[Jon Henke - cross-posted at The Next Right]
It seems to me there are three main factions within the Republican Party, and while we can see strengths and weaknesses in each of them, the future of the Right is far from clear.
- Progressive Republicans (aka: Teddy Roosevelt Republicans) - These are the Republicans who may be solid allies on many issues, but who also seem to want a Great Leader who can do Big Things. They are Crusader Conservatives - generally reliable on limited government, but willing to go off on Big Government crusades.
Illustrative Quote: "The object of government is the welfare of the people," (Teddy Roosevelt) - Goldwater Republicans - These Republicans vote for limited government, individual liberty and strong defense; they may have various opinions on social issues, but they subsume those views to the goal at hand: limiting government
Illustrative Quote: "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom." (Goldwater - Bush Republicans - these voters may or may not care about limited government, but they're willing to accept Big Government, so long as the government does socially conservative things. (See: Mike Huckabee, Christian Democracy)
Illustrative Quote: "Prayers can help, and so can the government." - President Bush, February 6, 2008
Of those mentioned, many have fallen into a fourth camp - Status Quo Republicans. They are mostly focused on winning that next election and consolidating their own power.
So, where does the Right stand?
At this point, the Progressive Republicans are in the drivers seat - partly because John McCain (a Progressive Republican) has the Republican nomination, and partly because a charismatic figure with some Big Ideas beats factions with no attention-grabbing ideas. At this point, no other faction has the policy ideas and grassroots support to challenge for leadership. But that position can only be maintained by a charismatic leader for a short time. It is not sustainable, At some point, the other coalitions will see to fill the core policy vacuums McCain may leave open.
The Bush Republicans are doing badly right now - you've all seen the polling - but the social conservative/evangelical base is still strong (as evidenced by the out-of-nowhere Huckabee campaign) They're not gone yet, and they could make a quick comeback with a charismatic candidate. Like, you know, Mike Huckabee. If they do that, it will mark the GOP's turn towards the European Christian Democracy style of political parties.
Finally, there are the Goldwater Republicans. They have been relegated to lesser roles, or turned into Status Quo Republicans. While a few still make appropriate noises on the Hill, a lack of publicly appealing, political viable ideas for limiting government has rendered them mostly impotent. The Goldwater Republicans have the greatest opportunity, however, because it is they who will have the most compelling arguments against Democratic and/or McCain polices, and it is they who will need to begin driving a narrative about the impact of Big Government policy. If they do it well, they will have a chance to reassert the Goldwater brand. If they don't, they will probably become marginalized.
It's impossible to tell which of these factions will dominate. Your predictions are welcomed.
I think we're headed for a split. As you say, the Goldwater Republicans have the most opportunity - but I think the other two factions have a pretty strong interest in not letting them succeed. At the end of the day, Progressives and Huckabee types can work together without too much trouble. The Goldwater types are from a different planet as far as the others are concerned.
The LP has just nominated the closest thing to a mainstream candidate in its history and may well poll its best ever result this time - both because of the candidate and because of the unusually high level of dissatisfaction in the Republican voting base. The Goldwater types may well recognize that they have a second home and pack up and leave. It would actually be a good strategy: a small party positioned between two bigger ones often holds the balance of power.
Huckabee represents what we need. When morals breakdown it reults in more crime which results in larger government expenditures. He also stresses the need for less Federal Government intervention. He represents the best interest of our economy by recommending that we stop taxing productivity and initiative and tax only consumption.
Except for his apostasy on global warming, McCain is conservative about everything. When it comes to economics and opinion about social welfare measures, there are no progressive Republicans. Even by Megan's standards, this post is bizarre.
Bush ran on limited goverment and he didn't deliver and his party is leaving him...look at this ratings. So it is hard to say what a Bush Republican is these days. Funny that most of the Bush team backed Romney who ran as a fiscon.
I wouldn't put Huckabee in this category as he held down Arkansas spending under the average state in his time there. While Huckabee is not a hardline fiscon, he didn't propose any big social spending in his campaign.
At the end of the day, Progressives and Huckabee types can work together without too much trouble.
Only if they can agree on the Great Cause to dedicate the American people to.
Maybe not. I have to say that I didn't leave the Republicans; the Republicans left me.
