A philosophical re-alignment in American politics
Conservative Republicans have always had a clear and straightforward political philosophy: cut government, retain traditional values. Repubs under Bush have essentially stuck with the traditional values, but generally have not followed the gov't-cutting approach. Hence the fiscal mess. Bush has taken the Repubs to a new philosophy: fiscal liberalism and social conservatism. Cut taxes, increase spending, oppose abortion rights and gay unions, etc.
(Side note: I really don't think that what Bush has done is any different from what conservatives have always done - Reagan was also a big spender, but because Dems controlled the House during the Reagan years, there was always a "wink, wink" it's really the Dems' fault. But at the least, under Bush this has become much more clear due to the absence of Dems running things.)
OK. But here's the problem: Libertarian-leaning folks have typically aligned themselves with conservative Repubs in the past, mainly because they liked the fiscally conservative aspect of Republicanism. But at the same time, they've had to hold their noses for the religious-right social-conservative elements of the party, who are obviously not very libertarian-leaning. So now under Bush's fiscally-liberal socially-conservative brand of Republicanism, the element that remained attractive to libertarians is gone, and the element that turned them off is still there.
But I'm not really talking about who libertarians vote for - there probably aren't that many of them anyway, and if they're serious enough they probably vote for the LP. Instead, I'm talking about a kind of philosophical re-alignment. The meaning of 'conservative Republican,' the philosophy driving it, has changed. Or at least it has been revealed to be different from what people thought it was.
Now the problem with Democrats has always been that they seem to have not had a philosophy, or at least to not be as philosophically driven as conservatives. Their philosophy has just been "we're not as mean as Republicans: We spend a little more and moralize a little less."
But I think liberals Dems can take advantage of this philosophical re-alignment. I'd like to see a new Dem party with the following ideals:
1. Be fiscally conservative. This means balancing the budget like Clinton. Get rid of farm subsidies. Pull in enough revenue to pay for what we spend. Take advantage of the Republican weakness on this. You are the party of fiscal conservatism, compared to Repubs. Own it.
2. Be socially liberal. The Dems are already there on this one. But even more so, and unapologetically because it's part of a philosophy of liberal freedom rather than a distaste for traditional values. But this also means no speech codes. Liberals can be authoritarian too, and they shouldn't be.
3. States' rights. This is something that Howard Dean talked about. And it's something that can be combined with the social liberalism/fiscal conservatism. Reduce federal spending with the agreement that states will pick up the slack. Protect basic rights such as abortion and free speech and religious liberty, etc., but let states experiment more. If a state wants to let their citizens use drugs legally, so be it. If they want gay marriage, so be it. Within basic limitations, allow more or less gun control and abortion access/funding. As long as they're not taking people's rights away, let 'em at it. Lay out some basic principles: a certain amount of health care, welfare, etc., that should be universal in the US. Beyond that, let the states do what they want. Again, Repubs have completely given up on states' rights with things like the marijuana laws. Dems should fill the void.
The Dems are already most of the way there, but I'm not sure if any of the current Dems articulate this kind of approach. Come to think of it, Dean probably most closely matched these ideals.
\ But there really is no unifying principle there now. I think a philosophy of classic liberalism, or maybe a socially progressive libertarianism - as opposed to a kind of Darwinian libertarianism which seems to be prominent now - could tie together some of the trends occurring over the past several decades in American politics.
Would this work? Stupid idea? Did anyone actually read this whole thing?
(Side note: I really don't think that what Bush has done is any different from what conservatives have always done - Reagan was also a big spender, but because Dems controlled the House during the Reagan years, there was always a "wink, wink" it's really the Dems' fault. But at the least, under Bush this has become much more clear due to the absence of Dems running things.)
