# A question for those who lean left... **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 27, 2010, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287 "2010-09-27T23:34:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/101 "2010-10-01T15:08:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 😕 A “big-C conservative” would be a member/supporter of something named “the Conservative Party,” and **nothing else.** Agreed. But if the Conservative Party stood for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, banning abortion and rolling back the civil rights movement it would be a pretty misleading name for the party. My objection is to the right-wing’s adoption of the conservative label when the policies they advocate aren’t conservative at all. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/102 "2010-10-01T15:20:06Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > > 😕 A “big-C conservative” would be a member/supporter of something named “the Conservative Party,” and **nothing else.** > > Agreed. But if the Conservative Party stood for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, banning abortion and rolling back the civil rights movement it would be a pretty misleading name for the party. My objection is to the right-wing’s adoption of the conservative label when the policies they advocate aren’t conservative at all. I think you’ll find, as the word “conservative” is used in academic as well as in electoral-political circles, it is generally both intended and understood to imply a great deal of actual ideological content other than, **and sometimes incompatible with,** “leave things as they are.” E.g., no Frenchman living under Napoleon who wanted to leave Napoleon in power could defensibly be called a “conservative.” [As Wooldridge and Mickelthwaite put it:](http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/0143035398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224007314&sr=8-1) > [@](#): > > The exceptionalism of the American Right is partly a matter of its beliefs. The first two definitions of “conservative” offered by the Concise Oxford Dictionary are “adverse to rapid change” and “moderate, avoiding extremes.” Neither of these seems a particularly good description of what is going on in America at the moment. “Conservatism” – no less than its foes “liberalism” or “communitarianism” – has become one of those words that are now as imprecise as they are emotionally charged. Open a newspaper and you can find the word used to describe Jacques Chirac, Trent Lott, the Mullah Omar and Vladimir Putin. Since time immemorial, conservatives have insisted that their deeply pragmatic creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed. > > **But, in philosophical terms at least, classical conservatism does mean something. The creed of Edmund Burke, its most eloquent proponent, might be crudely reduced to six principles: a deep suspicion of the power of the state; a preference for liberty over equality; patriotism; a belief in established institutions and hierarchies; skepticism about the idea of progress; and elitism.** Winston Churchill happily accepted these principles: he was devoted to nation and empire, disinclined to trust the lower orders with anything, hostile to the welfare state, worried about the diminution of liberty and, as he once remarked ruefully, “preferred the past to the present and the present to the future.” > > **To simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its exaggeration of the first three of Burke’s principles and contradiction of the last three.** The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility towards the state than any other modern conservative party. . . . The American right is also more obsessed with personal liberty than any other conservative party, and prepared to tolerate an infinitely higher level of inequality. (One reason why Burke warmed to the American revolutionaries was that, unlike their dangerous French equivalents, the gentlemen rebels concentrated on freedom, not equality.) On patriotism, nobody can deny that conservatives everywhere tend to be a fairly nationalistic bunch. . . . Yet many European conservatives have accepted the idea that their nationality should be diluted in “schemes and speculations” like the European Union, and they are increasingly reconciled to dealing with national security on a multilateral basis. American conservatives clearly are not. > > If the American Right was merely a more vigorous form of conservatism, then it would be a lot more predictable. In fact, the American Right takes a resolutely liberal approach to Burke’s last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism. The heroes of modern American conservatism are not paternalist squires but rugged individualists who don’t know their place: entrepeneurs who build mighty businesses out of nothing, settlers who move out West, and, of course, the cowboy. There is a frontier spirit to the Right – unsurprisingly, since so much of its heartland is made up of new towns of one sort of another. > > The geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism. In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo. They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities. And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past. By contrast, Burke has been described flatteringly by European conservatives as a “prophet of the past.” Spend any time with a group of Republicans, and their enthusiasm for the future can be positively exhausting. > > As for elitism, rather than dreaming about creating an educated “clerisy” of clever rulers (as Coleridge and T.S. Eliot did), the Republicans ever since the 1960s have played the populist card. Richard Nixon saw himself as the champion of the “silent majority.” In 1988 the aristocratic George H.W. Bush presented himself as a defender of all-American values against the Harvard Yard liberalism of Michael Dukakis. In 2000, George W. Bush, a president’s son who was educated at Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, played up his role as a down-to-earth Texan taking on the might of Washington. As a result, modern American conservatism has flourished not just in country clubs and boardrooms, but at the grass roots – on talk radio and at precinct meetings, and in revolts against high taxes, the regulation of firearms and other invidious attempts by liberal do-gooders to force honest Americans into some predetermined mold. ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/103 "2010-10-01T15:28:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@Baboonanza](#): > > > > Agreed. But if the Conservative Party stood for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, banning abortion and rolling back the civil rights movement it would be a pretty misleading name for the party. My objection is to the right-wing’s adoption of the conservative label when the policies they advocate aren’t conservative at all. > > I think you’ll find, as the word “conservative” is used in academic as well as in electoral-political circles, it is generally both intended and understood to imply a great deal of actual ideological content other than, **and sometimes incompatible with,** “leave things as they are.” > > E.g., no Frenchman living under Napoleon who wanted to leave Napoleon in power could defensibly be called a “conservative.” Fair enough. I’m well aware that mostly everybody else is happy with the label being used to (in my opinion) describe something inaccurately and I’m not going to be able to persuade them otherwise. So what do you call someone who’s happy with the status-quo? A conservative-conservative? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/104 "2010-10-01T15:34:10Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > So what do you call someone who’s happy with the status-quo? A conservative-conservative? Could as easily be “apolitical.” ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/105 "2010-10-01T15:46:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@Baboonanza](#): > > > > So what do you call someone who’s happy with the status-quo? A conservative-conservative? > > Could as easily be “apolitical.” But that implies that they have no participation in politics. A true conservative would be politically involved in preserving the status-quo. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/106 "2010-10-02T02:22:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The Depression was still going on in 1936, but FDR won a second term anyway. Well, I left out the punchline. _Basically only the past three quarters of economic data matter._ In 1936 the Republican actually punched above his weight, but Q1-Q3 1936 had sufficient economic growth to give Roosevelt a landslide. History would repeat itself in 1984: Mondale beat the point spread, but nonetheless lost big time to Ronald Reagan. Caveat 1: Fair’s model does have a variable that picks up good economic news over a somewhat longer timespan. Caveat 2: There are more detailed models run by political scientists which I have not studied by which I understand have broadly similar conclusions. > [@Jas](#): > > That’s certainly interesting stuff, and if I’m understand you correctly, it pretty much matches what my intuition is - circumstances have far more to do with who wins elections than ideology. Am I interpreting your comment correctly? That fundamental political alignments (“the base” if you will) plus economic and military conditions account for \>98% of election outcomes in recent years? It’s not merely circumstances. The last 3 quarters of economic activity plus incumbency explain almost everything. Wars, personalities, ideology, exploding oil derricks, hostage crises – these tend to either cancel themselves out sufficiently to move the vote share by an average of only 1.5 percentage points (3.5 points in exceptional circumstances). The implications are profoundly cynical. Election year economic growth can be advanced by well-timed stimulus, whether it take the form of a burst of spending, tax cuts or a compliant Federal Reserve chairman (see for example Burns, Arthur Frank). James Baker arranged for Greenspan to replace Volker for a reason – he didn’t trust the tight money Democrat. And most of what passes for media commentary is completely besides the point and highly misleading. Conventional wisdom is confused. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2010, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/107 "2010-10-02T02:24:53Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > So what do you call someone who’s happy with the status-quo? A conservative-conservative? Prudent? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2010, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/108 "2010-10-02T15:09:41Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > > > Is Richard Nixon “sensible”? > > Nope, like I was trying to say, there was never ever any republican that ever increased the deficit, or instituted wage and price controls like the socialist Obama wants to do, or proposed health care reform remotely like the bill that was just passed. Just think, if it hadn’t been for Watergate derailing the Nixon-Kennedy HCR bill, we’d be like Europe now, because we’d have gotten some form of universal health care in place, just before the right wing backlash which set the tone for U.S. politics in the last decades of the 20th century. I almost miss the Repubs of the 1950s and 60s. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2010, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/109 "2010-10-02T23:52:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@Baboonanza](#): > > > > So what do you call someone who’s happy with the status-quo? A conservative-conservative? > > Could as easily be “apolitical.” It could be" wealthy". They have it very good. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/110 "2010-10-03T00:32:46Z")
> [@SanDiegoTim](#): > > As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate? By definition, this means that the current administration and congress failed to please the electorate. As for the reason behind this, it’s nothing but a Rorshach blot that reflects your own belief. It could mean he didn’t deliver on his promises to deliver change. It could mean he changed more than the electorate wanted. It could mean that he did what he said he was going to do, and then they decided that wasn’t good enough. But you want to know what the real cause is, since I happen to know? It’s because Americans are children who think the President is an omnipotent economic Santa Claus who can flip a giant switch labeled ‘JOBS’, and their self-inflicted, over-leveraged financial problems will just magically disappear. The opposition helpfully feeds this notion by painting the picture that he’s failing to do it, or doing it wrong. But the outcome would be the same whether it was Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, or Howdy Doody. If an ailing economy doesn’t tick upward, you get punished. ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/111 "2010-10-03T16:44:36Z")