Sound familiar? I consider myself an Eisenhower Repbulican, btw. Get this current crop of anti-science, anti-pragmatic, left-is-right & black-is-white evangelical corporate greedheads out, and you might see more moderate people come back.
All irrelevant (although no insult intended). Government grows every year - like a tree, it's in its nature to do so. There's a stage where focused effort (or hedge clippers) can truly nip expansion in the bud, but we are long past such things. Success at this point could be measured by a short-term reduction in growth. Goldwater is dead, and if his spirit can act as an animating force for some, it's only by comparison to the other dreck offered and the irrational need to remain part of a process that is rotten to the core.
IMHO, either Repubicans will find a way to create an alliance of all three groups, or they will become a debating society.
Bush ran on limited government? The way I remember it, Bush ran on "compassionate conservatism." Everybody knew what that meant, because "compassion" has been a euphemism for "government spending" at least as far back as the 60s.
Of course, both his critics and his supporters assumed he was lying (or, more charitably, sloganeering and pandering). But he wasn't: he campaigned as a big-spending conservative, and that's excatly what he's been. Recall his pre-9/11 agenda, including NCLB. Yeah, he campaigned as a tax-cutter, but (lamentably) it's been a long time since that implied spending restraint.
In other ways, Bush's governing has been different from his 2000 campaigning. Perhaps most notably, he campaigned against nation-building in 2000, and post-9/11 he became nation-builder-in-chief (to his ruin, in the eyes of most). But I don't think it's fair to say he betrayed some formerly-touted commitment to a principle of small government.
I don't understand what the difference between the Progressive Republicans and the Bush Republicans. I would have divided the Republicans between the big business Republicans (who are not too far from ScentofViolets's Eisenhower Republicans) and evangelical/socially conservative Republicans. Dick Cheney is the former and Mike Huckabee is the latter, so it seems weird to put them in the same category. What Henke calls "Goldwater Republicans" are libertarians, an intellectual movement without a mass constituency.
My prediction? The Democrats win big the next election. However, left/liberal economic measures don't work very well--I seem to be the only person who actually believes this--so over the next five to ten years the evangelical/social conservative core of the Republican party draws enough swing voters to regain power. The Republicans turn into a European Christian Democratic-type of party (with an odd American twist of being Protestant rather than Catholic) and the Democrats continue as a European Social Democratic-type of party. No real home for the libertarians, which will secretly please most of them.
Too bad there isn't a category for folks like me. I fall somewhere between a Progressive Republican and a Goldwater Republican.
I firmly believe that promoting the welfare of the people is the right thing to do, but you can't do it with government handouts. You CAN do it by helping people to help themselves, e.g., by having a welfare policy that subsidizes people for a limited time and then kicks them out the door, which is what we finally have now. I would tweak that slightly and pay for some training or education while they are on welfare--it shouldn't be too hard to figure out those who would be gaming the system just to get some free education and make them ineligible.
I believe in supporting NGO's but with a strict eye towards their mission and successes. I would prioritize this support depending on their missions, with the emphasis being on education and training. Adult literacy is a HUGE problem in this country, and we don't throw nearly enough resources at the problem.
But why on earth should folks on Medicaid in New York State get better health insurance coverage than the folks who work for the state or schools? That makes no sense to me, either from a fairness point or a practical point.
As you might be able to guess, I favor individual responsibility over social responsibility, and these two unfortunatley make up a zero sum game, so I tend to look at government programs to see which way they tend. I still recall my amazement, when taking torts my first year of law school (I was in my early thirties by then), to discover that if I walked under a scaffold while men were working above, and someone accidently dropped a brick on me, that it somehow wasn't my own damn fault.
The Goldwater Republicans and the Progressive Republicans never get anywhere without the consent and support of the social-conservatives. Reagan was a Goldwater Republican who rode to victory on a wave of social conservative support he took from Carter.
Progressive Republicans who want to "do great things" turn it into a moral crusade for honor (which is what the Iraq war has devolved into) which resonates with social conservatives.
And in the end it's a balancing act to figure out which agenda items factions won't mind. Social conservatives would be ok with accepting tax increases for "pro-morality" social programs that appeal to them, but they won't mind forgoing those programs and the means to pay for them in exchange for some symbolic programs and the promise of a "grant moral crusade." The Goldwater/Norquistian Republicans want tax cuts but are willing to accept some grand moral crusades, foreign or domestic, as a sop to those that want them, as long as they're charged to the federal credit card, but it's less expensive just to mouth some anti-abortion platitudes and cast their opposition to environmental regulations as a crusade of middle-Americans against environmentalist hippies. Progressive Republicans are willing to accept some lip service to anti-abortion and evolution-skeptic rhetoric as long as America is "standing tall" by kicking ass somewhere.