OK. But here's the problem: Libertarian-leaning folks have typically aligned themselves with conservative Repubs in the past, mainly because they liked the fiscally conservative aspect of Republicanism. But at the same time, they've had to hold their noses for the religious-right social-conservative elements of the party, who are obviously not very libertarian-leaning. So now under Bush's fiscally-liberal socially-conservative brand of Republicanism, the element that remained attractive to libertarians is gone, and the element that turned them off is still there.
But I'm not really talking about who libertarians vote for - there probably aren't that many of them anyway, and if they're serious enough they probably vote for the LP. Instead, I'm talking about a kind of philosophical re-alignment. The meaning of 'conservative Republican,' the philosophy driving it, has changed. Or at least it has been revealed to be different from what people thought it was.
Now the problem with Democrats has always been that they seem to have not had a philosophy, or at least to not be as philosophically driven as conservatives. Their philosophy has just been "we're not as mean as Republicans: We spend a little more and moralize a little less."
But I think liberals Dems can take advantage of this philosophical re-alignment. I'd like to see a new Dem party with the following ideals:
1. Be fiscally conservative. This means balancing the budget like Clinton. Get rid of farm subsidies. Pull in enough revenue to pay for what we spend. Take advantage of the Republican weakness on this. You are the party of fiscal conservatism, compared to Repubs. Own it.
2. Be socially liberal. The Dems are already there on this one. But even more so, and unapologetically because it's part of a philosophy of liberal freedom rather than a distaste for traditional values. But this also means no speech codes. Liberals can be authoritarian too, and they shouldn't be.
3. States' rights. This is something that Howard Dean talked about. And it's something that can be combined with the social liberalism/fiscal conservatism. Reduce federal spending with the agreement that states will pick up the slack. Protect basic rights such as abortion and free speech and religious liberty, etc., but let states experiment more. If a state wants to let their citizens use drugs legally, so be it. If they want gay marriage, so be it. Within basic limitations, allow more or less gun control and abortion access/funding. As long as they're not taking people's rights away, let 'em at it. Lay out some basic principles: a certain amount of health care, welfare, etc., that should be universal in the US. Beyond that, let the states do what they want. Again, Repubs have completely given up on states' rights with things like the marijuana laws. Dems should fill the void.
The Dems are already most of the way there, but I'm not sure if any of the current Dems articulate this kind of approach. Come to think of it, Dean probably most closely matched these ideals.
\ But there really is no unifying principle there now. I think a philosophy of classic liberalism, or maybe a socially progressive libertarianism - as opposed to a kind of Darwinian libertarianism which seems to be prominent now - could tie together some of the trends occurring over the past several decades in American politics.Would this work? Stupid idea? Did anyone actually read this whole thing?
Comments
Blustery, big money conservative... until 9/11, the corporate scandals and the Bush administration. Jobs are flooding out and illegal immigrants are pouring in. He hasn't necessarily taken a big step left but almost every night he has reports about American jobs being wiped away by corporate globalization (nee outsourcing), illegal immigrants and their impact on American jobs and U.S. security, and so on. Really a remarkable-- not turnaround, but he's definitely attacking the established columns that he covered back when it was "Moneyline with Lou Dobbs".
He still has the right bias reflex, but...
Screed
(p.s. vote libertarian)
Clearly a sign of the End Times.
Conservative television news anchor Bill O'Reilly said on Tuesday he was now skeptical about the Bush administration and apologized to viewers for supporting prewar claims that Iraq (news - web sites) had weapons of mass destruction.
So Dems gaining strength and a new identity, established conservatives and Reps losing the faith and the independents more active than ever. Could we being seeing the realignment go so far as a new party!? (And not just ego trips like those of Perot and Nader).
Screed
Problem is that Democratics don't have any gumption nor talent outside Clinton. So no, they can't articulate it, or propogandize it as it were.
Fellows
Originally posted by Fellowship
The conservatives are looking worse and worse by the day. I am getting to the point where I despise them.
Fellows
Hey, it's okay for me to despise conservatives, but you've become our Beacon of Hope for civility here in AO-land, so you've got to grit your teeth and love even the unlovable, even when the rest of us aren't up to the challenge.
