The Fall of Conservatism?

[ISiddiqui]

Ok, a long article in the same guise as the Vanity Fair article on Clinton, but I consider it to be one of the best articles on politics I've read in quite a long while:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...fa_fact_packer

I think the general themes are correct. The Republicans can't run elections like Nixon used to ("positive polarization") and have to come up with something new. The point that Reagan's success may have hurt the Republicans in the long run (ie, the 'what do we do now' phenomenon and not coming up with much) is well taken and, IMO, Republicans need to step back and see what they want to stand for.

Now, it should be obvious that I consider myself to stand much more with the "Reform Republicans" in the article. Those that know that government is necessity for certain things, but hope to use government in conjunction with market incentives to get things done rather than govenment planning.

It seems the author believes McCain is the right Republican for this race (any one else would be doomed) and he's probably on the right path. The future of the party will have to build on McCain, but that seems to be the path to future electoral success... especially as the country seems to drift leftward as they noticed the Bush Administration had no real ideas about the problems facing the working class.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

It seems to me that the ideal of Ronald Reagan is held to such a high regard with Republicans that if Ronald Reagan came along today he would be discounted as a flip-flopping Ex-Democrat who couldn't be trusted to not revert to his liberal ways.

[SFL Cat]

I think the fall of conservatism is greatly exaggerated.

[Brian Swartz]

I think the evidence is overwhelmingly obvious that the problem Republicans have is not that conservatism is dead, but that Republicans no longer govern as conservatives. Their strategy has been to mix a few elements like low taxes with co-opting issues from the Democrats, with a healthy dose of arrogance and corruption thrown in. A far cry from the days when Foley, Rostenkowski et al. is what they were fighting against.

When you abandon the principles that got you in office, you shouldn't be surprised at what happens to you. It isn't that traditional conservatism(i.e., the Gingrich brand to be more specific) no longer has ideas or has gone out of style or can't be the foundation of a winning philosophy. It's that nobody believes Republicans have the will to fight for those ideas anymore. And that's pretty much an accurate perception.

[Young Drachma]

Conservatism itself has never been strong. Just the way the Republicans have tried to brand it hasn't worked. But the Democrats are a dying brand too. Next election cycle we'll see the rise of net-based parties, that get their start on the web.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I think the fall of conservatism is greatly exaggerated.

The title of the article is hyperbolic, of course (the byline is more accurate of what the article is about "Have the Republicans Run Out of Ideas")... it's more about the recent Fall of the Republican Party and its current brand & strategies.

It seems that the author is saying that the Republicans are divided into two camps. The older bigwigs are saying the Republicans aren't conservative enough these days, while the younger ones are saying there needs to be some reform in the conservatism brand. Not "less government, less government, less government", but "smarter government, based on market solutions".

Cause as it points out, Reagan realized that while people like tax cuts, they don't respond all that well when you tell them you are going to completely cut out programs they like.

[ISiddiqui]

In a few snippits, this is what I think is the main point of the article:

Yuval Levin, a former Bush White House official, who is now a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, agrees with Gingrich’s diagnosis. “There’s an intellectual fatigue, even if it hasn’t yet been made clear by defeat at the polls,” he said. “The conservative idea factory is not producing as it did. You hear it from everybody, but nobody agrees what to do about it.”

Pat Buchanan was less polite, paraphrasing the social critic Eric Hoffer: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

After Reagan and the end of the Cold War, conservatism lost the ties that had bound together its disparate factions—libertarians, evangelicals, neoconservatives, Wall Street, working-class traditionalists. Without the Gipper and the Evil Empire, what was the organizing principle?

In its final year, the Bush Administration is seen by many conservatives (along with seventy per cent of Americans) to be a failure. Among true believers, there are two explanations of why this happened and what it portends. One is the purist version: Bush expanded the size of government and created huge deficits; allowed Republicans in Congress to fatten lobbyists and stuff budgets full of earmarks; tried to foist democracy on a Muslim country; failed to secure the border; and thus won the justified wrath of the American people. This account—shared by Pat Buchanan, the columnist George F. Will, and many Republicans in Congress—has the appeal of asking relatively little of conservatives. They need only to repent of their sins, rid themselves of the neoconservatives who had agitated for the Iraq invasion, and return to first principles. Buchanan said, “The conservatives need to, in Maoist terms, go back to Yenan.”