Of the three groups, the social conservatives are the cheapest to "pay off" in exchange for their support. All they want is a president who shows some respect by rhetorically acknowledging and imitating them. Thus, an alliance with them by the other factions is the most likely in a struggle for power.
The current Repiglican Party is a coalition of retards, bigots, sadists and greedheads. It will not change appreciably in the near future. Those people have nowhere else to go.
Well - again as an Eisenhower Republican - consider the interstate highway system. That wasn't built with the help of 'social conservatives', a term that is waaay too vague. What specific policies do 'social conservatives' favor that mark them as socially conservative? I'm guessing that this is really code for 'religious fundamentalists'.
The same thing is true about 'the greens', btw. What specific policies and actions make someone 'green'? We grow our own tomatoes, do curbside recycling, have energy-efficient windows and good insulation, use a small car for most commutes that do not involve our daughter, etc. I've heard some conservatives sneer that yes, we must be one of those damn' hippy greens, but if so, I've seen some pretty redneck hippies, as well as some pretty button-down ones.
I don't think Huckabee is actually a big government guy, but he's a pragmatic social conservative who will work effectively with what he's got. You have to see his Arkansas record in that light. I think he's closer to a Teddy Roosevelt candidate that will be difficult to put in a box. Huck's skill is to take on the issues with proper amount of charm, compassion and creativity. He will want to address the debt and he left Arkansas debt free; hardly a Bush record.
Of course, I think Bob Barr completely misses the point! Huckabee is ahead of the curve as usual.
Compassion does not equal big government. Big government has been used to "fake" compassion. That's the issue. If Conservatism and limited government cannot be presented with authentic compassion then it's not viable and will be pushed aside. The trouble is that you have to deal with what true compassion is. We must care about people, but not necessarily (provide) care "for" them. The government has been on a path for many decades of larger and larger roles in everyday life. I am not in support of that direction, but changes and corrections in course have to be done with thoughtfulness and consideration and yes compassion. It is also compassionate to be considerate and responsible for the futures of our children and grandchildren. It's compassionate to deal with the problem we've created with excess spending and promises in Medicare and the "borrow it" mentality of Social Security and the Baby Boom generation as a whole.
Caring about people includes being good stewards of our economy, our environment and our government. Excessive consumption of goods is NOT a virtue, and yet some talk of it as a right. Our responsibility with freedom is to be good stewards and to care for our fellow man. If Republicans and Conservatives cannot articulate the message in that manner, they will fail and we'll have irresponsible Democrats. Huckabee is right; making a fiscal conservative case without addressing troubles with morality and care for our fellow man is empty and wrong.
The true Conservative case is one of responsibility, good stewardship and conservation of our environment, culture, traditions and our way of life. There is a righteous case to be made for the government to take a path towards responsibility and good stewardship and it's a compassionate case. It takes someone who is genuine and can solve these problems from the positive side. I'm sorry, but no one is going to vote for the Grinch and just taking things away is not a solution. We need to face our troubles head on and compete in the arena of ideas and one of those ideas is based on the principle that Freedom comes with Responsibility. And we care so much about people and our children that we will face these problems head on and deal with them instead of saddling the next generations with unbearable debt and potentially bankruptcy as a nation. A lot of people want to hear the truth from good people who aren't looking at who to blame but how to fix the problem. The blame part is easy; there is a generation plus that only needs to look in the mirror and realize that our collective greed and poor stewardship has left things in a big mess. We now have a country of generally overweight, lazy people with poor health that have few hands on skills that have chased convenience, comfort, security, financial safety, entertainment and efficiency. None of these are actually virtues and they have left society and families in a shambles. Conservatives have to redefine themselves as something virtuous and righteous instead of a hollow arguement of why we should be able to drive our SUV's and live in 4000 sq ft houses.
