2012 Presidential Election - The Ups and Downs

[astralis]

dale,

Mmm hmm. How about as compared to the 1950s?

ah, you mean how Korean War veterans complained how no one gave a crap about them because everyone was too busy watching "I Love Lucy"? that's why the other term for the Korean War is "The Forgotten War"...

but anyway, i digress.

if you really think that we're more liberal now than in the 1950s-60s, where 75% of the public "trusted government most or all of the time" (compared to 20% today), when republicans openly talked about expanding certain areas of the New Deal, and when democrats openly talked about huge new social programs to "end poverty"...then i don't know what type of data will persuade you that liberalism has actually weakened considerably over time.

there's a reason why they call it the Reagan Revolution.

[astralis]

JAD,

You're right; neither side has changed very much since 1935. We're arguing that the liberal agenda has dominated American politics for too long. 77 years is a long time.

but that's not what i'm saying.

i'm saying that both sides HAVE changed considerably since 1935. republicans have gotten more conservative since the 1950s, probably closer to where they were in the late 1920s or 30s.

democrats, on the other hand, have ALSO become more conservative. the New Dem of the 1990s and to a lesser extent even the average Dem of today espouse the policies of the republicans in the 50s. Clinton said this himself: "We’re Eisenhower Republicans here. We stand for lower deficits, free trade, and the bond market. Isn’t that great?"

the liberal agenda stopped dominating American politics in 1980. at best, it's been fighting a rear-guard action since then.

[dalem]

dale,



ah, you mean how Korean War veterans complained how no one gave a crap about them because everyone was too busy watching "I Love Lucy"? that's why the other term for the Korean War is "The Forgotten War"...

but anyway, i digress.

if you really think that we're more liberal now than in the 1950s-60s, where 75% of the public "trusted government most or all of the time" (compared to 20% today), when republicans openly talked about expanding certain areas of the New Deal, and when democrats openly talked about huge new social programs to "end poverty"...then i don't know what type of data will persuade you that liberalism has actually weakened considerably over time.

there's a reason why they call it the Reagan Revolution.

That's okay, I don't mind disagreeing on stuff. :)

Clinton said this himself: "We’re Eisenhower Republicans here. We stand for lower deficits, free trade, and the bond market. Isn’t that great?"

As I recall, Clinton said a lot of things. :)

-dale

[JAD_333]

JAD,



but that's not what i'm saying.

i'm saying that both sides HAVE changed considerably since 1935. republicans have gotten more conservative since the 1950s, probably closer to where they were in the late 1920s or 30s.

You should have let it go and take credit for some great insight.

But since you disown the compliment, I'll proceed to demolish your contention.

I am sure you'll agree that the words conservative and liberal are relative terms. That being the case, one could make zany conclusions, such as, if all those who are considered conservatives are vaporized in one moment, the very next moment
they would be replaced by a whole new set of conservatives, all of whom would have been former liberals. That is, liberals who were among the most right among the liberal faction. Thus, conservatives and liberals are counterweights in a political system, divided by the center line, whatever it may be at the time. That never changes, no matter how the issues change.

Since 1935, liberals--I use the term in the modern sense--have had a political advantage, supported by a majority of voters, in carrying out a progressive agenda, adding one social program after another and creating new agencies to administer them. Conservatives by and large have gone along mainly through mitigating compromises, but always somewhat reluctant and warning that the central government is getting too big, too intrusive and too controlling. (To be sure, conservatives have sometimes sought voter support by promising progressive measures.)

The liberal-progressive run has left us with what you see around you, a mixed record of wise measures, such as Social Security and Civil Rights protections, and a mess of costly entitlement programs, regulations, subsidies, and competing agencies. Like a rubber band you can only move in a progressive direction so far before something snaps.

So, the change you see on the conservative side is NOT greater conservatism, but conservatism approaching the end of its tolerance level. On the liberal side today, you see the habitual striving for more progressiveness, but a dearth of good ideas to sustain it.