The second version—call it reformist—is more painful, because it’s based on the recognition that, though Bush’s fatal incompetence and Rove’s shortsighted tactics hastened the conservative movement’s demise, they didn’t cause it. In this view, conservatism has a more serious problem than self-betrayal: a doctrinaire failure to adapt to new circumstances, new problems. Instead of heading back to Yenan to regroup, conservatives will have to spend some years or even decades wandering across a bleak political landscape of losing campaigns and rebranding efforts and earnest policy retreats, much as liberals did after 1968, before they can hope to reëstablish dominance.

Recently, I spoke with a number of conservatives about their movement. The younger ones—say, those under fifty—uniformly subscribe to the reformist version. They are in a state of glowing revulsion at the condition of their political party. Most of them predicted that Republicans will lose the Presidency this year and suffer a rout in Congress. They seemed to feel that these losses would be deserved, and suggested that, if the party wins, it will be—in the words of Rich Lowry, the thirty-nine-year-old editor of National Review—“by default.”

in his final years Buckley understood that his movement was cracking up. “He told me, ‘The conservative movement lost its raison d’être with the end of Communism and never got it back.’ ”

Polls reveal that Americans favor the Democratic side on nearly every domestic issue, from Social Security and health care to education and the environment. The all-purpose Republican solution of cutting taxes has run its course. Frum writes, “There are things only government can do, and if we conservatives wish to be entrusted with the management of government, we must prove that we care enough about government to manage it well.”

Frum believes that the Republicans need their own equivalent of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, to make it safe for Republican candidates to tell their interest groups, such as evangelical Christians, what they don’t want to hear: that they need to mute their demands if the Party is to regain a majority. At lunch, he said, “The thing I worry about most is if the Republicans lose this election—and if you’re a betting man you have to believe they will—there will be a fundamentalist reaction. Not religious—but the beaten party believes it just has to say it louder. Like the Democrats after 1968.” He added, “A lot of the problems in the Republican Party will not be fixed.”

Perhaps for that reason, Brooks left movement journalism and, in 2003, became a moderately conservative columnist for the Times. “American conservatives had one defeat, in 2006, but it wasn’t a big one,” he said. “The big defeat is probably coming, and then the thinking will happen. I have not yet seen the major think tanks reorient themselves, and I don’t know if they can.” He added, “You go to Capitol Hill—Republican senators know they’re fucked. They have that sense. But they don’t know what to do. There’s a hunger for new policy ideas.”

McCain doesn’t try to stir a crowd’s darker passions or its higher aspirations. He doesn’t present himself as a conservative leader; he is simply a leader. His favorite book, according to Salter, is “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” because it’s the story of a man who struggles nobly even though he knows the effort is doomed. McCain says to audiences, Here I am, a man in full, take me or leave me. This might be the only kind of Republican who could win in 2008.

Ok, maybe a bit more than a few snippets, but its a large article and he talks to a lot of conservative minds about the problem.

[Huckleberry]

Brian Swartz answered the question. The Republican Party is not conservative. They favor big government just as much as the Democrats, they simply favor its largesse in different arenas.

The Republican/Democrat dichotomy is not about conservativism versus liberalism anymore. It's simply two different sides of the same liberal coin.

[JPhillips]

I think Republicans have to find a more contemporary leader. Continuing to fall back on Ronald Reagan is killing them with younger voters. Recently someone told me that people under thirty likely have no memory of Reagan. Continuing to campaign on Reagan will play to a smaller and smaller voting demo.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Brian Swartz answered the question. The Republican Party is not conservative. They favor big government just as much as the Democrats, they simply favor its largesse in different arenas.

The Republican/Democrat dichotomy is not about conservativism versus liberalism anymore. It's simply two different sides of the same liberal coin.

I'd argue, they are following the voters. (Most) People like the idea of small government, but not the practicality of it.