It does not take a lot of money to "care" about and for people. Just because the Dems have made the fallacy case that "money=care" doesn't mean the Conservatives have to make the same error in reverse. Our country was founded on the principle of the value of each and every human being as special being created by God. Defining Conservatism needs to be done with care and principle and it should have very little to do with materialism. We need to care more and in a real way about the future of our country and our descendants. And that care and love is the kind of care that requires sacrifice, creativity and optimism. It will need real Leadership from many people.
I don't think Huckabee is actually a big government guy, but he's a pragmatic social conservative who will work effectively with what he's got. You have to see his Arkansas record in that light. I think he's closer to a Teddy Roosevelt candidate that will be difficult to put in a box. Huck's skill is to take on the issues with proper amount of charm, compassion and creativity. He will want to address the debt and he left Arkansas debt free; hardly a Bush record.
Of course, I think Bob Barr completely misses the point! Huckabee is ahead of the curve as usual.
Compassion does not equal big government. Big government has been used to "fake" compassion. That's the issue. If Conservatism and limited government cannot be presented with authentic compassion then it's not viable and will be pushed aside. The trouble is that you have to deal with what true compassion is. We must care about people, but not necessarily (provide) care "for" them. The government has been on a path for many decades of larger and larger roles in everyday life. I am not in support of that direction, but changes and corrections in course have to be done with thoughtfulness and consideration and yes compassion. It is also compassionate to be considerate and responsible for the futures of our children and grandchildren. It's compassionate to deal with the problem we've created with excess spending and promises in Medicare and the "borrow it" mentality of Social Security and the Baby Boom generation as a whole.
Caring about people includes being good stewards of our economy, our environment and our government. Excessive consumption of goods is NOT a virtue, and yet some talk of it as a right. Our responsibility with freedom is to be good stewards and to care for our fellow man. If Republicans and Conservatives cannot articulate the message in that manner, they will fail and we'll have irresponsible Democrats. Huckabee is right; making a fiscal conservative case without addressing troubles with morality and care for our fellow man is empty and wrong.
The true Conservative case is one of responsibility, good stewardship and conservation of our environment, culture, traditions and our way of life. There is a righteous case to be made for the government to take a path towards responsibility and good stewardship and it's a compassionate case. It takes someone who is genuine and can solve these problems from the positive side. I'm sorry, but no one is going to vote for the Grinch and just taking things away is not a solution. We need to face our troubles head on and compete in the arena of ideas and one of those ideas is based on the principle that Freedom comes with Responsibility. And we care so much about people and our children that we will face these problems head on and deal with them instead of saddling the next generations with unbearable debt and potentially bankruptcy as a nation. A lot of people want to hear the truth from good people who aren't looking at who to blame but how to fix the problem. The blame part is easy; there is a generation plus that only needs to look in the mirror and realize that our collective greed and poor stewardship has left things in a big mess. We now have a country of generally overweight, lazy people with poor health that have few hands on skills that have chased convenience, comfort, security, financial safety, entertainment and efficiency. None of these are actually virtues and they have left society and families in a shambles. Conservatives have to redefine themselves as something virtuous and righteous instead of a hollow arguement of why we should be able to drive our SUV's and live in 4000 sq ft houses.
It does not take a lot of money to "care" about and for people. Just because the Dems have made the fallacy case that "money=care" doesn't mean the Conservatives have to make the same error in reverse. Our country was founded on the principle of the value of each and every human being as special being created by God. Defining Conservatism needs to be done with care and principle and it should have very little to do with materialism. We need to care more and in a real way about the future of our country and our descendants. And that care and love is the kind of care that requires sacrifice, creativity and optimism. It will need real Leadership from many people.
I think your categories are kinda off, but the Progressive Republicans are the only ones with any long-term future.
If the Republicans want me back, here's a short list of things they will have to do:
(1) Balance the budget. This doesn't mean cutting taxes and then going after popular programs like Medicare, SS, etc. Taxes will have to be raised. Period. The national debt should be paid down. As far as discretionary spending goes, cut the Military's budget. In the 21st century, it's about as useful as roller-skates for a snake in terms of projecting power.
(2) Infrastructure is hurting, big-time. If there was ever a fat, juicy target for some Keynesian pump-priming, this is it.
(3) Put some teeth into the various regulatory agencies, staff them with committed, competent people, and give them the resources they need. Make sure they are not beholden to the groups whose activities they regulate. Again, this is one of those fights Movement Conservatives and ideologues just need to walk away from. Don't waste energy or rhetoric trying to fight yesterday's battles just to motivate the base and redirect attention.