If that means that 2 years ago the Republicans were too far to the right, hence their huge election losses. But I don’t believe that this massive ship of state actually veers all that far in two years, or that the vote of the electorate is always a well-informed one. One just prays that in tacking back and forth the nation finds a reasonably accurate direction overall. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2010, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/112 "2010-10-03T21:00:38Z")
Like Clinton said, “it’s the economy stupid”. The Repubs learned that lesson too. They filibustered every attempt Obama made to fix the economy, with mid terms in mind from day one. They were determined not to permit him to succeed, even if the people had to suffer. They are disciplined and don’t stray from the goals. They used the filibuster in a way that is unprecedented. They play to win. That of course is why they fear the Tea Baggers.They may not follow the dictates of the party. They may even decide for themselves. That might cut down the filibuster bloc. Strange times are ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/113 "2010-10-03T22:09:53Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > That of course is why they fear the Tea Baggers.They may not follow the dictates of the party. They may even decide for themselves. That might cut down the filibuster bloc. Strange times are ahead. I don’t think the Republicans fear the Tea Party movement - at least not yet. Right now, the Republican Party feels the Tea Party is a tool it can use at will - direct its anti-incumbency outrage against the Democrats who are in power. The Republicans presumedly will cut off support of the Tea Party if they regain control of Congress. Then we’ll find out if the Tea Party is a horse or a tiger. Will the Tea Party fade away without Republican support and become a non-factor? Or will it survive on its own and start attacking incumbent Republicans like it has incumbent Democrats? Or will the Tea Party start receiving its support from the Democrats? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/114 "2010-10-03T22:53:51Z")
The Tea Baggers have already gone after those they think are not reactionary enough. That is why we have people like O;Donnell in the election. Their insistence on leaders following their policies includes the Repubs who have not shown to be believers. They have tossed some elections into the air that Repubs thought were secure. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/115 "2010-10-04T01:35:20Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > But you want to know what the real cause is, since I happen to know? It’s because Americans are children who think the President is an omnipotent economic Santa Claus who can flip a giant switch labeled ‘JOBS’, and their self-inflicted, over-leveraged financial problems will just magically disappear. The opposition helpfully feeds this notion by painting the picture that he’s failing to do it, or doing it wrong. But the outcome would be the same whether it was Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, or Howdy Doody. If an ailing economy doesn’t tick upward, you get punished. Well Americans are sort of correct in this case. Obama was bequeathed the largest recession since WWII. A stimulus package twice as large could have lowered the unemployment rate without igniting inflation. Why didn’t this happen? Simplistically, I’d blame the Republican Senate. In early 2009, the Dems had 59 seats (because of delays in seating Senator Franken). So the Republicans could and did filibuster everything. This was a departure from Senate tradition, but it might have been anticipated. Anyway, President Olympia Snowe demanded cuts in the most potent parts of the jobs package (aid to states), so we were left with something just under $800 billion, when it should have been 2x that. I find it likely that the Democrats will win the Senate, but not eliminate either the filibuster or the practice of putting holds on executive appointments. Trust them to shoot themselves in the foot again. Anyway, the 2nd mistake was not to press harder to fill FOMC positions at the Federal Reserve. That was done last month, which is nice for 2012, not so much for 2010. Some economic problems are difficult. But here, I think the problem is not in the stars but in ourselves. The [paradox of thrift](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift) was accepted by both parties in the 1970s: unfortunately the Republicans have since adopted yahoo economics. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/116 "2010-10-05T09:27:12Z")