[Brian Swartz]

You can argue that if you want, but it just isn't so. Poll after poll has shown that, for example, the decline in Bush's support has had a clear #1 cause -- and it wasn't Iraq. It was the fact that conservatives became fed up with his refusal to deal with fiscal responsibility and stop exploding the budget. They also don't like how Iraq was handled, or his amnesty program, or lots of other things, but the thing that really ticked them off and sent them off the reservation was the disregard for fiscal discipline and the endorsement of the spend, spend, spend some more entitlement claptrap.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Conservatism itself has never been strong. Just the way the Republicans have tried to brand it hasn't worked. But the Democrats are a dying brand too. Next election cycle we'll see the rise of net-based parties, that get their start on the web.

I think this is a wildly inaccurate prediction and unsubstantiated by numerous polls.

The Republican brand is fine. There was a recent poll done where questions were phrased either with a generic solution to a problem or with a party attached to the solution. When it was stated as a Republican idea the solution polled better than in the generic.

The real problem that was whether it was a generic or Republican branded solution it was unpopular. I think we're just shifting cycles. For a long time the solutions Republicans had to offer were good matches to the problems of the day. Right now the problems are different and so Democratic solutions are more popular. Eventually Democrats will over extend and the problems will change and suddenly the same Republican solutions which are out of favor now will suddenly look a lot better.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

You can argue that if you want, but it just isn't so. Poll after poll has shown that, for example, the decline in Bush's support has had a clear #1 cause -- and it wasn't Iraq. It was the fact that conservatives became fed up with his refusal to deal with fiscal responsibility and stop exploding the budget. They also don't like how Iraq was handled, or his amnesty program, or lots of other things, but the thing that really ticked them off and sent them off the reservation was the disregard for fiscal discipline and the endorsement of the spend, spend, spend some more entitlement claptrap.

Poll after poll? I'd love to see one since Bush's support among republicans is much higher than among independents and democrats. If you what you were suggesting was true it would be low among Republicans.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

You can argue that if you want, but it just isn't so. Poll after poll has shown that, for example, the decline in Bush's support has had a clear #1 cause -- and it wasn't Iraq. It was the fact that conservatives became fed up with his refusal to deal with fiscal responsibility and stop exploding the budget. They also don't like how Iraq was handled, or his amnesty program, or lots of other things, but the thing that really ticked them off and sent them off the reservation was the disregard for fiscal discipline and the endorsement of the spend, spend, spend some more entitlement claptrap.

I really doubt this statement. Maybe with a carefully-worded question you can get a lot of people to decry out-of-control spending, but in any reasonable presentation of what it actually means, there is no wave of political repercussion from spending public funds. Sure, there are *some* people who are pissed off at President Bush for his so-called out of control spending... but that's not the full third of the voting public who have bailed out on him during his tenure in office. Besides, his essential spending problem is almost entirely contained in two areas -- expanding Medicare to cover prescription medications, and funding our war effort. It's not like he has been spending like a drunken sailor on NASA or agriculture or transportation or foreign aid or the other, less obvious, components of a routine federal budget.


Spend more. Don't raise taxes to pay for it. Better yet, cut them. Let someone else deal with the resulting debt. Profit.

This isn't that tough, gang.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Poll after poll? I'd love to see one since Bush's support among republicans is much higher than among independents and democrats. If you what you were suggesting was true it would be low among Republicans.

To substantiate my assertion Survey USA breaks things down by state and ideological considerations (among others). Taking a look at several different states, self-identified Conservatives rate Bush MUCH higher than self identified moderates or liberals.

hxxp://www.surveyusa.com/50StateTracking.html is where I looked.

[ISiddiqui]

I can understand some getting on him for Medicare, but fiscal discipline? Reagan busted budgets too due to military spending. And as said, Conservatives still like him. Hell, they are the only ones that do.

[rowech]

Bush's economic policies and complete obstinance are the reason he has lost my support. I am still for the war despite how f-ed up it is. We were at war with terrorism long before 9/11 and the Iraq war. Finally, we have put the war on their lands instead of ours.