(4) In fact, stop pushing all those red-meat time-wasters. And get religion out of politics: that includes despicable harassment of the non-initiated at the Air Force academy, and to a lesser extent, West Point and Annapolis. Churches that defy this constitutional mandate should lose their tax-exempt status for not less than three years.
(5) Segueing to the final point: contrariwise, whenever possible, listen to the science types, the fact-oriented types. Stop with the hoodoo gimmickry; I don't have the time for fumblydiddles, or the tricky parsing that has become the sin qua non of the modern Republican party. Just give me the facts, straight up, and let me decide for myself. I'm a big boy.
Does anyone else have anything to add (or subtract) from what should be the agenda of the new Republicanism?
Well - again as an Eisenhower Republican - consider the interstate highway system.
That was built 50 years ago. There's a different term for Eisenhower Republicans, today: Clinton Democrats. Eisenhower Republicanism was only possible with the assistance of Rockefeller Republicans, who are no longer a viable faction.
What specific policies do 'social conservatives' favor that mark them as socially conservative? I'm guessing that this is really code for 'religious fundamentalists'.
Not all social conservatives are religious (archie bunker being the archetype), and not all religious social conservatives are fundamentalists (eg, Catholics who vote Republican because of the abortion issue). However, religious or not, fundamentalist or not, there is a faction within the Republican party who is there because their main concern is social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and sex on TV. Calling them "Huckabee Republicans" is fair, except that Huckabee is too closely identified with his willingness to support social programs to back up his social conservatism. The pro-Huckabee voters won't vote against a candidate for not supporting sufficient amounts of social programs. Rather, their biggest priority is to hear their social mores validated in the public sphere. That's why they're the cheapest to pay off in exchange for their support.
Does anyone else have anything to add (or subtract) from what should be the agenda of the new Republicanism?
Similarly, if the the Democrats want the votes of white, Republican-voting southerners, they need to start opposing abortion, advocate getting rid of affirmative action, clamp down on anti-discrimination laws protecting gays, and be more accommodating of teaching creationism in public schools.
Virtues and rights are not the same thing. You can talk about something being a right without implying that you believe it is a good thing to do. This is a distinction that conservatives are starting to forget, and Mike Huckabee exemplifies the problem.
Re: Calling them "Huckabee Republicans" is fair, except that Huckabee is too closely identified with his willingness to support social programs to back up his social conservatism.
The old Religious Right was pretty much a two-trick pony. The main trick involved prudery about sex (which in many cases is what fueled anti-abortion sentiments, though not all pro-Life people are neo-prudes). The sideshow trick involved church-state issues like prayer in schools and the teaching of evolution. But this is starting to change. While the Old Guard, like Dobson, Robertson etc., are stuck in the past a new type of social conservative is emerging who also mixes in a moral view of environmental and social justice issues, and this is especially common among the Christian younger generation. Huckabee, while still pushing all the old buttons, also appealed to this newer, younger Christian Right (as well to Christisns whose own lives are financially stressed) and I expect to see a lot more of this as time moves on.
Several Republicans I know feel the same way as ScentOfViolets. But it's a lost cause for now. The Republicans will have to be in the same position as the Democrats or the Labour party in the 90's before they come to their senses.
Mike Huckabee "gets it" and he knows how to relate that to the people. We have responded and we like the Huckabee brand of Republican. His message of conservatism with a sprinkle of a populist message, his astute endorsement of the Fair Tax, realizing it is a long-term solution to the economy, reaching out to Main Street blue collar/middle class from day one, all signs of someone who can read and relate to people in a way we haven't seen in Washington in years, if ever! Huckabee supporters were disappointed he didn't get the nomination, but with Senator McCain adding Huckabee to his ticket, we can have it a11!!! McCain's expetise on foreign affairs makes him, quite possibly, the only real choice for us in this time of war. Obama has clearly shown he doesn't have a clue on the war and is dangerous in his inexperience and the ideas he has tossed out there. McCain/Huck touts a "unique brand" neither on the GOP elitist "wish list" for the party and this is a huge plus!!!! ..outside the box Republicans!! McCain/Huckabee, both men who have the strongest strength of character and integrity and would make a formidable team, the only team to beat the democrats!!
