public actually split between Dem and Repub candidates. Those 400,000 minority voters in the South Bronx didn’t get any more power than some 50,000 voters in some district in Wyoming.
And it’s why Bush could win the Electoral College in 2000, despite losing the popular vote.
Our political system is biased toward us conservatives.
And we like it that way!
28 palomino70 // Dec 6, 2009 at 9:30 am
Smith: “Americans, I think, will want someone who promises NOT to turn healthcare upside down; who does NOT try to make major changes in social security; who does NOT fan the flames of culture war from the left or the right, and who does NOT seek to radically change the American relationship to the world (something both Bush and Obama have undertaken)…the winning Republican ticket in 2010 and 2012 will be some sort of return to “normalcy,” if I can use the term Republicans used to win landslide victories in 1920, 1924, and 1928.
===================================
Oh, Mr., we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again. Or maybe Coolidge or Harding.
As for a candidate who doesn’t fan the culture war flames, that pretty much rules out Palin and everyone else that the conservative base seems to admire. Good luck finding someone who can get through the GOP primaries without playing cultural warrior.
29 franco 2 // Dec 6, 2009 at 9:31 am
1fingerwillie
“Typically people on the right are opposed to gay marriage and legalization of all drugs. That is undeniable…thus my question seems reasonable to me.”
This is not really a true statement on several levels. First, being against gay marriage is not any indication of intolerance. My favorite take on gay marriage comes from Roseanne Barr who said “Gay marriage? Haven’t gays suffered enough?” I am for equivalent rights for gays but marriage existed as a social construct before our Constitution and, like religions incorporate existing practices and holidays, so have governments sanctioned and regulated marriage. Remember, marriage used to be almost compulsory and it was the only way a woman could leave her parents. It wasn’t always a “right”.
I spent years making the argument that a couple can make their own pact and don’t need the sanction of the state or a church to validate their love or to enter into what is essentially a binding legal contract. That said, the contract served a purpose when there was no gender equality when women were not working. The institution of marriage helped to safeguard children and stabilize families and therefore civilization. Ideally children need a mother and a father for best results. This is proven time and again and looking backwards it appears that marriage is a social construct that most serves children and thus civilization. Since gays don’t have children and when they adopt the child STILL has no opposite gender parents there is no need on that account.
The fact is that gays constitute at most 10% of our population and of that 10% only about 70% want gay marriage, and of those most just want it for OTHER GAYS we are left with a tiny minority of gays who want to actually take vows. (And of those who actually do take vows, many will end in divorce just like straights.) I can’t blame people who want to keep a very deeply embedded social practice from reckless experimentation for the satisfaction of a small minority.
It seems to me to be a reflexive need for legitimacy through laws more of a political posture not a pressing need and not some horrible restriction on gays. I have no problem with gays trying to pass these marriage laws on the state level and if some states pass these laws it won’t particularly bother me.
But the fact that they use this issue to smear others as intolerant of them is reprehensible and dangerous and actually causes me (and others like me) to resent them. Not for their gay lifestyle but for their smug and narrowminded assertions about those who aren’t in agreement with them.
Then there is the drug issue. Since we are in a political forum it is difficult for me to grasp how you don’t know that Democrats – nearly every elected Democrat in this country, are against the legalization of all drugs. Furthermore, in other countries that are decidedly more to the left than the USA, seem to have strict laws against certain drugs, with only a couple exceptions (Holland for one and I’ve been there a few times -it’s not always pretty and they started having other problems like too many junkies wandering around begging so they have been re-thinking their progressive laws) so I don’t understand how you ascribe this exclusively to the right wing. And personally, I think the war on drugs has so many horrible consequences that drugs should be decriminalized completely – both scenarios are bad -but the current laws on balance make the situation intolerable for our entire society.
And will you stop with this “undeniable” rhetoric? It isn’t undeniable. I just denied it!
