Why does the US need a pro-life party? Considering the level of resource consumption in the US I’d think it would be smarter to discourage rather than encourage population growth. I understand that the right supports a state that can force women to have children they don’t want because of their stories, but I don’t see why such a party is needed. What would happen without one?
I clicked on the thread and, as usual, couldn’t stop myself from finding another two cents to add. 
I agree that Curtis Qin wrote a good post, but unfortunately I think his claim is probably incorrect.
(Ignore any pessimistic argument that American political collapse would itself be a worthier aim than present trends.)
Disclaimer: Condensing political thought to a single dimension and using “<” to mean "to the left off, I’d write:
Radical_Left < OWS < Centrist < Obama-Demo < Republican < Tea_Party
I’m a centrist myself, and find it unfortunate that both major parties end up with too-right policies.
I agree with Little Nemo that the 2-party system which worked adequately during most of the 20th century involved two more or less centrist parties, often straddling either side of a near-optimal view. But it’s not working well at present. My characterization would be quite different from Nemo’s “free reign to be irresponsible”; indeed I see the Tea Party, guided by hypocrites and amplified by FoxNews et al, dragging others rightward. OWS is a useful reaction now, but widespread smirking against it is media- (incl. blog-) driven. OWS’ key point is correct: both parties advance interests of sectors like financial and neglect populist needs.
I’ve also heard one can get a clearer view from the outside. Is it cocky if even an expat claims to have a more objective view? Myself, I’m just a detached van Winkle, but am still bemused that best news sources (other than Jon Stewart’s Daily Show 
) often seem to be al-Jazeera, Reuters, Russian TV and VOA.
Fact: I remember being shocked and angered to read that Europeans found GWB more of a threat than Bin-Laden. Then I reflected for a minute and realized the claim was probably true!
I’m not saying that Republican leaders want to limit immigration (illegal or otherwise). As you say, it’s good for business. But rank and file Tea Partiers do.
Can you give us any examples of this happening?
Because he’s the President, similarly the Right was quieter during the Bush administration.
No, the US population is aging, to have a labour force we need a growing population pragmatically speaking. And morally speaking we need somebody to say that A is A and that abortion is murder and cannot be tolerated.
Yeah, but Bush was a Christian.
If demographic and cultural trends continue the GOP will radicalize itself into minority status. We are becoming a more secular, younger, multi-racial society and the GOP is at odds with all those things. Millennials gave obama about a 30 point margin (those born after 1978) and made up about 20% of the electorate in 2008. By 2020 they will make up nearly 40% of the electorate. Add in the fact that the GOP appeals to older whites (the average age of fox news and talk radio listeners is mid 60s) and within 20 years most of them will be dead, replaced by their grandchildren who live in a world filled with economic insecurity (meaning people will want more regulations and safety nets), respect for science and social tolerance.
Of course there is no telling if demographic trends will continue. Women used to generally be strong GOP voters, now they tend to lean democratic (by about a 15 or so point margin). Southern whites used to be strongly democratic, now are strongly republican.
Obama can’t get his will done. Even with 260 or so house members and 60 dem senators, all his legislation had to be watered down so the most conservative democrats would vote for it. That didn’t happen with the GOP, they didn’t water down their legislation until Snowe and Collins supported it. Add in GOP obstrutionism, and even with super majorities the democrats can only pass legislation that is similar to what the GOP proposed 20 years ago.
What will be really funny (in a black comedy way) is if the GOP wins the senate and white house in 2012, I’m sure they will abolish the filibuster. Or greatly weaken it. I admire them, they are wrong on the issues but they are tough and competent. The opposite of the dems.
Why would intervening in Libya cause hysteria on the left? I don’t speak for the left, but Libya was run by a corrupt autocrat who had supported assassinations against Americans. And an opportunity to get rid of him presented itself, so we took it. If anything the right was opposed to Libya, but that was only because obama was the one in favor of it.
Much of the same people who brought you OWS, was protesting the Libyan intervention for the same reasons they opposed the Iraq War.
You have a growing population already. Abortion is not a factor. (I’d also ask as an aside what you think this labour force of yours is going to do for a living, but it’s not germane.)