Conservatism is, be definition, a reaction to something else. You'll have to wait and see what a Democratic administration does before you can predict what the future of the Republican Part will be about. Rest assured, they'll make a comeback. My guess is that President Obama will have to raise taxes and cut spending while withdrawing from Iraq far less artfully than people would like and will then have to draw down the size of the military budget to pre September 11th numbers. This will be necessary to reduce skyrocketing deficits and strengthen the dollar. Along the way, there will be more chaos in the energy sector and the usual government incompetence. Add to this the bombastic cat-calls of the idiotic left and its easy to see a Republican comeback in short order. Probably, it will mirror Reagan's 1980 strategy - blame everything on Carter, take advantage of the hard choices HE had to make and then take credit for resulting improvements while claiming that its 'morning in America'. A classic "conservative" Republican recipe. By the 2016 election, if Obama's been a good president, the left will be claiming they need a "real liberal" and the right will claim that the Democrats are "out of ideas". Read Andrew Sullivan's columns for when he jumps the S.S. Obama to tell when the wind has officially changed direction and the Republicans can start signing "good times are here again".
If you're trying to imply that what I listed is anything but straight-up old-fashioned Republicanism, you can bite me. I see nothing particularly 'liberal' about wanting a balanced budget, or wanting to repair or upgrade infrastructure badly in need of refurbishment, or getting religion out of politics. Or, for that matter, making sure my kids aren't getting toys with lead in them for Christmas, or that mine safety regulations are scrupulously followed.
And it is precisely those - what did you call them - "white, Republican-voting southerners" - who oppose abortion, advocate getting rid of affirmative action, are against anti-discrimination laws protecting gays, and want accommodations made for the teaching of creationism in public schools, yes, those guys who are in part responsible for why the Republican party is where it is today. Why _anybody_ would cater to those yahoos is beyond me. _Especially_ if they think that getting rid of legal protection for gays or teaching creationism in school is more important than balancing the budget.
I would also mention that I know more than a few people who have quit buying the Republican brand out of sheer disgust over the last eight years. They're people like me, who actually voted for George I back in '88, and who would have voted for him over Reagan back in '80. We don't vote for Democrats. We vote against Republicans.
There seems to be an assumption about Governor Huckabee that is in error. Mike has stated clearly that he is a federalist. To define Mike as a centrist, big Federal Government is wrong. To use his conservative powers as a governor is not the same as being a president. That is where this country has lost it's way. The difference between running a State and running the Federal Govenrmnet is the oposite ends fo the coin. In the 10th amendment, what do you think it means that the federal government has no powers not inumerated in the Constitution?
Mike Huckabee is a federalist and said as much in an interiew on the Glenn Clark show. HIs comments toward the LIbertarian party points to their values continuing down through State Government where social welfare is acceptable practice and needed at times. Also, the libertarians draw voters away from the republicans, thoughs who are the Goldwater types. Yet even the Goldwater types by majority hold State poowers as being different then those of the Federal Government.
Lynn Rayborn,...you are spot-on!!! Mike Huckabee, if chosen as McCain's v.p., will most certainly add the charisma, charm, humor AND sensibility that is so lacking in ANY of the candidates in this race! Mike is one heck of a speaker and really connects with people. One needs to remember that those that voted for Huckabee in all those primaries are still on-the-fence as to whether they will even vote in this election or not,...but the majority of them passionately believe in their guy Mike, and will move heaven and earth (with manpower, money,and volunteerism)to see the Republicans win in November ONLY IF HUCKABEE IS ON THAT TICKET!!!
The country has reached a point of no return, in my opinion. No party actually supports shrinking, or even just holding the line on, the role of the federal government, and this fact alone means the present system will collapse from the financial consequences.
Taxes cannot be raised enough to actually finance the drift of the people into dependence on government handouts. This is the thing that most everyone misses in the above comments. The only way you can actually stop this trend is to shrink the government. Republicans have completely abandoned even giving lip service to this any longer. The only class of Republicans described as holding to this, the Goldwaters, are actually the libertarians, and they are a very small fraction of the electorate- not enough to stand as bulwark, and certainly not enough to serve as base for the Republican Party.