As to Specter as an example. Specter started his career as a Democrat and switched parties to get elected, much like Bloomberg in NYC. Throughout his career as a Senator (do these guys EVER retire?) he played on the fringes of Republicanism and often bashed his Republican colleagues. What I found most reprehensible was that these votes were more aligned with Specter’s personal political prospects than any strain of philosophical conviction. When those he is supposed to represent put up a viable challenger Specter bolted. Neither party deserves scumbags like this in their ranks. It is not out of party purity that I want Specter out of congress, he is venal and corrupt. I have to say he is extraordinarily arrogant to want to continue to serve at his age as though there is no one else in Pennsylvania R or D who can do a better job. He should retire and since he hasn’t I have NO respect for him.
“To say that without acknowledging that his his party largely turned against him because of his vote on the stimulus bill is disingenuous.”
No it is not disingenuous. A political party is a lose affiliation of like-minded interests. If a majority – an overwhelming majority in this case, that is ,constituents first, and also other lawmakers as well as mainstream party pundits want him gone, then that is their right. Democrats did that with Lieberman BTW. Specter crossed the line; the stimulus bill was the latest on a long series of Specters political gamesmanship, and to pretend he was voting his conscience or was some kind of victim of party purity is ludicrous.
Who can’t I tolerate?
Sara Palin who is “undeniably intolerant”
“Sarah Palin does not support equal rights for homosexuals. Thus, she is intolerant. I didn’t really think that this issue was up for debate.”
Yes the issue is up for debate. I can see that you are a “case closed” kind of guy. Everyone knows XYZ… it is undeniable…
Your opinions aren’t facts. You certainly have a right to your opinion and a right to vote for whomever you choose, but you don’t own the truth. You are so certain of your righteous cause that it obscures your logic and closes your mind, much like those who you claim are “intolerant” this is called “projection” in psychology and there are many appearances of this phenomenon in the world of political opinion. It is where someone feels justified in behaving in a manner they ascribe to their enemies.
Being intolerant of someones religious beliefs is still intolerance. Christians like Palin are not intolerant of gays simply because they are not interested in changing a 4000 year tradition overnight.
30 anniemargret // Dec 6, 2009 at 9:55 am
Sinz: Good points. But my main argument is that while many on the right in the GOP believe (wrongly) that their issues are the majority’s issues, they are very wrong. Most people by and large are moderate in their views, when push comes to shove, they will stay in a moderate frame of mind than not. And that does not bode well for Republicans because….
Palamino:
“Good luck finding someone who can get through the GOP primaries without playing cultural warrior.”
….So True. Because the GOP has now become deeply entrenched in culture wars, and in fact, it is their single minded devotion to these culture wars, that no matter how those ‘numbers’ stack up for you, most Americans reject extremism. Democrats are far less extremist these days than Republicans. These some-all fallacies that some on this blog like to use – that Democrats are ‘leftists’ is very wrong. The vast majority of Democrats I know and understand are -left leaning, not leftists. Big difference. In fact, most Democrats are far more centered than Republicans.
Until the Palin/Beck wing of the party becomes non-essential, all those wonderful conservative ideas, which are really, good in many ways, will never supercede above the ‘birthers’ or the ‘death panels’ or the ‘big cities elitists are bad’ silliness that is non-stop within the GOP. Their intolerance is exactly what is showing and whether or not they are only a ‘minority’ as some claim, they have the podium.
31 BarryS // Dec 6, 2009 at 10:01 am
I think it’s good that parties actually govern according to their platform. I don’t see that happening in real life.
When ever did the Republicans cut an entitlement program? Right now in the Senate they are railing against cuts to medicare! What’s that all about?
When did they ever actually cut the deficit. Last Republican president to do that was Nixon by something like .10 of 1%.
When did they ever reduce the size of government? Not seen that in action. Government has grown under all Republican administrations.
When did they ever actually attempt to put their platform on abortion into effect. They held both houses and the Presidency for 6 years. Nadda.
It’s easy to have positions and shout slogans. When push come to shove they are missing in action.