However, for him to continually be so snide and self-absorbed with how things have gone and how things are being run is beyond me. His economic policies are outrageous at best.

[SackAttack]

I think two things are at play here. One is the branding issue. Republican politicians pay fealty to the idea of Ronald Reagan and what he meant to the party, going so far even as to anoint "Reagan Republicans." Republicans who can't find a way to somehow pay their political respects to Don Reagan typically don't have much of a future in national politics.

As time passes and new elements of the electorate come of age, though, you have - as somebody else pointed out, I believe - a segment of the party for which such displays of fealty are less relevant than what policies the candidate actually stands for.

Which leads to the second thing, which is that the gulf has grown pretty wide between social and fiscal conservatism. It's not that conservatism has died, it's that there's no longer a working truce between the two. The social conservatives have their agenda, and that agenda is more important to them than fiscal policy.

Folks who are fiscally conservative, though, may be socially ideologically diverse, which makes it harder to trumpet the message loudly without the staunch support of either the social liberals or the social conservatives.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Which leads to the second thing, which is that the gulf has grown pretty wide between social and fiscal conservatism. It's not that conservatism has died, it's that there's no longer a working truce between the two. The social conservatives have their agenda, and that agenda is more important to them than fiscal policy.

Folks who are fiscally conservative, though, may be socially ideologically diverse, which makes it harder to trumpet the message loudly without the staunch support of either the social liberals or the social conservatives.

This I think is very true. There is nothing out there to unify both parts of the party (like Communism was). Fiscal conservatives are not necessarily on board with the Christian right on issues of abortion or gay rights. And Social conservatives are saying, well, tax cuts are nice and all, but where is our stuff being advocated? I think social conservatives probably really like Bush (Roberts & Alito, and he's been forcefully against gay marriage and stem cell research), but fiscal conservatives aren't all that enamoured and thus don't feel like they have to jump on the social conservative part. McCain seems to be more a fiscal conservative move (wants to cut spending by eliminating earmarks, anti-lobbyist, etc) and they don't care if he pisses off some social conservatives in the process.

[Brian Swartz]

Poll after poll? I'd love to see one since Bush's support among republicans is much higher than among independents and democrats. If you what you were suggesting was true it would be low among Republicans.

Presumably David Duke's support would be higher among republicans than independents or democrats as well. It would be true of ANY republican leader. That's pretty much beside the point.

Pew Research Center, March of 2006. They examined the change in support among people who voted for Bush, from the time he was elected until March of '06(the pattern has continued). His approval rating declined from 92% to 68% among these people. Among all groups it was the same -- those who supported Iraq, Republicans as a whole, evangelicals, didn't matter much, it was going south and in a hurry among people who had supported him.

The Club for Growth, November 2006. Survey done just ahead of the 2006 midterms, in districts generally considered safe Republican areas. Republicans were considered to be far worse by the respondents in areas of big government/fiscal discipline, and particularly on point to QuikSand's assertion is the following question:

"All other things being equal, which type of candidate for Congress would you be more likely to vote for? A candidate who wants to reduce overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district; or, a candidate who is willing to increase overall spending on federal programs and grow the federal budget, in order to get more federal spending and projects for your district?"

57.3% Cut Spending
27.6% Bring home projects

65.8% Agreed with the assertion that "The Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose."

And on and on it goes.

[Barkeep49]

I think there's definitely truth to Sack's analysis about the divides with-in conservativism, which is what makes Bob Barr's candidacy more interesting than most Libertarian nominations.

[Barkeep49]

Brian, can you link to those polls so I can take a look at them?

[Brian Swartz]

http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=271
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/11..._limited_g.php

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The Club for Growth, November 2006. Survey done just ahead of the 2006 midterms, in districts generally considered safe Republican areas. Republicans were considered to be far worse by the respondents in areas of big government/fiscal discipline, and particularly on point to QuikSand's assertion is the following question:

"All other things being equal, which type of candidate for Congress would you be more likely to vote for? A candidate who wants to reduce overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district; or, a candidate who is willing to increase overall spending on federal programs and grow the federal budget, in order to get more federal spending and projects for your district?"

