The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Obama's election best thing for GOP?
Atomika
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
So, John McCain went down. Hard.
But moreso than anything, the Republican Party took a beating. In this election cycle, not only was the presidency lost, but nearly too was any sort of stake in Congress. And thank the fuck Christ for all that. And what's the kicker?
I'm a Conservative.
But much like several more well-known conservatives before me, I've all but severed ties to the GOP. I've never really been one anyway to champion party loyalty (a phenomenon I've long and up-until-lately derided certain left-leaning voting blocs for), and I've never been able to reconcile any system that somehow lumps every argument into two party positions without a cacophony of dissonance, though it's increasingly apparent that such intellectual hurdles do not encumber many of our fellow voters.
So thank goodness for Barack Obama. Personally, I think he's a socialist nightmare, but at least he seems like an honest person, a presidential quality I personally cannot vouch an assumption in since Ronald Reagan, nor did I find in runners-up McCain, Palin, or the entirety of other primary candidates (with special emphasis on Hillary Clinton). In America's journey to racial parity, there was one most obvious river to cross, and for that we all could have done much worse.
But now, like the Democrats in 2004, the Republicans are on a rain-slicked precipice and must look to a new direction for relevance and salvation. I am happy to see that, much like James Carville was the first to do in '04, the large swath of the GOP has internalized their failures of this campaign season instead of searching for answers as to why and how the Democrats "stole the election." I am not happy, however, to see such a large part of the organization turn to people like Gov. Sarah Palin as the voice of this new rescue.
Karl Rove in 2004 brought about the zenith of the Moral Majority movement that started as far back as the early 1960s with Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and wielded this movement across both sides of the aisle (with the more-than-occasional bipartisanship from populists in the Clinton/Gore camps). But much like the ecumenical faith of the evangelicals that made up the lion's share of this voting bloc, discourse had turned from the belief that decency and morality were obligations of both citizen and state, to the current stance (so witnessed by just recently in California and Florida) that judgment in these natures need be enforced by writ of law. Instead of choosing leaders that espoused these qualities, the Republican Party now backed candidates who would demand those qualities of everyone at the threat of criminality, regardless of personal freedom or logical need. The path these choices lie on is fraught with needless and divisive peril, though well-lit by each and every mindless auto-theocrat that carries a torch for such an illogical drive to tear this nation apart in misguided righteousness.
So whither thou, conservatism? The party that wears your emblem is now the party that runs roughshod over personal liberty, attempts to enforce lifestyle choices by law, spends our nation into impossible debts, and grows the borders of governmental interference to enormous boundaries. Yes, yes, the principles of objectivism and libertarianism and capitalism still work with endless proficiency, yet the GOP is no longer the party that exhibits them; they are now some horrible half-beast, spending without taxing, growing without helping, defending without protecting.
There are still people out here who believe in ambition as the primary tool of success, but also realize that you cannot propagate success while your neighbor cannot find work. The grandly-harvested crop is fruitless if all other fields lay fallow, for now there is more need with less supply. We have to be accountable to ourselves first, but just as importantly we have to be accountable to each other. That is the only covenant that binds us regardless of race or creed. The foundations of Conservatism hold that government's primary responsibilities are the protection of its citizens and the protections of their opportunities to succeed.
To say the least, the future of the Conservative movement is cloudy at this point and its prognosis is negative should the evangelicals get their way. Though I don't wish that to pass, perhaps if it does it affords us the leverage for what many have long wanted for: a viable third party.
But moreso than anything, the Republican Party took a beating. In this election cycle, not only was the presidency lost, but nearly too was any sort of stake in Congress. And thank the fuck Christ for all that. And what's the kicker?
I'm a Conservative.
But much like several more well-known conservatives before me, I've all but severed ties to the GOP. I've never really been one anyway to champion party loyalty (a phenomenon I've long and up-until-lately derided certain left-leaning voting blocs for), and I've never been able to reconcile any system that somehow lumps every argument into two party positions without a cacophony of dissonance, though it's increasingly apparent that such intellectual hurdles do not encumber many of our fellow voters.
So thank goodness for Barack Obama. Personally, I think he's a socialist nightmare, but at least he seems like an honest person, a presidential quality I personally cannot vouch an assumption in since Ronald Reagan, nor did I find in runners-up McCain, Palin, or the entirety of other primary candidates (with special emphasis on Hillary Clinton). In America's journey to racial parity, there was one most obvious river to cross, and for that we all could have done much worse.
But now, like the Democrats in 2004, the Republicans are on a rain-slicked precipice and must look to a new direction for relevance and salvation. I am happy to see that, much like James Carville was the first to do in '04, the large swath of the GOP has internalized their failures of this campaign season instead of searching for answers as to why and how the Democrats "stole the election." I am not happy, however, to see such a large part of the organization turn to people like Gov. Sarah Palin as the voice of this new rescue.