If I was a Conservative I would have more angst against the Republican party than the Democrats, at least the Democrats do not mislead in these areas, and have actually been more successful in fiscal discipline over the last 50 years.
32 franco 2 // Dec 6, 2009 at 10:14 am
Barry S
Still beating your wife?
33 1fingerwillie // Dec 6, 2009 at 10:19 am
Franco,
I said:
“Typically people on the right are opposed to gay marriage and legalization of all drugs. That is undeniable…thus my question seems reasonable to me.”
You said:
“so I don’t understand how you ascribe this exclusively to the right wing.”
Please explain where in my statement I ascribed this exclusively to the right wing.
You also said:
“It isn’t undeniable. I just denied it!”
To be clear you are denying my statement and thus are saying that “Typically people on the right are NOT opposed to gay marriage and legalization of all drugs?”
I find your posts difficult to get through. You talked a lot about history and religion and other things. I am confused now. Are you saying that you in fact do NOT support gay marriage and drug legalization?
34 1fingerwillie // Dec 6, 2009 at 10:26 am
Franco,
Who am I intolerant of? I think you are suggesting I am intolerant of other people’s religion–though this would be odd since I haven’t actually mentioned religion in any of my posts. Can you please clarify?
1fw
35 1fingerwillie // Dec 6, 2009 at 10:42 am
Franco,
You said:
“The fact is that gays constitute at most 10% of our population and of that 10% only about 70% want gay marriage, and of those most just want it for OTHER GAYS we are left with a tiny minority of gays who want to actually take vows. (And of those who actually do take vows, many will end in divorce just like straights.) I can’t blame people who want to keep a very deeply embedded social practice from reckless experimentation for the satisfaction of a small minority.”
What size does a minority have to be before they deserve equal rights?
Again, please spare me the novel and just answer the question. It should be an easy one to answer for someone who claims: “I am in fact a “liberal” in the truer sense of the word because I am for individual rights.”
1fw
36 BarryS // Dec 6, 2009 at 10:51 am
Great response. You still a birther?
37 sinz54 // Dec 6, 2009 at 10:53 am
anniemargaret:
The GOP is slowly getting less “entrenched.” I believe they hit bottom last year but are now starting to get their act together.
In the recent governor’s race in VA, the Repub, Bob McDonnell, who had staunch social conservative views, deliberately downplayed social issues in favor of pocketbook economic issues. The result was he won 58% of the vote and nearly every county.
And in the governor’s race in NJ, the Repub, Chris Christie, ran as a reformer against the corruption of NJ. The Dem incumbent, Jon Corzine, unable to run on his record, played up social issues, trying to win on his social liberalism like being pro-choice. So you had an interesting role reversal: This time it was the Dem who seized on social issues. And he lost to Christie.
These lessons have not been lost on the GOP base. From what I’ve seen on RedState.com and elsewhere, they realize that a winning formula is to run conservative candidates who de-emphasize social conservatism despite believing in it, and emphasize reform and economic growth instead. That way they keep the GOP base and attract non-Republicans.
And that’s what I’ve been suggesting: Socially conservative candidates should just keep their mouths shut about that stuff, and defy their Dem opponents to raise it. Instead, they should stay on an economic message.
The GOP base wants to win. And if that means keeping certain hot-button issues in the background, they’ll do it as a matter of tactics.
38 sinz54 // Dec 6, 2009 at 10:59 am
BarryS:
When Gingrich’s Republican Congress passed welfare reform in 1996, and then president Bill Clinton signed it into law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html
39 BarryS // Dec 6, 2009 at 11:16 am
“BarryS:
When ever did the Republicans cut an entitlement program?
When Gingrich’s Republican Congress passed welfare reform in 1996, and then president Bill Clinton signed it into law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html”
I’m talking about something substantive that would actually cut the deficit and something you could hang your hat on. Like Medicare,Medicaid and Social Security. The GOP was against all those programs why are they now defending these entitlements and even against cuts?