57.3% Cut Spending
27.6% Bring home projects

65.8% Agreed with the assertion that "The Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose."

And on and on it goes.

Perfectly fine push poll, but I'm not sure that it demonstrates much about why Mr Bush has lost so much popularity. Interesting stuff, though.

[SFL Cat]

Reagan was ancient when he won the election, and as a young pup I still voted for him. For me, it was the message, and the new direction Reagan took the party. The split really became evident when Gerald Ford was running for reelection and ended up in a primary dogfight with Reagan (much like the current Democratic situation) that ended up going to the convention. Reagan wowed a lot of people with his conservative message.

Up until that point, there really wasn't much difference, at least in my mind, between the Democrats and Republicans. The power brokers of the Republican Party at the time were simply Democrat-lites. The party was never particularly successful up to this point, as evidenced by over 40 years of Democratic dominance of the Congress.

Current Republicans have talked the talk to get elected, but haven't walked the walk once in Washington. To me, the Republican Party has come full circle and has basically positioned itself where it was during the Nixon years. A losing strategy in my mind...why vote for Democrat wannabes when you can have the real thing?

[Brian Swartz]

What it says about Republicans in general(i.e., that Democrats are superior on fiscal matters even among those who generally vote Republican) is a lot more important and revealing than anything it might say about Bush specifically. And also, more relevant as to assessing what Republicans need to do to re-energize the conservative moment.

[Barkeep49]

Now without having looked at the polls I do have a few comments:

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Presumably David Duke's support would be higher among republicans than independents or democrats as well. It would be true of ANY republican leader. That's pretty much beside the point.

This is a mendacious analogy to say the least. Presumably David Duke would not have a rating around 50%, as Bush does with Republicans.

Beyond that here's the line I think Brian is off about.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Poll after poll has shown that, for example, the decline in Bush's support has had a clear #1 cause -- and it wasn't Iraq. It was the fact that conservatives became fed up with his refusal to deal with fiscal responsibility and stop exploding the budget.

This suggests a hypothesis that Moderate and Liberal support of Bush has stayed about the same and that it is Conservative changes, in response to Bush's failures with fiscal responsibility, that have caused Bush's low approval ratings. This hypothesis is NOT supported by the polls he's linked to.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

What it says about Republicans in general(i.e., that Democrats are superior on fiscal matters even among those who generally vote Republican) is a lot more important and revealing than anything it might say about Bush specifically. And also, more relevant as to assessing what Republicans need to do to re-energize the conservative moment.

I agree with that, more so than your original argument.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Taking a look at several different states, self-identified Conservatives rate Bush MUCH higher than self identified moderates or liberals.

Perhaps, but there are a large number of people that self-identify as conservatives only because they vote Republican. That don't have a clue as to what it really means to be in favor of a conservative political ideology.

[Brian Swartz]

This suggests a hypothesis that Moderate and Liberal support of Bush has stayed about the same and that it is Conservative changes, in response to Bush's failures with fiscal responsibility, that have caused Bush's low approval ratings. This hypothesis is NOT supported by the polls he's linked to

Well I had no intention of suggesting that. America has always been divided into thirds: conservative, moderate, and liberal. Elections and movements are won by the more activist, energetic third. What matters to Republicans, period, is whether or not they can energize their base. If you have a philosophy that does so, it will win enough converts from the other thirds to form a majority. Bush's support has declined among all groups. But why it is has declined among conservatives is what's important, and as I said why support for Republicans in general has also declined, is what matters as far as the future or lack thereof in the GOP is concerned.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Perhaps, but there are a large number of people that self-identify as conservatives only because they vote Republican. That don't have a clue as to what it really means to be in favor of a conservative political ideology.

I would tend to agree with you, but am missing the broader point you're making.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

I would tend to agree with you, but am missing the broader point you're making.

It's hard to energize a self-described section of the electorate if they don't understand what it is they're supposed to be energized by.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Well I had no intention of suggesting that. America has always been divided into thirds: conservative, moderate, and liberal. Elections and movements are won by the more activist, energetic third.