Karl Rove in 2004 brought about the zenith of the Moral Majority movement that started as far back as the early 1960s with Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and wielded this movement across both sides of the aisle (with the more-than-occasional bipartisanship from populists in the Clinton/Gore camps). But much like the ecumenical faith of the evangelicals that made up the lion's share of this voting bloc, discourse had turned from the belief that decency and morality were obligations of both citizen and state, to the current stance (so witnessed by just recently in California and Florida) that judgment in these natures need be enforced by writ of law. Instead of choosing leaders that espoused these qualities, the Republican Party now backed candidates who would demand those qualities of everyone at the threat of criminality, regardless of personal freedom or logical need. The path these choices lie on is fraught with needless and divisive peril, though well-lit by each and every mindless auto-theocrat that carries a torch for such an illogical drive to tear this nation apart in misguided righteousness.
So whither thou, conservatism? The party that wears your emblem is now the party that runs roughshod over personal liberty, attempts to enforce lifestyle choices by law, spends our nation into impossible debts, and grows the borders of governmental interference to enormous boundaries. Yes, yes, the principles of objectivism and libertarianism and capitalism still work with endless proficiency, yet the GOP is no longer the party that exhibits them; they are now some horrible half-beast, spending without taxing, growing without helping, defending without protecting.
There are still people out here who believe in ambition as the primary tool of success, but also realize that you cannot propagate success while your neighbor cannot find work. The grandly-harvested crop is fruitless if all other fields lay fallow, for now there is more need with less supply. We have to be accountable to ourselves first, but just as importantly we have to be accountable to each other. That is the only covenant that binds us regardless of race or creed. The foundations of Conservatism hold that government's primary responsibilities are the protection of its citizens and the protections of their opportunities to succeed.
To say the least, the future of the Conservative movement is cloudy at this point and its prognosis is negative should the evangelicals get their way. Though I don't wish that to pass, perhaps if it does it affords us the leverage for what many have long wanted for: a viable third party.
Atomika on
0
Posts
I mean, I'm not wild about having a unitary executive that 34% of the country thinks is okay.
Please, tell me another one. I needed a laugh.
I don't think that he's quite grasped that modern conservatism is either dead or dying.
Nor am I, though conversely I'm not entirely sure I can expect 66% of voters to make reasonable choices at the ballot box.
And what's to say a more objectivist candidate wouldn't garner approval from both camps? Republicans would love the way they limited government, Democrats would love the way they would expand social freedoms.
I don't think the economic and small government ideals of conservatism are always the best idea but they weren't without some merit. Truthfully I think they've never really been applied at a national level(lip service for sure but not actual policy). I wouldn't mind having them as a vocal minority or possible alternative.
Social conservatism is dying a horrible death though. The demographics of the country are shifting. Abortion and gay marriage are losing issues with the next generation. The GOP was in power for 6 years and did damn near nothing for social conservatives aside from pander for votes.
I might ask you to define "modern conservatism." If you're talking about the neo-con movement, then yes, you're right, they're dying, and I couldn't be happier.
But does anything truly ever stay dead in politics? It's all cyclical, and all movements eventually fail because at some point its adherents fail to . . well . . adhere. I mean, look at Bush; got into office promoting conservatism and moral rectitude, but then ran up the national debt, grew the government, and saw more than one GOP congressman lose his job for having illicit gay sex.
I wouldn't say that's a failure of conservatism, just a failure of those who would be its proxies.
Ding!
Gentlemen, we have a Randroid.
What this country really needs is an instant runoff system: Everyone ranks the candidates. In the event that there are more than 2 candidates, each state determines it's vote in the electoral college by a knockout system eliminating the lowest first. If your number 1 gets knocked out, your vote becomes for your number 2, etc.
Yeah!
Remember that part in Atlas Shrugged when they said modern conservatism is a failure and that America has a duty to protect the prosperity of all its citizens?
No? Oh well . . .
Sorry that the phrase "more objectivist" alerted your bot to text you so proper recriminations could be made swiftly and accordingly.
I'm quite liberal, but if the republicans became the party of fiscal responsibility again, I'd be as happy as a clam at high tide. It's nice to have checks and balances on spending money beyond "We want to spend it on X" and "No, we want to spend it on Y."
The republicans have, in a nutshell gone insane. The democrats have (hopefully, we'll see) reframed the debated as reality versus blind ideology and the republicans aren't on the right side of this one. The republicans won't bounce back from this one until their current institutions have withered enough to allow new ones to flourish and the current party insiders have died out. Then, unless the democrats fuck up between now and then, we'll see a new wing of the republicans forming in some new middle space between the current republican party and the democrats and we'll repeat the cycle.
Barring radical shifts in the nature of the world, human society, tecnology, blah blah blah.
Well when 64% voter turnout is amazingly good, you can't really talk about the negatives of less than half the country electing the leader.
Canada regularly has pluralities, even with majority governments, and we're doing great. I know it's a republic and not a parliamentary democracy, so I'll reference the majority government from 1993 to 2004. The other parties had input, but the ruling party could pass things in the house on their own. In the 1997 election, they won a majority of seats with 38.46% of the vote (there were 5 major parties).
I recognize that there are no good third party options right now, and I say that as a Libertarian (in ideology, I'm not registered with any party). The current Libertarian party in the US right now has poor leadership, and focuses way too much on free market economics when focus on individual liberties were supposed to be the main goal. I think there are good things about their ideology, but there are too many extremists running the show.