40 anniemargret // Dec 6, 2009 at 11:18 am
but, but, but..Sinz: it is not individual races that will reform the party, it is reducing the ‘noise machine’. Witness recently when Frum put up a few commentaries on this blog criticizing Palin. Suddenly there was a loud mad rush to defend her from her fans (which is to be expected), with mostly bad arguments from why they support her for president, but even from those that deep within their hearts know she is not presidential material, ended up defending her as well. It’s some type of psychological need to remain on the fringe at all costs.
The noise machine runs the show. Perception is everything. From where I sit and watch, I still see otherwise thoughtful Republicans such as Frum be given the heave-ho sayanora routine whenever he tries to turn the corner on Limbaugh and company.
The fact remains – the Republican party’s ‘brand’ and face is that of Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and some others. They are loud, their fans are vociferous, they all over the airwaves and very few within your party can confront them without being accused of party treason.
On the other hand, you all have three more years to negate this image….because if Palin and Beck are still leading the charge, the image will remain intact. Perception is everything.
41 franco 2 // Dec 6, 2009 at 11:32 am
Franco,
I said:
“Typically people on the right are opposed to gay marriage and legalization of all drugs. That is undeniable…thus my question seems reasonable to me.”
You said:
“so I don’t understand how you ascribe this exclusively to the right wing.”
Please explain where in my statement I ascribed this exclusively to the right wing.
____________________________________________________________
TYPICALLY is the tip-off.One could say also typically Democrats oppose legalizing drugs, but that would be misleading since Republicans also oppose legalizing drugs. See?
So if you are referring to type, assigning type by saying those who are against drug legalization tend to be Republican you are not making a true statement. So asking what my beliefs are on those issues when I declare myself for individual rights you imply that you believe conservatives are against certain individual rights” as you define them ie gay marriage.
And regardless of my views, neither one is really about individual rights per se. People who aren’t drug users have rights too and they might have the right, in fact they DO have the right to be afraid of the consequences of drug legalization.
I don’t agree that granting gays the “right” to marry is a matter of individual rights. I also believe people have a right to their beliefs as in religious and commonly held assumptions. In a Democracy people have a right to vote for things they believe in and I don’t think that people who are against gay marriage are necessarily “intolerant” .
Typically there has not been a society of any religion Muslim Jewish Buddhist Confusion and Pagan that has sanctioned anything like gay marriage so I guess we live in a world of intolerance towards gays in your opinion.
The fact that a tiny minority want to redefine an ancient institution is their right. But those who wish to keep the status quo also have a right and in no way deserve the demonization of being labeled intolerant. Gay marriage was shot down in NY state. Apparently gay marriage activists have more convincing to do. I suggest they don’t call the people of NY mostly Democrats, intolerant rubes for starters…
“I find your posts difficult to get through. You talked a lot about history and religion and other things. I am confused now. Are you saying that you in fact do NOT support gay marriage and drug legalization?”
I’m sorry 1fingerwillie you can’t get through my posts because they talk of history and religion. If a 500 word post or even 1000 is a “novel” to you then I suggest you don’t advertise that aspect of your experience.
I thank you for your honesty about being confused. I understand. Perhaps we should keep our posts short and simple. You make assertions and charges and I’ll answer dutifully in simple sentences you can understand. Anything that is outside your expectations and assumptions in my responses can be ignored so as not to confuse you. Just skip over all the boring history and nuanced distinctions, obviously you aren’t interested in such things and most likely have never been.
Hope this wasn’t too long for ya.
42 1fingerwillie // Dec 6, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Franco,
I see. You inferred something from my statement that wasn’t there. I urge you to actually respond to what I say…not what you think I said.
