I’m a registered Republican, but I always vote the man and I have voted on both sides of the Presidency over the last few decades. I have to admit I am pretty disenchanted with the Bush Administration on several different levels, but I haven’t been attracted by the candidates put forward by the Democrats in the last few races. Oddly enough, I might vote for Gore if he ran again as I respect him more now as a fiery, intelligent speech maker than I did when he was the cautious Gore-bot.
In any case, I think a lot of people near the political center feel the way I do, and unless the Democrats completely lose their minds in the nominating process they might have a shot at regaining the presidency.
In this context are my impressions incorrect and the conservative movement is as strong as ever, or is there really a sea change happening in the plate tectonics of the American political bedrock?
I think there is a strong opportunity for the Democrats to win in 2008. They will need to find a fairly moderate candidate. I thought Kerry was the reason Bush got re-elected. He was beatable and the Dem’s nominated the wrong ticket.
I also think there might be enough of a backlash to cost the Republicans some House & Senate seats next year.
BTW, I am a moderate Republican and I would like to see a McCain/Rudy G ticket.
I like Dean however. I would vote for Gore over Jeb Bush or most of the right wingers.
I also might be a Democrat by 2008. I am drifting that way and have been for 5+ years.
Eh. This country has never been particularly enamored with single-party rule; the last six years of Republican control are the longest one party has controlled the government since LBJ left office in '68.
I expect the Dems will make serious gains in '06, partially because Bush is a fuck-up, partially because most Presidents see their party lose seats in the midterm of their lame-duck term, and partially because most Americans want to see their government divided.
I expect that Dems will retake the House in '08. I also expect the Reps will easily win the Presidency that year.
I think we’re going to see an end to the marriage of convenience between the social right wingers, the economic conservatives, and the neocons. These strange bedfellows are losing their tolerance for each other.
I might, but as long as Kerry and Ted Kennedy still have strong voices, I am a little afraid. :eek:
As far as Neocons and the religious right: “Give me back my party!!!” :mad:
Certainly a possibility; the question that comes, though, is can Democrats make hay from that (as Republicans did when Southern Conservatives broke from the Democrats starting in the '60’s) or will the damage get repaired soon enough?
The social conservative-economic conservative-pragmatic conservative alliance broke badly in 1990 after Bush screwed up with tax increases; the Democrats used that opening well to get Clinton elected, but instead of getting long-term traction from it, Clinton’s first two years scared the conservative elements into keeping up a unified front no matter how much they had to grit their teeth about it.
That opening could come again in '08. The question is, will Democrats figure out what they have to offer any of these groups, or will they take a quick shot and then spend then next sixteen years wondering why they can’t win?
I think that people being upset and disappointed with Bush will hurt the Republicans in both the long and short term as far as winning elections. However, I don’t think that this means much when you’re talking about conservatism as a movement or philosophy.
If anything, in a strange way Bush might be actually helping the conservative cause in the long term. A lot of folks, such as myself, voted for Bush the second time around hoping that he would be a lot more conservative in his second term than his first. That hasn’t come to pass. I have a feeling that future Republican candidates for the presidency might have to really show some conservative credentials to get the nomination. We could actually end up with more conservatives out of this. Who knows.
I think that many Americans are feeling disappointed by both parties right now. Polls for Bush are low, but there also low for the Democratic leadership. Even people who have come to despise Bush still aren’t very impressed with Kerry. I’d vote for Bush again even with his many failings, if the choice was Kerry again.
Anything can happen in the next elections. (Mid terms and Presidential.) Most of the outcome hinges on things like how the economy is doing, the price of gas, and the situation in Iraq. Conservatives are still conservative and liberals are still liberal.
Well put, I hope the religious right looses power, but your post is excellent. I think you might have the crux of the matter.
Can the Dem’s work the next few years to their advantage. The Moderate Republicans have such a small voice outside of my neck of the woods (North East) that I doubt they can take back the party, but I remain hopeful. I even dream of a third party; the moderates of both sides joining together against both the Old Liberals and the Religious Right.
Fiscally, Bush is not conservative, but socially he’s as far right as it’s going to go.
The thing that could maybe bring about a sea change here is the war. The more people feel they were manipulated into a costly, losing war under false pretenses the more the conservatives who lied, threatened and demanded to get it will pay for it.
No, I don’t think the conservative movement has run out of steam. Of course, it depends on WHICH conservative movement we are talking about here…social or economic. Reguardless I don’t see either really running out of steam, though I agree that their may be a break between them coming up.
Has the Republican PARTY run out of steam? The various alliances and factions that constitute the Republican party are arguably beginning to come a bit unglued…especially over this war. Also, Bush while called a ‘conservative’ is only conservative on some social issues…so he hasn’t exactly pleased the economic conservatives.
I think there is a real chance for the Democrats to make great strides in '06 and perhaps even gain the presidency in '08…but not if they trot out the same old tripe they have trotted out for decades now. If the Dems run someone like Clinton in his second term, someone charasmatic and moderate, they will have a real shot at starting a sea change shift in the US back towards the Dems. I know they would get my vote. Problem is, if this board is representative, they will do no such thing…instead running further left. That could be the one thing that saves the Republicans and gives them their one real shot at holding on long enough to get the bad taste of GW out of our collective mouths.
We’ll see what happens next year and what the Dems do as a party…and we’ll see what kind of candidate they serve up in '08. A Clintonesque candidate or another Kerry (or the long line of other liberal senators the Dems have served up and seen lose)…
And that is my main bitch with Bush as the care taker of the realpoltik foreign policy interests of the United States. Over 2000 young men dead, hundreds of billions down the rat hole, and hundreds of thousands of soldiers entrenched in a largely thankless exercise in world policing and nation building… and for what? Bush’s revenge for his father’s honor, neocon fantasies of protecting Israel by re shifting the MENA political landscape, manufactured WMD and Iraqi terriorism threats?