I'm interested right now in seeing some serious reform in the Republican party. If they succeed, the US will have a good right wing alternative again. If they fail, I'm confident that some other party will take their place after 2012, whether it's a new party, or an existing 3rd party that gets its shit together.
The word conservative has lost all meaning, in fact, I'm not sure what the meaning ever was. So don't give me this bull how the Republicans lost their way. They've been following the same way since the 60's, it's that the policies don't work.
Again? When were they ever fiscally conservative? Name one fiscally conservative Republican president within the last 50 years.
Good point, but the Gingrich congress held the line on spending and had a surplus.
Margaret Thatcher
For someone who claims to be ignorant of the word's definition, you sure do seem certain of who it does or doesn't define.
really they've never been more thrifty than the Dems just different priorities
Though true (and this discord certainly played a part in the GOP's recent downturn), fiscal conservatives are still more likely to vote for the candidate that is lying when he says he'll reduce spending than the candidate that is telling the truth when saying he won't.
Good point. I guess I was thinking of the party more than their presidents. They're much better at it when Democrats are in the white house.
He ruined the surplus, grew government faster than LBJ, got bogged down in an indefinite war for nebulous pruposes like LBJ, relied on cronies and put loyalty above competence thereby ruining the GOPs rep for governing well (Rumsfeld, Meiers, Cheney, FEMA guy during Katrina, ect.), made social security even more insolvent, abused the military with 6 years of rumsfeld and maing 10 divisions do what you need 14 for...
....fuck this guy was a disastser. The GOP will only recover once it tosses him under the bus.
As for the dems angle, if they just told the radical hedonists to shut the fuck up and gave christians the same respect they give every other religion, which a true liberal does by respecting, if not agreeing, with other people's views, they'd never loose.
Margaret Thatcher
You proved it in your previous post. Bush ran on a platform of conservatism and then completely abandoned that platform. Republicans like to define conservatism with a set of ideas, but they never follow them. So what does conservative mean? Does it mean Republicans? Or is all the fancy ideas they like to spout?
Only because they're obstructionist A-holes, not for anything noble like "Fiscal conservatism".
That's what I thought, but I assumed it was my liberalism talking.
Again, the Gingrich Congress put out balenced budgets.
But yes, both Bush presidents turned their back on the very principles that got them elected and subsequently hurt their own parties.
I think Bush II would have also been a one termer had John Kerry not been so......John...Kerry...
Margaret Thatcher
The presidential candidates became less conservative before the overall party treaded so far in the direction that it's gone.
The last great Republican president was Eisenhower. I don't get why Conservatives love Reagan to be honest. He and Bush Sr. were responsible for about 3/4 of the national debt at the time Bush Sr. left office.
You have to admire the PR job. They aren't assholes, they're sticking by their principles (which seem not to apply when they're in charge, but that's just people's liberal bias showing).
That's something I've yet to understand about the Dems, why they give such small factions of their constituency such a loud voice. Giving fringe members such heft is what lost them the blue-collar, Black, and Southern votes, and probably serves to reason why they couldn't get anyone elected to high office that wasn't from those areas.
I'm curious what widowson means by "radical hedonists" and what Atomic Ross means by "fringe members."
The primary slur hurled at today's Democratic party is that it is run by elitist activists and academics who are out of touch with the common voter.
Now . . . go ask some Virginia coal miner how many hits his blog is getting.
Teh gays.
Enviromentalists
They're obviously going by the truth as spoken by Rush Limbaugh about how every Dem running for office has been the "most liberal" dem ever on a continually increasing scale.
I mean seriously, look at Obama and Bill Clinton... fucking radical liberals right there.
The Democrats have not lost the blue collar vote, and have definitely not lost the black vote. The Southern vote was lost years and years ago by Lyndon Johnson, when he signed the Voting Rights Act.
In reality, the opposite of your view is the case. The Republicans have given voice to extremists on the Christian right, and have driven minorities, moderates, educated voters, both coasts, and most urban voters out of the party. Forty years ago, the Republican Party was strong in places like California and New York, running on a platform of fiscal conservatism and good government. By adopting Southern racists into their coalition in order to win the Presidency in 1968, the Republicans set themselves up for the losses they face today.
Ivy League types. Environmentalists. Media. Minority rights activists.
Not that those views aren't important. It's just that the party gives them disproportionate weight to the old union/agribusiness/education/blue-collar voting staples. Which is why the Dems mostly lose elections in states between the coasts.
Yeah, they are the least successful party to control every branch of government ever.
Wait, "Lost the black vote"?
The Democrats?
Also, In response to your earlier comment:
A more objectivist third party would be roundly rejected, because a more objectivist third party would do what objectivism always does: claim to be about pragmatism and free society, and end up being about incredibly stupid ideas of what is pragmatic and a complete abandonment of free society for oligarchy at the first opportunity.
I ...... I don't even know how to respond to this. There's not even a hint of reality in here, it's like you're channeling Fox News.