You are a self-described conservative (or someone on the right of the political spectrum). When I wrote “Typically people on the right are opposed to gay marriage and legalization of all drugs. That is undeniable…thus my question seems reasonable to me” I was not comparing democrats and republicans, rather I was comparing typical conservatives and you. Your declaration that you support individual rights for gays and drug users set you apart from the typical conservative. What I now realize is you didn’t really mean it. What you meant to say was:
I am in fact a “liberal” in the truer sense of the word because I am for individual rights, when I agree with those rights. This really is redundant though–I think we can all assume that all of us support protection of individual rights that we support.
“I guess we live in a world of intolerance towards gays in your opinion.”
Yes that is my opinion. Do you really think the world, generally speaking, is tolerant of gays?
“Perhaps we should keep our posts short and simple. You make assertions and charges and I’ll answer dutifully in simple sentences you can understand.”
But you didn’t. Saying you answered questions isn’t the same as answering them.
You won’t say it but I think you have danced around the issue enough for us to agree that you do not support gay marriage and you do not support the repeal of drug prohibition. If I am incorrect, please clarify.
Who am I intolerant of?
What size does a minority have to be before they deserve equal rights?
43 1fingerwillie // Dec 6, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Please, a yes or no answer…
You write:
“they DO have the right to be afraid of the consequences of drug legalization.”
Do you really think that involuntary emotional reactions like fear are a right?
That is nonsensical….especially for someone of your rhetorical ability.
What exactly are the consequences of drub legalization–besides the obvious reduction in crime related to the black market for drugs?
1fw
44 franco 2 // Dec 6, 2009 at 1:08 pm
1fingerwillie
If you can’t read my posts there is no reason to have a discussion. Buried in my long post, my “novel” as it were, is the answer to your question but you have not bothered to read. Please be assured that the post is not long enough to warrant an index or even page numbers and if you are too lazy to read something that I took the time to write, well….
I can understand that you are confused and unable to comprehend some of my points as it is becoming obvious you tend to be rather incurious and self-righteous. You have all your labels neatly in order and have assigned certain qualities to these labels and you have determined the case to be closed. Any long posts of exercises in thoughtful comparisons, historical or religious references you find tedious and unnecessary since have reached you conclusion and it is a very simple thing to you.
No the world isn’t very tolerant of gays. Too bad. Actually the USA and Western Europe are quite a bit more tolerant than the rest already, and still the gay activists act as though they are being mightily oppressed because they can’t get state sanctioned marriage for themselves. Making marriage legal won’t help in my opinion, and it may even hurt the overall cause of acceptance of gays in larger American society. Gays are pussies too. They aren’t advocating for real tolerance around the world. They aren’t helping those gays who are truly and badly oppressed and victimized. They for the most part seem to care less about gays being thrown off buildings in the Arab world and other atrocities. No. They just want to go to a local courthouse to sign papers, the rest of the gay community in the world are on their own. These effete narcissists don’t impress me as being particularly interested in doing the hard work of promoting gay rights and tolerance around the world, and so their claims that Sara Palin or anyone else is “intolerant” rings hollow, on top of my other points.
If Sara Palin is intolerant of gays then so is Barack Obama and scores of other Democrats because they hold exactly the same position on gay marriage. So what is your point? Where are the distinctions? How are your statements about “conservatives” any different than what can be said of the larger population, whether it be drug legalization or gay marriage?
I find it amazing that you ascribe people who have fears of the consequences of drug legalization as being wholly unfounded. I have a more open and nuanced view and it is sad you don’t have the ability to understand both sides.
Drugs like meth and opiates are addictive and destructive -not just to individuals but to larger society and thus peoples fears are well founded. However the current criminalization and massive black market is also destructive and in my opinion, on balance MORE destructive to individuals and society.
So people who are against drug legalization are not idiots, they just don’t understand how destructive (and ineffective) the war on drugs has become.
45 1fingerwillie // Dec 6, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I will call your bluff. Where do you answer the questions:
Who am I intolerant of?
What size does a minority have to be before they deserve equal rights?
I expect you will ignore each of those again so I will move on. You said:
“I find it amazing that you ascribe people who have fears of the consequences of drug legalization as being wholly unfounded”
Where did ascribe this this? I simply asked what the consequences would be.