> [@SanDiegoTim](#): > > As an intellectually honest left-leaning citizen, and setting aside all personal preferences, could you agree to the following explanation: the current administration and congress leaned too far left for the electorate? I think most Americans are less concerned with the difference between left and right than with whether and how well something works. A successful president will change public opinion. Franklin Roosevelt moved the country to the left by adopting policies that reduced unemployment. Because unemployment has continued to rise under Barack Obama, the country is moving to the right. Obama should have reduced unemployment the way Roosevelt did: raise taxes on the rich; hire people at government expense with programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps - which was enormously popular with the voters, by the way. The rich would have squealed like struck pigs when they got their tax increases, but Obama’s approval rating would have exceeded his post inauguration rate of 68% as the unemployment rate declined. After establishing his credibility on the economy, Obama could have addressed health care. Instead, Obama passed a health plan most Americans do not like. Nevertheless, “ROCHESTER, N.Y. – July 7, 2008 – Several recent surveys by Harris Interactive®, including the latest Financial Times/Harris Poll, asked an identical question of cross-sections of adults in ten developed countries about their own health care systems. This research finds that **the United States has the most unpopular system**.” The other nine countries had universal health care. [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/FinancialTimes/tabid/449/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1512/ArticleId/192/Default.aspx](http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/FinancialTimes/tabid/449/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1512/ArticleId/192/Default.aspx) Moreover, “(AP) President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul has divided the nation, and Republicans believe their call for repeal will help them win elections in November. But the picture’s not that clear-cut. A new AP poll finds that **Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1**.” President Obama’s problem is not that he is too far to the left, but that he has made strategic mistakes. Whether or not he will recover from them remains to be seen. The Republican Party has no solution to the problem of high unemployment, and no solution to the facts the privately financed American health system was unpopular, cost more than universal health care systems, and delivered inferior results. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/117 "2010-10-05T12:40:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Then we’ll find out if the Tea Party is a horse or a tiger. Will the Tea Party fade away without Republican support and become a non-factor? Or will it survive on its own and start attacking incumbent Republicans like it has incumbent Democrats? Or will the Tea Party start receiving its support from the Democrats? Nah, there will still be incumbent Democrats to attack. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/118 "2010-10-06T02:30:23Z")
Most people actually want healthcare that he passed. If you watch right wing news ,you won’t know that. Right wing rhetoric has divided the country. I think he should have taken over a bank and started lending to small businesses to increase employment. Big companies have not increased American jobs in many years. Fixing our infrastructure is not make work. Our roads, bridges and buildings need repair. Our buildings could use ecological retro fitting. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/119 "2010-10-06T06:34:33Z")
When Republicans lost control of the house and senate and then later the White House, did they think that was because, perhaps, they had went too far to the right? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287/120 "2010-10-06T10:42:29Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > When Republicans lost control of the house and senate and then later the White House, did they think that was because, perhaps, they had went too far to the right? The United States is a center right country. > **["Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group](https://news.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx)** > > Four in 10 Americans in Gallup's 2009 polling say their political views are conservative, while 35% call themselves moderate. Both groups outnumber liberals (21%). The percentage of liberals is up from 17% in the early 1990s, while conservatives'... This is because most whites do not want their tax money spent on programs that will help blacks, even if those programs will help them too. The Republicans lost control of the Congress in 2006, and of the White house in 2008 because George W. Bush started two expensive wars he could not win, and because the median income declined. [http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=634](http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=634) The Republicans will probably win control of both houses of Congress in the next election because the unemployment rate has continued to grow after the inauguration of President Obama. Americans are less concerned with the difference between left and right than they are concerned with whether and how well something works. Nevertheless, since 1972 the Republican Party has been the party of the white majority. As a result, it will be given the benefit of the doubt by the voters. In 1994 the economy was improving. Nevertheless, the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress. In 2000 the country enjoyed peace and prosperity. Nevertheless, the Republicans retained control of the Congress, and George W. Bush was elected president. Despite the fact that Bush ran the country off the rail, and that Sarah Palin was an obvious whack job, John McCain nearly got elected. In 1976 Gerald Ford was nearly elected despite Watergate, clemency for Nixon, and the fact that Nixon had prolonged a war that was immoral and unwinnable. Ronald Reagan won in 1984 by a landslide despite the recession of 1982 and the growth of the national debt. The GOP will continue to get the benefit of the doubt from the voters unless the Democrats win back the white working class and much of the South, or unless whites become a minority in the United States. If whites do become a minority, however, white support for the Republicans will increase, and Asians may begin to support the GOP. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-for-those-who-lean-left/555287.md?page=7)