I don't really agree with this analysis of elections, but it is one that can certainly be supported by some research and so I understand where you're coming from.

What matters to Republicans, period, is whether or not they can energize their base. If you have a philosophy that does so, it will win enough converts from the other thirds to form a majority. Bush's support has declined among all groups. But why it is has declined among conservatives is what's important, and as I said why support for Republicans in general has also declined, is what matters as far as the future or lack thereof in the GOP is concerned.

I still maintain that the GOP has solutions in need of problems. The Democratic Party's positions haven't really changed all that much since '04, they've just gotten bolder about saying certain things because it's a different environment, one more friendly to Democratic positions.

[SFL Cat]

...the younger ones are saying there needs to be some reform in the conservatism brand. Not "less government, less government, less government", but "smarter government, based on market solutions".

I think anyone who has had to deal with the bureaucracies that inevitably grow up around government programs will recognize this to be a bit of an oxymoron. I've never known the government to do anything smarter...and it definitely DOESN'T work on market principals.

After Reagan and the end of the Cold War, conservatism lost the ties that had bound together its disparate factions—libertarians, evangelicals, neoconservatives, Wall Street, working-class traditionalists. Without the Gipper and the Evil Empire, what was the organizing principle?

I think the new breed of Islamo-Fascists more than adequately feel the void. I grew up in the cold war climate...and honestly these Muslim fanatics scare me much more. Despite having enough nuclear weapons pointed at each other to kill every one on the planet a dozen times over...there was a part of me that believed neither side would actually be insane enough to pull the trigger. If a terrorist could detonate a small nuclear device and take a city with him...I have no doubt he would do it.

Polls reveal that Americans favor the Democratic side on nearly every domestic issue, from Social Security and health care to education and the environment. The all-purpose Republican solution of cutting taxes has run its course. Frum writes, “There are things only government can do, and if we conservatives wish to be entrusted with the management of government, we must prove that we care enough about government to manage it well.”

That must be why Democrats campaign on raising everyone's taxes. Seriously, the Democrats love to spout all the ways the government is going to make everyone's life better (anyone remember LBJ's great society?), but they never go into the detail of how they'll pay for it (Dirty secret...they don't pay, we do). And trust, me. Once a government program gets put in place...it's there forever. If there isn't enough money, people cut back on things, if the government runs short of money...they just run up higher deficits...or raise taxes.

McCain doesn’t try to stir a crowd’s darker passions or its higher aspirations. He doesn’t present himself as a conservative leader; he is simply a leader. His favorite book, according to Salter, is “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” because it’s the story of a man who struggles nobly even though he knows the effort is doomed. McCain says to audiences, Here I am, a man in full, take me or leave me. This might be the only kind of Republican who could win in 2008.

I'm seriously considering sitting out of this one. McCain ain't my guy. If enough people do the same thing...then that is why McCain will lose. Obama is a lightweight...he has no record to run on...and so far, has been very nebulous about what he plans on doing...typical Democratic all style, no substance campaign. If he does win, I suspect we'll have another Jimmy Carter-like presidency to recover from in four years.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

That must be why Democrats campaign on raising everyone's taxes. Seriously, the Democrats love to spout all the ways the government is going to make everyone's life better (anyone remember LBJ's great society?), but they never go into the detail of how they'll pay for it (Dirty secret...they don't pay, we do). And trust, me. Once a government program gets put in place...it's there forever. If there isn't enough money, people cut back on things, if the government runs short of money...they just run up higher deficits...or raise taxes.

This is disingenuous since Democrats generally don't tell you how they'll pay for their new spending and Republicans don't tell you how they'll pay for their new tax cuts. A pox upon both parties. Or maybe both parties know that campaigning on specific programs to cut or taxes to be raised is a political loser.

[Brian Swartz]

I still maintain that the GOP has solutions in need of problems.

I think this largely depends on one's political ideology. In many areas the parties don't agree on what the problems are. Taxes/inequity of wealth are a good example. I don't see any significant planks in a conservative platform that address problems not perceived to exist by a substantial part of the GOP base.