These things are cyclical. Just a speed bump, not a fuel-line rupture or anything like that. The Bush Years will probably be good for the pubbies, in the long run. You know, don’t promote someone dumber than Reagan, that sort of thing.
Twenty-five years after its birth, the Reagan revolution is winding down. It had a pretty good run, nearly as long as Roosevelt’s New Deal which lasted thirty-six years (1932-1968). Both were done in by hubris and ossification which caused them to come unmoored from their roots and drift into imperial overreach, ideological rigidity, and a bloated sense of privelege.
Increasingly the old Republican talking points are sounding hollow. What does a phrase like “tax and spend liberal” mean coming from a party that has racked up year after year of record deficits and pork? What does a phrase like “nanny state” mean after Terri Schiavo? What does “the Powell Doctrine” mean after Iraq?
Something’s gotten give. A political movement that refuses to adapt to changing circumstances and loses sight of its founding principles can’t sustain itself for long.
Conservatism isn’t going to drop dead in an instant. The old Democratic party staggered around for years after it took its bullet to the head in 1968. But it didn’t have anything new to say – just variations on the same old themes as its power slowly trickled away. That’s how modern conservatism will die – railing about gun control and socialism as it slowly drifts into oblivion.
Modern conservatism is an odd alliance anyway: big business, fundamentalists, libertarians and neo-imperialists. The fundamentalists are getting restive at only being thrown a token bone now and then, but the other three groups know that the fundamentist agenda is too marginal to win elections on so they can never be allowed to have real power in the party. The libertarians are regularly used as ideological tools to advance corporatist interests, but are forced to suck down government bloat and repressive social policies while getting nothing in return. The neo-imperialists have pissed everybody off with their adventure in Iraq. About the only Republican power block that’s solid is big business, but you can’t win elections on the votes of rich stockholders alone.
No, it’s a marriage of convenience, not a permanent power block. Look for the libertarian block to increasingly defect to the Democrats as they realize that the dream of small government is dead so why not vote for social liberties instead? Look for the fundamentalists to stay home on voting day as they realize they’re never, ever going to get significant chunks of their agenda passed into law – or perhaps they’ll even splinter off into a fringe party of God and consign themselves to the historical dustbin. Look for the neo-imperialists to quietly wither away as the War in Iraq goes into the crapper.
Ten years from now the political landscape of the United States will be fundamentally different than it is now. We’re getting ready to walk through a doorway. A doorway as significant as the doorways we walked through in 1862 and 1932 and 1980.
Here in Virginia, the loss of Kilgore in the governor’s race is instructive. The guy had nothing to offer. He thought it would be sufficient to be loud and blatant about how conservative he is, no need to actually have ideas on how to run the state. I read this as a sign of right-wing Republicans having grown fat, lazy, and complacent. Since Kilgore had no positive qualities, he resorted to running attack ads that just offended people. Loser.
The winning Democratic candidate, Tim Kaine, actually stood for something and Virginians respected that. Kaine explained that although his Catholic faith made him personally oppose the death penalty, he believed it was the governor’s duty to the state to enforce it, so he would. The combination of religious faith with a sober assessment of the responsibilities of a public servant, made Kaine look like a human being. It was like Kennedy in West Virginia, 1960 “I won’t take orders from the Vatican” all over again.
<harrumph> Indeed, sir, give me that old-time conservatism! No franchise for landless peasants! No land reform! Save our pocket boroughs! What’s this about the House of Commons being allowed to enact legislation? Don’t they know how to defer to their betters? Fancy a spot of porto?
This is a hard question to answer because I feel there are serious problems with terminology. I call myself a “conservative” in a sense that doesn’t relate to any party.
I will say however that when I started becoming politically active the GOP most accurately matched up with my conservative viewpoints. It should be noted that “Neo-conservatism” is neither new nor truly conservative. I think the movement would have been better titled New-Republicanism or something, but even that isn’t perfectly accurate.
Conservatism and liberalism are both pretty much dead in America. We’re moving in a new and scary direction. Where we don’t have a “liberal” party or a “conservative” party. We have parties that aren’t based on an underlying ideology or political view, but parties that are reactionary, parties that are shaped by the issues and not vice versa. Parties that have become nothing more than creatures, creatures that live on votes and money and will do anything to gain more of both.
Obviously I don’t think that politics fifty years ago was “pure” or anything like that. But I think there was a time when being a Democrat meant something. It meant you felt a certain way about certain issues, it meant that you had standing opinions and beliefs and that is what shaped your standing on political issues. And there was a time when being a Republican mean much the same.
In fact, modern American “conservatism” – as it has been understood from Goldwater’s 1964 presidential bid to the present day – is something radically different from “conservatism” as it was understood pre-1964 in America, and as it is still understood in Europe. From The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004):
Hi! I’m your classical conservative over here. Excepting a somewhat varied definition of elitism, mind you. There’s more of us around than some people say.
The Democrats have a good chance, if they don’t screw it up. Some people I normally disagree with, such as Debaser and Martin Hyde said some very god things to say, that I actually believe in. All I can say is vote for the MAN, not the party. If said man is repugnant to you then vote AGAINST him. Just don’t go third party thinking it will hurt him. Go for the strongest, most powerfully backed opponent. Sometimes it isn’t who is better, it’s who stinks less.