Originally posted by shetline
Hey, it's okay for me to despise conservatives, but you've become our Beacon of Hope for civility here in AO-land, so you've got to grit your teeth and love even the unlovable, even when the rest of us aren't up to the challenge.
I can love them and not vote for them you know
Fellows
Originally posted by billybobsky
Fiscally conservative doesnt mean simply balancing the budget in most people's minds. It means decreasing the size of government and operating it on a showstring budget. Niether party can claim that as their ideal and a socially liberal party cannot ever operate a government on a shoestring budget nor should it be expected to.
Is that so? Many Libertarians consider themselves to be socially liberal. What exactly do you mean?
Mainly, my point is this -- a government which supports an extended set of liberal principles including social welfare and improvement/education cannot operate on a downsized budget.
I often hear of it referred to as this, but wasn't the government pulling in huge tax surpluses? While this is certainly better than overspending, it's still not a balanced budget because the government was severely overtaxing the public.
It's all well and good to take the extra cash and dole it out, but I for one would be far happier with a government that came close to a true balanced budget and kept as much money in the hands of its citizens as possible.
As far as staying on-topic is concerned, I like the ideas laid out, but I don't see the current culture in the democratic party as being one that is ready for a philosophical shift in the way it operates. I think Clinton was doing a good job of redirecting the focus of democrats, but due in no small part to a lot of the anti-Bush feelings within a large part of the democratic community, they've taken a few steps back insofar as I can tell. But that's just my opinion, and it could very well be wrong.
Will made some very good points. Basically there are three big issues where we all want strong/big government. Education, elderly, and health care. When you see where lots of big spending by Bush has gone, it is in these areas.
The real issue is that in these three areas, the Democrats aren?t going to have any credibility about spending less because all the Bush proposals have been declared underfunded. We have a prescription drug benefit, that the cost has already gone up over $100 billion. We have No Child Left Behind spending more federally than we have ever spent before. We have a deficit rushing up toward 500 billion and the Democratic complaint in these areas are that they are underfunded.
Now on to some of the other points....
1. Be fiscally conservative. This means balancing the budget like Clinton. Get rid of farm subsidies. Pull in enough revenue to pay for what we spend. Take advantage of the Republican weakness on this. You are the party of fiscal conservatism, compared to Repubs. Own it.
Even Clinton didn't balance the budget. He had two years of true balance, but if you look at historical numbers for stock market gains, it is clear it was in a bubble. He reaped the bubble, but neither he nor the Republican Congress made any real cuts.
The only party that is truly going to gain on this issue is the one who is willing to take everyone on who has their hand in the cookie jar. Neither party has shown the backbone to do this.
2. Be socially liberal. The Dems are already there on this one. But even more so, and unapologetically because it's part of a philosophy of liberal freedom rather than a distaste for traditional values. But this also means no speech codes. Liberals can be authoritarian too, and they shouldn't be.
It would be much easier for everyone to be socially liberal if Democrats would get out of the blame game. It is the blame game that has driven the white male voter out of their party when as Dean mentions, they actually have many similar interests they could share as a voting block with other groups. But while the race and gender baiters are advancing the socially liberal agenda basically by advancing blame the white guy. They aren?t going to be credible. Lastly socially liberal means acknowledging that men have needs as well and pressing for true equality. That might mean coughing up race based affirmative action for need based affirmative action for example. It might mean we stop making divorced dad ponder being a paycheck away from jail time. In otherwords you have to return the social agenda to everyone instead of making it a game of blame the white guy.