Nothing has changed in terms of the basic dynamics of politics today, and everything in terms of the tension between the two ends of the counterweight. Things are going the conservative way and when it dominates, it will bring changes and consolidations (not wholesale undoings) that will eventually reach a point of diminishing returns, at which point the liberal side will have been pushed to the end of its tolerance level, and once again we'll swing the liberal direction. It's all good.

democrats, on the other hand, have ALSO become more conservative. the New Dem of the 1990s and to a lesser extent even the average Dem of today espouse the policies of the republicans in the 50s. Clinton said this himself: "We’re Eisenhower Republicans here. We stand for lower deficits, free trade, and the bond market. Isn’t that great?"

Yes. It's a mistake always to associate a conservative or liberal label to a party or to everyone in a party. I expect Republicans and Democrats to enter into a much more bipartisan phase once the pendulum swings right.

the liberal agenda stopped dominating American politics in 1980. at best, it's been fighting a rear-guard action since then.

Yes, a rear guard action...but also these swings of the pendulum don't happen all at once. The liberals have shot their wad, but not their political penchant for appealing for votes with promises of new programs to solve social problems or promises to protect older programs from the mean conservatives. That engine is sputtering.

[astralis]

JAD,

But since you disown the compliment, I'll proceed to demolish your contention.

I am sure you'll agree that the words conservative and liberal are relative terms. That being the case, one could make zany conclusions, such as, if all those who are considered conservatives are vaporized in one moment, the very next moment
they would be replaced by a whole new set of conservatives, all of whom would have been former liberals. That is, liberals who were among the most right among the liberal faction. Thus, conservatives and liberals are counterweights in a political system, divided by the center line, whatever it may be at the time. That never changes, no matter how the issues change.

Since 1935, liberals--I use the term in the modern sense--have had a political advantage, supported by a majority of voters, in carrying out a progressive agenda, adding one social program after another and creating new agencies to administer them. Conservatives by and large have gone along mainly through mitigating compromises, but always somewhat reluctant and warning that the central government is getting too big, too intrusive and too controlling. (To be sure, conservatives have sometimes sought voter support by promising progressive measures.)

The liberal-progressive run has left us with what you see around you, a mixed record of wise measures, such as Social Security and Civil Rights protections, and a mess of costly entitlement programs, regulations, subsidies, and competing agencies. Like a rubber band you can only move in a progressive direction so far before something snaps.

So, the change you see on the conservative side is NOT greater conservatism, but conservatism approaching the end of its tolerance level. On the liberal side today, you see the habitual striving for more progressiveness, but a dearth of good ideas to sustain it.

Nothing has changed in terms of the basic dynamics of politics today, and everything in terms of the tension between the two ends of the counterweight. Things are going the conservative way and when it dominates, it will bring changes and consolidations (not wholesale undoings) that will eventually reach a point of diminishing returns, at which point the liberal side will have been pushed to the end of its tolerance level, and once again we'll swing the liberal direction. It's all good.

david brooks makes the same argument this week in the NYT.

the issue i have with this description is, if it's true that we've been living in a liberal world with conservatism fighting the rearguard action to at best constrain the state-- then what does modern-day conservatism look like? what does a conservative end-state look like?

gilded age america? ron paul america? what is it?

it seems to me that your argument is that the Reagan Revolution was akin to the North Africa campaign in 1942; "the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end." i suppose that makes sense if the 1870s is the true republican goal; but what strikes me is that republicans dare not actually say this. i wonder why.

[JAD_333]

JAD,



david brooks makes the same argument this week in the NYT.

Brooks senses the same thing I was talking about, although he doesn't speak to the inevitability of cycles.

He asks two key questions:

This is what this election is about: Is the 20th-century model obsolete, or does it just need rebalancing? Is Obama oblivious to this historical moment or are Republicans overly radical, risky and impractical?