46 PracticalGirl // Dec 6, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Sinz-
Your original point from your first point touched on something important. America is full of districts, represented by politicians who should be catering to that base. But I disagree with you that the polarization effect is due to local, rather than national, interests. Especially in the current GOP national party, there seems to be a concerted effort to ignore that Republicans around the country are not one-size-fits-all. A GOP voter in, say, Oklahoma, has basic conservative ideals of the national party but differs greatly with say, a GOPer in California or Oregon, on many social issues. Their representatives understand this (witness Olymipa Snowe’s indredible popularity in Maine, despite being labeled a RINO), and go to Congress with the intention of supporting the views of their constituents.
The current national GOP leadership, however, has an homogenous idea of Party positions. Its is their charge, of course, and their option. The problem lies when the fringe element in the national party starts making across-the-board demands on their politicians that are based on polarized priorities that have nothing to do with regional priorities. And meddling in areas where they don’t belong and don’t understand is a huge prblem too. NY district 23 is a great example. Had the original GOP candidate been allowed to run unopposed from the right, would she have won? Given that that particular electorate had elected an “R” since 1757, I’d have to say that there was at least a fighting chance. Instead, there was a factional split and the seat went the other way.
I’m not arguing who would be the better representative for the national GOP interests, rather, that the electorate had been sending a relatively moderate Republican-one that reflected the concerns of the local electorate- to Washington election after election. And when push came to shove and the choice was between a radically right candidate and a center left one, center left (and the Democrats) won. The electorate- just as the local GOP knew- rejects fringe in favor of the center.
Even while the candidates refused local media interviews, Hoffman involved himself in a media blitz with Beck, Ingraham, Limbaugh et all, all of whom have strong media presences in upstate New York and how FUN it was for the national stars to come out for him and bring Sarah Palin with them! But really-what the hell did they really know about the regional politics of the area? Not enough to even question the candidate they backed about why he lived out of the district he was running in. Do read or listen to some of those interviews…HILARIOUS in their fluff.
If the GOP wants to gain national strength again, it will have to go back to broadbase support for broad Conservative concepts (and support them with a matching legislative agenda) rather than narrow, zealous insistence that every GOPer in the country embrace the fringe. And it will stay out of regional political fights that it doesn’t comprehend.
47 athensboy // Dec 6, 2009 at 2:22 pm
I agree with Sinz that the gop candidates that won in VA and NJ won by not hammering their conservative bonafides,BUT, agree with anniemargret that the Palin wing will run exclusively on the culture wars.This is where I see the schism in the gop.The Palin wing wants to polarize this country and Sarah is doing a good job of this whether it is intentional or not.
48 Reason60 // Dec 6, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Sinz-
Again, I agree with you about the need to sometimes run deficits. I don’t disagree with basic Keynsian economics that in a recession, the government can stimulate the economy by spending borrowed money, then paying it back during the good times.
Trouble is, both parties seem to run massive deficits in bad time, good time, and all the times in between.
Worse, the Buch deficits were created not by the government building roads, bridges, rail lines or even giving money away to businesses to build factories. No, the deficits were incurred mostly to finance wars, spending good money on things that had no appreciable benefit to our economy.
I harp on this, mostly because it shows how disconnected from reality and conservative principles the “conservative movement” has become.
Palin/ Beck/ Limbaugh do not run around making arguments about how to fix the economy; unless one considers “tax cuts” to be the essence of reasonable economics.
Conservatism, as I mentioned in the earlier post, always seeks the reasonable solution based on evidence; which means that sometimes taxes should be cut, sometimes raised; sometimes the budget should be balanced, sometimes not;
The conservative movement is wedded to abstractions like capitalism and supply side economics, and considers any other solutions to be heresy, traitorous and inconceivable.
So as a conservative, I would argue that Omaba’s stimulus is the most reasonable economic policy I have heard. I only wish he would consider a Value Added Tax, or adjustment in the income tax, to increase revenue.