3. States' rights. This is something that Howard Dean talked about. And it's something that can be combined with the social liberalism/fiscal conservatism. Reduce federal spending with the agreement that states will pick up the slack. Protect basic rights such as abortion and free speech and religious liberty, etc., but let states experiment more. If a state wants to let their citizens use drugs legally, so be it. If they want gay marriage, so be it. Within basic limitations, allow more or less gun control and abortion access/funding. As long as they're not taking people's rights away, let 'em at it. Lay out some basic principles: a certain amount of health care, welfare, etc., that should be universal in the US. Beyond that, let the states do what they want. Again, Repubs have completely given up on states' rights with things like the marijuana laws. Dems should fill the void.
I would love to see a return to states rights. However I doubt the left could truly tolerate this. You for example will say states should be able to decide who should marry, but I don?t recall any tears about Texas not being able to decide who can commit sodomy.
Both parties have resorted to the fed since one fight gains the prize. Abortion was a states rights issue before Roe v. Wade and would be again if the imaginary right to privacy were overturned. But the real point is that you want YOUR issues federalized and other people?s issues left to the states. Shouldn?t states be able to decide, for example whether their state education funds are spent on public or private schools? Even private schools that are religious? (no one would claim you couldn?t get a federal grant or loan for Notre Dame University for example)
In California we have passed numerous states rights laws regarding the state services that must be provided for immigrants that are a federal responsibility. Almost every single one of them have been overturned and had support for them being overturned by liberals. If you want to truly support states rights, support the right of states to let their own police work to learn the immigration status of some criminals and let them be deported. Let the states ask about immigration status so they can sue the federal government for the lack of control of their own border.
The Dems are already most of the way there, but I'm not sure if any of the current Dems articulate this kind of approach. Come to think of it, Dean probably most closely matched these ideals. But there really is no unifying principle there now. I think a philosophy of classic liberalism, or maybe a socially progressive libertarianism - as opposed to a kind of Darwinian libertarianism which seems to be prominent now - could tie together some of the trends occurring over the past several decades in American politics.
Would this work? Stupid idea? Did anyone actually read this whole thing?
First the Dems are far from there. The disagreement = hate, bigotry, etc. crowd is in full control.
I posted quite a while ago how Dean could win back the white male vote, and as a result easily win the White House. It would require immigration reform. An immigration moratorium to allow current immigrants, semi-skilled white workers, and unions to all start gaining some ground and getting some power to get off the bottom rung economically. They could, as I mentioned move into family court reform and endorse things like default joint custody of children in a family where neither parent has been abusive. They could endorse fair trade instead of just free trade. It really doesn?t matter what jobs are worth what wage and where they are going when it is the WEALTH that is being transferred via trade deficits.
However whenever this is proposed, the first words out of the mouth of many Democrats is racism. (See blame game) Any talk of immigration reform = racism according to many liberals. Even when they admit the immigrants are being EXPLOITED by big business and are being done so because American citizens have rights and would not tolerate it, the desciption used to is that it is racist to suggest immigration reform.
So current immigrants, low wage white workers (especially the white southern textile type workers Dean was claiming could be a sympathetic voting block) and unions are all tossed aside for the racial blame game.
Any male actually having a need, or seeking equality in a family court is called... misogyny. When you have groups claiming that men deserve no rights are less than equal rights in these courts, you are going to watch them vote for Republicans. They will do so even when it is not in their interest economically to do so because they don?t have a choice when the otherside is calling for them to tolerate their lives being destroyed at the whim of the courts.
Finally fair trade, when I have addressed this the same word comes up again, racism. Discussion of fair trade turns to talks of racism because most of the countries we run deficits with are non-white. American equal or America first with regard to trade policy is not racism. How can people scream Bush isn?t creating jobs, yet call him a racist if he took steps against China or India to stem those job losses. If you think I am making this up just ask yourself who Bush has slapped tariffs on, (Europe) and who he has not (India) to see that race is a big part of dealing with our trade issues. It needs to stop. Putting America first isn?t code for racism. While leftist elements continue to claim this they will lose allies on the right who would help form this new philisophical direction in politics.