I don't believe the old model is obsolete so much as it is unable, with liberals in the lead, to consolidate, trim and retrench. Certainly, not everything the old model accomplished is obsolete. Together both factions, with conservatives in the lead, will compromise to preserve the best that the old model gave us, and if that goes too far in, say, 40-50 years, a new rebalancing may be needed.

Who can say Obama is oblivious to what's happening. He talks like he is, but campaign rhetoric can mask what a person really thinks. Even of if he believes the liberal agenda has run its course, he can't escape like Clinton did by co-opting GOP positions. If he did that, he would look too much like a Republican to his base. I wouldn't judge the outcome of the liberal-conservative fight so much by whether Obama wins or loses, as by how the Congressional elections turn out. If Republicans retain control and gain seats, Obama will have little choice but to follow the lead of conservatives.

the issue i have with this description is, if it's true that we've been living in a liberal world with conservatism fighting the rearguard action to at best constrain the state-- then what does modern-day conservatism look like? what does a conservative end-state look like?

That's true, but at the outset, conservatives had just given way to liberals, and because of the hard times, even embraced certain liberal measures. By compromise, the conservatives were able to have a say in the final result. But since the 1930s, liberals, basking in the glory of success, were sometimes over-rewarded by the electorate, and were able to break free of the constraints of compromise. When this happened, they ran amuck, pushing conservatives further to the right.

gilded age america? ron paul america? what is it?

Neither. It's an engine overhaul, not a scraping of the car.

it seems to me that your argument is that the Reagan Revolution was akin to the North Africa campaign in 1942; "the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end."

You could put it that way.

i suppose that makes sense if the 1870s is the true republican goal; but what strikes me is that republicans dare not actually say this. i wonder why.

I am not seeing the linkage between the decisiveness of the N.Africa campaign and the 1870s being the Republican goal. What is it about the 1870s that you think Republicans yearn for? Reconstruction? Political domination?

[JAD_333]

Romney like you've never seen or heard him. Something magical about being interviewed in a cornfield...?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...;ftnImageStack

[astralis]

JAD,

missed this.

were sometimes over-rewarded by the electorate, and were able to break free of the constraints of compromise. When this happened, they ran amuck, pushing conservatives further to the right.

i'd say for goldwater and reagan, in particular, their rise was powered by conservative republicans tired of moderate republicanism's compromises with liberals. "a choice, not an echo." the issue was not liberals "breaking free of the constraints of compromise", but rather the opposite: the feeling that republicans were getting too cozy and making too many deals with liberals!

What is it about the 1870s that you think Republicans yearn for? Reconstruction? Political domination?

laissez-faire economics; the end of the welfare state. the more ron paul you go, the truer this is; he wants to end the fed and go for isolationist america.

[JAD_333]

JAD,

missed this.

i'd say for goldwater and reagan, in particular, their rise was powered by conservative republicans tired of moderate republicanism's compromises with liberals. "a choice, not an echo." the issue was not liberals "breaking free of the constraints of compromise", but rather the opposite: the feeling that republicans were getting too cozy and making too many deals with liberals!

Remember the slogan Goldwater launched when he accepted the GOP nomination:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

That last part takes some explaining. I am sure you understand what he meant. To me the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act reflects his thinking.

Not only did it require an annual defense strategy assessment, but it required actions which would stop wasteful spending at DoD.

The mood of the country back in 1960 when Goldwater's book, Conscience of a Conservative, came out was less raucous than today, but he anticipated where it would lead in time.

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. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

And to underscore the difference between the conservatism of his time and now, you'll like this:

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. (bold added)

As for...

laissez-faire economics; the end of the welfare state. the more ron paul you go, the truer this is; he wants to end the fed and go for isolationist america.

Ron Paul will, at best, provoke a debate over the Fed and US military bases overseas, but his dream (if he has one) of going back to some log cabin era is never going to happen. I exclude sentiments of the past, such as fervor for liberty, etc. They come and go all the time.

[Double Edge]

So i finally mustered up the courage to get into this thread and look at what i see..