[st.cronin]

I have often thought that the difference between the two parties was cultural, rather than political or philosophical. The growth of the Republican party during the Reagan years had less to do with Reagan's ideology than with the fact that Ron and Nancy were the kind of people that Americans wanted to be like, or be around. The Bush Presidents have been less successful at this, but are more successful than Gore, Dole, or Kerry.

Leaders of both parties generally have very similar visions for what America should be like - and in neither case is it very different from what America actually is. Obama and McCain basically have the same values - and they don't differ sharply from the values of Bush or Kerry.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Recently someone told me that people under thirty likely have no memory of Reagan.

Lucky ducks.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Lucky ducks.

Hell, I remember reading something about the generation that doesn't even remember Lollapalooza. And that was in 1999...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

What matters to Republicans, period, is whether or not they can energize their base.

At the risk of a minor quibble, wouldn't that pretty much apply to all serious candidates regardless of party affiliation? The only possible exception I can think of would be something like a near universal anti-somebody vote, but even then those are effectively the energized base for the eventual winner (albeit energized by who he isn't instead of who he is)

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Hell, I remember reading something about the generation that doesn't even remember Lollapalooza. And that was in 1999...

Heck, I've heard over a billion chinese people don't even remember Lollapalooza.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

This is disingenuous since Democrats generally don't tell you how they'll pay for their new spending and Republicans don't tell you how they'll pay for their new tax cuts. A pox upon both parties. Or maybe both parties know that campaigning on specific programs to cut or taxes to be raised is a political loser.

I disagree with the whole notion of having to "pay" for a tax cut. That implies the government is entitled to a certain percentage of my paycheck. According to the Constitution, the government operates by the consent of the people. The idea of the government "allowing" me to keep more of my money only if it can afford for me to is a$$-backward.

However, I will agree that Republicans are just as gutless as the Democrats when it comes to being honest about the ramifications of their proposals. If tax cuts mean less revenues (which isn't always the case), then our legislators need to make tough decisions on cutting things out of the budget rather than running higher deficits.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Lucky ducks.

I heart Reagan!!! Best president in my lifetime so far....

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I heart Reagan!!! Best president in my lifetime so far....

Worst one in mine. Only one I actually despised actually. Hated the man. Hope he enjoys the flames. He was evil incarnate.

Apologies for insulting evil actually.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I disagree with the whole notion of having to "pay" for a tax cut. That implies the government is entitled to a certain percentage of my paycheck. According to the Constitution, the government operates by the consent of the people. The idea of the government "allowing" me to keep more of my money only if it can afford for me to is a$$-backward.

However, I will agree that Republicans are just as gutless as the Democrats when it comes to being honest about the ramifications of their proposals. If tax cuts mean less revenues (which isn't always the case), then our legislators need to make tough decisions on cutting things out of the budget rather than running higher deficits.

Not sure why the politicians should be any different than the people they represent.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Axxon

He was evil incarnate.

Funny...I thought that was Bill Clinton...

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Not sure why the politicians should be any different than the people they represent.

Only one problem with that analogy ... people go to jail when they can't pay their debts ... government just prints more money, which ultimately devalues the currency.

But, hey, if you think the government is entitled to your paycheck...by all means...

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Funny...I thought that was Bill Clinton...

I can understand that. The country was actually doing well during his terms in office. That's never a good thing.

[Axxon]

[gkb]

The Teaching Company has a course called Great Presidents.

In it they cover 12 "great" Presidents...here's the list:

• George Washington
• Thomas Jefferson
• Andrew Jackson
• James K. Polk
• Abraham Lincoln
• Theodore Roosevelt
• Woodrow Wilson
• Franklin Roosevelt
• Harry S Truman
• John F. Kennedy
• Lyndon B. Johnson
• Ronald Reagan

With a few posts on Reagan and Clinton I thought I'd share...I've never ordered the course, but I thought the list was interesting. I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on whether or not Reagan was a great President.

Here's quick quote from the course information page I linked above:

But, states Professor Lichtman, "they each possessed the qualities that all great presidents seem to share: They had an unsinkable ambition, deep affinity with the American people, and a strong inner core of guiding values and principles."