Nick
Originally posted by rageous
One point I'd like to make is my take on Bill Clinton's "balanced budget"
I often hear of it referred to as this, but wasn't the government pulling in huge tax surpluses? While this is certainly better than overspending, it's still not a balanced budget because the government was severely overtaxing the public.
The national debt wasn't paid off yet. It makes a whole lot of sense to finally start paying down the principal on that debt rather than just servicing the interest on the debt ad infinitum, acting like an irresponsible individual with maxed-out credit cards, always making no more than minimum payments.
Situations will arise that push us into deficit, like wars and unforeseen economic downturns. If you subscribe to Keynesian economics, short term deficit spending can be used by government as a tool for economic stimulus in hard times.
If you allow for deficit, however, but rule out counterbalancing surpluses that can be used to pay off debts, debt will be perpetuated forever. Until the national debt is wiped out, I can't see automatically calling any surplus a sign of "overtaxation".
Of course, for the current crop of "tax cut and spend" Republicans, tax cuts are the solution to everything.
Surplus? We're taking too much of your money! You need a tax cut!
Deficit? The economy must need stimulation. You know what might get things going? A tax cut!
I would point out merely for posterity that historically, this "flip" in party philosophy, attitude, goals, whatever, has happened before. The Republicans of today were the Democrats of the Civil War years and vice versa. Even in the days of Woodrow Wilson , these parties represented almost sort of opposite attitudes about social, economic and political thought. FDR in good part turned things upside down for the parties. It's not a perfect about-face in philosophy of course, but it's remarkable.
This is also reflected in voting patterns, where the South was once a bastion of the Democrats, it is increasingly leaning towards Republicans. I mean, who would have thought any time between say 1933 and 1979 that Democrats would be pushing for states rights and what's left of federalism in the country?
I think for as much as I dislike Bill Clinton, he's probably a major reason (credit? blame? depends on your point of view) why this has happened. He co-opted Republican issues, took up a centrist/populist position and finally won over what was becoming a old habit of electing Republican presidents. Obviously, voting in the first Republican Congress in ages during his presidency runs counter to this to a fair extent, but I think that's just lessons learned.
Originally posted by trumptman
Nick
I don't know how you do it . . . I mean, you must type very very very fast!!!!
I really can't read half of your posts and keep up with a thread as well as live my life and get any work done . . . . how do you do it?
This is not an insult by the way . . .
Originally posted by Ganondorf
(p.s. vote libertarian)
I won't vote libertarian because I don't like a Dickensian jungle of a civilization
balance: freedom and shared civic responsibility
Citizenship is not only for those who 'earn' it -meaning: can pay for it (as some Libertarians have indicated in another thread)
We don't live in ancient Rome, we have developed a sophisticated balance of the social and the individual, I would hate to see it all devolve into some sort of dark robber baron age where there is no vehicle for real governance and no non-profit organ for mediating and overseeing private and corporate power . . . ie: some govermnment is a good thing.
Originally posted by pfflam
I don't know how you do it . . . I mean, you must type very very very fast!!!!
I really can't read half of your posts and keep up with a thread as well as live my life and get any work done . . . . how do you do it?
This is not an insult by the way . . .
Actually, if you looked at the number of typos in that post, the answer would be, not very well.
Also as Shawn loves to point out, I am infamous for forgetting commas.
Nick
you seem to be under the misperception that your pet peeve is the result of 'Liberals'
In fact I think that the idea that women should take care of the kids in all circumstancces is usually reserved for conservatives . . . I know that where i live (I mean in the neighborhood) there are MEN who take care of the kids (I sure take care of my daughter during the day more than my wife) and they are 'Liberals' . . .
it is the socially conservative mindset that believes that women=home=child-rearer=whole grain goodness
This attitude is a residue of the fantasy land known as "family values" . . . which really is a cartoon where every cookie is still warm and the floors are clean, the lawn is soft and wood-smoke lofts from the nieghboors chimney etc etc
in other words: your basic TV conservative's notions of what is right for women and what is right for men