49 palomino70 // Dec 6, 2009 at 3:37 pm
annie: “Democrats are far less extremist these days than Republicans. These some-all fallacies that some on this blog like to use – that Democrats are ‘leftists’ is very wrong. ”
The knee-jerk GOP critique of Obama on virtually all issues is that he’s a “dangerous left-wing radical.” You hear this from Congressional leaders, especially on the House side, as well as the conservative talkers Hannity, Beck et al. But this doesn’t even approach the reality: Obama has staked out moderate positions on issue after issue, much to the chagrin of the real leftists in his party. Just a few examples off the top of my head: Iraq, Afghanistan, gay marriage, bailouts, single payer. On each of those issues, the Dem base and the real liberals in Congress strongly disagree with Obama’s approach.
Continuing to call Obama a “radical” will probably work about as well as it did in the 90s, when the GOP’s stock response to Clinton was to label him a socialist. Extreme rhetoric like that did little to diminish Clinton’s popularity, and nothing to prevent his re-election.
50 sinz54 // Dec 6, 2009 at 7:55 pm
PracticalGirl:
You’re contradicting yourself.
The GOP leadership were the ones who picked Scozzafava, a center-left Republican, to run in NY-23. So they clearly were NOT wedded to a “homogeneous idea of party positions,” at least as far as NY-23 was concerned.
It was “meddling” for the GOP leadership to anoint Scozzafava, rather than having a primary and leaving the choice to the voters.
51 sinz54 // Dec 6, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Reason60:
By the year 2000, the budget was balanced, the result of a bipartisan effort between a Dem President (Clinton) and a conservative Republican Congress.
But that would never have been possible, if the economy hadn’t been booming. A booming economy generated the tax receipts enabling the Government to pay its bills without borrowing.
I believe that now it is getting harder and harder for the American economy to grow robustly. We face stiff competition from India and China; our manufacturing base is hollowed out; the Internet boom has matured and reached saturation and is unlikely to produce any more skyrocketing wealth; service jobs and gambling casinos don’t produce goods of lasting value to make the country richer; our economy is highly dependent on fossil fuels, whose use must now be restricted to fight global warming. And in such conditions, the budget cannot and should not be balanced.
52 jakester // Dec 7, 2009 at 2:07 am
franco 2
Every GOP candidate, sans Ron Paul, in 2008 said if he had t,o he would do what Bush did in 2003 and go to war in Iraq even while knowing what we know today. That speaks volume about the intellectual integrity of the conservatives/ People are not wimpos but they know what cheap adverturism is, a lot of dead people and a trillion dollars dropped yet not one of them even Huckabee, the Baptist Pro lifer know nothing, would have done different in 2003. Besides, the cons addiction to conservative Xtianity is plain hypocritical and ultimately alienates the enlightened voters.
53 jakester // Dec 7, 2009 at 2:12 am
sinz54
I live there, and the GOP is weak in NY and tends to be reasonable and intelligent, not some Beck Limbo knuckledragger outfit. If Scozzo had been left alone she would have won and there was no time for a primary there. But if there was she would or a similiar person would have won, not some talk radio composite of modern non thinking conservatism. Why don’t you try to think instead of giving a summation from Hannity’s America.
54 balconesfault // Dec 7, 2009 at 10:00 am
Sinz: It was “meddling” for the GOP leadership to anoint Scozzafava, rather than having a primary and leaving the choice to the voters.
Sinz – knowing how much a primary costs, and knowing that local jurisdictions virtually never foot the bill for a primary outside of the regular election cycle – do you think the Republican Party should have stepped up and footed the bill for a mid-term primary in NY-23, rather than leaving it to local party officials to select a candidate?
55 The fight for the soul of conservatism | OrthoCuban // Dec 9, 2009 at 1:28 am
[...] me give you quotes from an additional article found on the FrumForum. It is titled The Not So Big Conservative [...]
You must log in to post a comment.