Suppose Romney wins...
The Republicans will -just like the Democrats in 2008 failed to do- have to put up or shut up when it comes to the economy. The GOP has spent the last 4 years railing against Obama, Pelosi, Reid etc and their fumbling of jobs and growth etc. Well boys, you just might get your chance. You damn well better have something in mind...and it sure as shit better not be pointing to what a failure Obama was. That was one of his biggest mistakes with regard to Bush.

That's also what sank the dems in 2004. You know it, and so does everybody else but that bolded bit does not fill me with confidence about a republican win in Nov at all

I guess one of the reasons i've been unable to get excited about your elections is deep down i'm thinking republican congress + democrat president is good enough :bang:

Obama will win the election and the Right will have to howl in pain and disgust for another four years.

Oh crap i knew it.

What does it mean ?

All that goodwill & momentum Bush built up with my country got squandered. We're just gonna hold hands and say sweet nothings to each other for another four more years.

One unequivocal downside to Obama losing: The Left, Hollywood, MoveOn.org, Code Pink etc will, after a not-even-close-to-being-mysterious silence for the past four years, suddenly regain the ability to speak and once again start railing against the warmongering GOP every time a drone finds and sends another terrorist to hereafter.

I can't say that I've missed that constant cacophony of liberal-minded pacifistic bullshit

Otherwise an interesting thread comparing positions over the years. Keep it going.

[JAD_333]

So i finally mustered up the courage to get into this thread and look at what i see..

What thoughts passed through your mind as your hand sat nervously on the mouse--to click or not to click. :)

I commend you for a tongue in cheek response.

[astralis]

JAD,

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

heh, considering how goldwater did in that particular election one could safely assume that a considerable portion of that era's electorate disagreed there.

not that i disagree with all of goldwater, as you pointed out re: his beliefs in religious freedom below. i'm also glad that he (although not as loudly as his fellow conservative buckley) denounced the John Birch Society. i have a feeling many conservatives today would pander to it.

Ron Paul will, at best, provoke a debate over the Fed and US military bases overseas, but his dream (if he has one) of going back to some log cabin era is never going to happen. I exclude sentiments of the past, such as fervor for liberty, etc. They come and go all the time.

well, his message is certainly much more prominent now than at any other time in his career.

frankly, the republican party of today is really dominated by those whom WANT a return to the past, mythical or not. it's not really about the unveiling of a new conservative vision, but a rehashing of old ones: the canonization of Reagan; a new "Contract with America". same with the Tea Partyers and the Ron Paulians: it is not so much about adapting conservatism to the 21st century, but about returning to some previous golden era of conservatism. you quoted goldwater, and this part fits perfectly well:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.

and that is precisely what i find mistaken with their view. it's no longer about a small-c conservative attempt to make government function better, but a rather more radical "tear everything down!" howl. taken to the extreme-- and it has been-- good governance is to be ignored at best and detested at worst, as it persuades people that government might not be the suffocating tyranny that it is portrayed to be.

very much akin to revolutionaries hating reformers, because it keeps the overall system and thus perpetuates/abets the ruling class...

as much as i detest gingrich's base populism, i have to give him credit for trying to create a new conservative vision. it's been a while, really.

[JAD_333]

JAD,



heh, considering how goldwater did in that particular election one could safely assume that a considerable portion of that era's electorate disagreed there.

Johnson made him out to be a nuclear war threat, but that was only the icing on the cake. It was 1964 and the Civil Rights Act was in the offing, Vietnam was just beginning. The Kennedy era was still alive. Goldwater was the beginning of conservative reaction to a well-lodged liberal dominance Conservative chaffing had yet to build to where it is today.

not that i disagree with all of goldwater, as you pointed out re: his beliefs in religious freedom below. i'm also glad that he (although not as loudly as his fellow conservative buckley) denounced the John Birch Society. i have a feeling many conservatives today would pander to it.