I think the legislative Democrats win in a landslide this fall with a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate, and if McCain cannot hold the White House and give us a divided government, you are going to see vast, new government spending and taxes in the attempts to finance new government healthcare initiatives. The country will then be set to further cannibalize itself in the futile attempt to provide free lunches to everyone. This ends in one of two ways- totalitarianism or revolution, neither of which is to be wished for from our present position in history.
Uh, gee, yuh mean the bit where I said we should cut military spending doesn't count as shrinking the government? Yuh mean we shouldn't raise taxes to retire government debt(which would shrink overall government expenditures as well)?
This sort of knee-jerk response is _not_ what is going to serve anyone very well. Well, maybe some guys who need a few spear carriers to hide behind.
ScentOfViolets:
In a truly ignorant statement that reflects a complete lack of knowledge of the actual behavior of congress you say
The end result of the tax hikes you are lusting after is1. No reduction in deficits, because congress always outspends whatever additional tax revenue they get.
2. The theft of money from hard working people in order to give it to people that are wealthier then the taxpayers.
The Bipartisan Folly of Farm Subsidies How the latest farm bill provides welfare for the wealthy
and Congress has been utterly, profoundly, and consistently reckless with fiscal policy. Until they demonstrate fiscal restraint the idea that giving them more money will fix the problem is lunatic.Judging by the incoherence and confusion of the above posts, I'd say that "the future of the right" looks like (to paraphrase Orwell) a donkey stomping on an elephant's face, forever.
re: 1. No reduction in deficits, because congress always outspends whatever additional tax revenue they get.
Were you in hibernation during the 1990s?
I call making shit up. Pew did an extremely detailed analysis of political views among the American electorate a few years ago, and found three major Republican groups: Enterprisers (elite pro-business conservatives), Social Conservatives (the name says it all, but note that they're supportive of government regulation), and Big Government Conservatives (lower-class socially conservative voters who are big supporters of government regulation and social spending). None of these groups really supports limited government.
McCain is progressive?!
Good grief, delusional thinking on the right is far from dead, apparently.
Brooksfoe,
A dispirited opposition will seem incoherent to the other party.
However, SOV's comments are an actual example of incoherence.
JonF,
That was a benefit of divided government, something we lacked from 2001 to 2007, and increasingly looks like we won't have after next January.
Sigh. You know, Yancey, you might actually try backing up what you say, instead of calling others incoherent. You might even - occasionally - admit that you were wrong. Try it some time; it's actually quite liberating.
From SOV:
.How would you know?
Iow, (a) you have no way to justify what you were saying - and how could you, given that proof was posted from withing this thread showing you were dead wrong, and (b) even though you were wrong, and even though you constantly prate about 'responsibility', you have no intention of taking any responsibility and admitting you were wrong.
Of course, to the Right, responsibility is always for someone else, never to be applied personally. Yet another reason why the Republican party is in such disarray. People get real tired of the continual barrage of in-your-face hypocrisy.
Thanks, heaps, Yancey.
Re: That was a benefit of divided government, something we lacked from 2001 to 2007, and increasingly looks like we won't have after next January.
Maybe that's true, but it still puts the lie to the adverb "always" in the original post I quoted. And even if we donlt have divided government in the near future I still rather expect a decline in one major category of expenditures, military. Should we quit dumping 200 billion or so a year on the endless bonfire of Iraq our budget may right itself.
SOV,
Support for what, exactly? This is what I was meant when I wrote about your consistent incoherence. I am guessing that you are referring to my statement about not being able to raise taxes enough to cover all the unfunded liabilities that the governement has taken on. I will stand by the statement since those unfunded liabilities now stand at over 50 trillion dollars in net present value, and they grow in real terms year after year. And we have presidential candidates promising even more unfunded liabilities to put on top of it. One of two things will happen, either the promises will have to be rescinded, or the system crashes and everyone ends up much, much poorer.
However, feel free to prove me wrong.
Done. You said:
To which I responded by referencing a previous post:
So. You. Were. Wrong. Trivially so.
Yuh mean we shouldn't raise taxes to retire government debt(which would shrink overall government expenditures as well)?
How are overall government expenditures reduced by raising taxes to retire government debt (that is financing prior & current expenditures)? Because those tax dollars are unavailable for new expenditures? Less interest payments?
as a conservative independant. I can only vote for a Mccain/ Huckabee ticket. nothing else. Mitt romney represents wallstreet / elists and if repubs want to even have a chance they will have to put the two people together that represents the people rather than wall street.