Yes, and on the other end there are many who adore the socialist viewpoint.

frankly, the republican party of today is really dominated by those whom WANT a return to the past, mythical or not. it's not really about the unveiling of a new conservative vision, but a rehashing of old ones:

This is where you make your biggest mistake, as do a majority of liberals and democrats. Applying fundamental conservative ideas is not going back to the past. It is to prevent the long liberal trajectory of the past 70 years from undermining the future. Given the current economy and the fiscal state of the country, conservatives don't need to articulate a new vision just yet. That will come later. It is enough for now to envision flattening the liberal trajectory and putting the country on a sound fiscal path.

the canonization of Reagan; a new "Contract with America". same with the Tea Partyers and the Ron Paulians: it is not so much about adapting conservatism to the 21st century, but about returning to some previous golden era of conservatism. you quoted goldwater, and this part fits perfectly well:

The liberal progressive believes that if you stop the federal government from solving social problems, it's bad because it's going backwards. That makes for nice rhetoric, but it's meaningless. There is no proof that every idea rooted in the past is anathema to the present? Smaller government is not an old idea; it's a relative idea, relative to a dominant view of the role of government. If we depart from the liberal path, we don't go backwards; we take a different path that doesn't necessitate a large government. The conservative ideal is to limit the liberal ideal as it exists at any point in time. It's the liberals who are living in the past and the conservatives who are concerned about the present and future.

and that is precisely what i find mistaken with their view. it's no longer about a small-c conservative attempt to make government function better, but a rather more radical "tear everything down!" howl. taken to the extreme-- and it has been-- good governance is to be ignored at best and detested at worst, as it persuades people that government might not be the suffocating tyranny that it is portrayed to be.

very much akin to revolutionaries hating reformers, because it keeps the overall system and thus perpetuates/abets the ruling class...

as much as i detest gingrich's base populism, i have to give him credit for trying to create a new conservative vision. it's been a while, really.

Come on, Asty. That is so much liberal propaganda. And Gingrich...look at how far his ideas got him. It's not that he doesn't have good ideas, but that the election isn't about pie in the sky; it's about the economy and who will do a better job getting it going again.

[astralis]

JAD,

This is where you make your biggest mistake, as do a majority of liberals and democrats. Applying fundamental conservative ideas is not going back to the past. It is to prevent the long liberal trajectory of the past 70 years from undermining the future. Given the current economy and the fiscal state of the country, conservatives don't need to articulate a new vision just yet. That will come later. It is enough for now to envision flattening the liberal trajectory and putting the country on a sound fiscal path.

i'd say by default it IS going back to the past-- you yourself acknowledge that the goal is to prevent, or to be more accurate unroll the long "liberal trajectory" of the past 70 years.

reform or replacement is not the goal; unrolling is.

the ultimate goal is not to substitute a liberal version of social security or medicare for a conservative market-based method (although that may be an intermediate step), but to undo it altogether.

If we depart from the liberal path, we don't go backwards; we take a different path that doesn't necessitate a large government.

that's actually something we Third Wayers like to say.

It's the liberals who are living in the past and the conservatives who are concerned about the present and future.

and moderates who do something about it. :)

Come on, Asty. That is so much liberal propaganda.

i don't think so. what was reagan's famous quote? "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

that's the problem with the conservative-liberal split; it's more concerned about the size of government rather than the competence of government. solutions tend to be predicated on size. this dept sucks? conservative view tends to be, 'let's cut funding/eliminate it.' liberal view tends to be, 'it is underfunded.'

but that the election isn't about pie in the sky; it's about the economy and who will do a better job getting it going again.

shouldn't be too much to ask for both. clinton had both a new vision and did a pretty good job of getting it going again.

[Double Edge]

What thoughts passed through your mind as your hand sat nervously on the mouse--to click or not to click. :)

That you all might convince me the repubs have a chance within a 3 page thread.

Was slso thinking this thread would be a summary of the other 60 odd pages one.