It isn’t murder, any more than eating meat is murder. Just because a group of zealots (the Christian right, or PETA) say an act has a legal status doesn’t mean it actually does.
You’ve just restated your claim, you haven’t answered my question: I understand that the right supports a state that can force women to have children they don’t want because of their stories, but I don’t see why such a party is needed. What would happen without one?
I submit you need a pro-choice party, because the alternative is an anti-choice party that would support forcing women to have children they don’t want for the sake of placating superstitious strangers. I thought you Americans cherished your freedom more than that.
Kucinich opposed the intervention in Libya. But Pelosi supported it. I don’t know what progressives in general thought but I am a progressive and I supported it.
The opposition to the war in Iraq was different than the war in Libya. The war in Iraq was going to turn the world against us, it was unilateral, it cost tons of money, it killed tons of civilians, and it was fought for ideological reasons. I don’t think any of those apply to Libya.
I know this next election will be about the economy, but Obama’s foreign policy is pretty amazing. The war in Iraq is over, international opinion of us is up, Al Qaeda is still on the run, Bin Laden is dead, etc. Also things that Obama had nothing to do (but that are a neat coincidence that make him look good) also happened. The arab spring, riots in Iran and death of Kim Jong Il as examples. If foreign policy mattered in 2012 like it did in 2006, Obama would coast to victory.
Washington (CNN) - Most Americans want a special congressional committee tasked with drafting a long-term solution to the nation’s mounting federal deficits to include tax hikes for the wealthy and businesses…
A CNN/ORC International Poll released Wednesday also indicates that the public doesn’t want the super committee to propose major changes to Social Security and Medicare or increase taxes on middle class and lower-income Americans.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/10/new-cnn-poll-majority-want-tax-increase-for-wealthy-and-deep-spending-cuts/
As the OP suggests there is a parallel to the late 1960s and early 1970s. Back then the energy was on the left, but the electorate was moving to the right. Now the energy is on the right, but on important issues the electorate is moving to the left.
More people from 18 to 30 favor socialism than capitalism.
… Indeed I see the Tea Party, guided by hypocrites and amplified by FoxNews et al, dragging others rightward.
Tea Party and other extreme-rightists drag the GOP rightward, leaving a vacuum in the center-right which draws in the Demos.
Single-payer health care, progressive taxation, oversight of banking are three big issues with wide support among Americans, and wide support among many Democrat leaders. But with right-wing intransigence and a vacuum at center-right, Democrat leaders are happy to move rightward, thinking that’s the path to maximize their voting and campaign support.
Why the need to draw a connection between OWS and Libya? Isn’t OWS focused on domestic issues?
And I thought you finally agreed that Iraq War was a mistake. A mistake only in hind sight? A mistake, but still “good” because it was espoused by your kind of people?
Try repeating a mantra: Rationalists opposed the 2003 War not because we’re fuzzy-headed pacifists but because it was a stupid plan.
Conflating OWS, Libya, and Iraq into a single sentence like the above makes one worry that lower-grade reasoning is at work: “We dislike OWS and they dislike Bush’s War; therefore we still like Bush’s War even though it was a bad idea.” :smack:
I think the reason Carter got elected is because too many wanted someone much different than Nixon. The Christian Coalition began organizing and started to go to the exteme right on socila issues. The Evangilicals used the RCC’s stand on abortion and a lot of voters vote on one issue.They started calling abortion Murder and I think that helped, but the country is very divided and I don’t believe either winner will get more than half the votes. When one party win’s by a small margin the counyry is worse off for it. The parties won’t give in (like the Republican’s were not happy that Obama won and even some of his own party members didn’t work with him from the day he was elected!
But, the country is not center-right. Its center-of-gravity is a lot further left than you think it is.
I’m not at all sure that you are right on this point, but given the tiny number of people in the OWS movement, when we look at the larger numbers in the U.S. population, Obama caught much more grief from the Right than from the Left over the limited involvement he provided to NATO for Europe to support the Libya rebellion.
On your second point, you are just wrong. Iraq was opposed by far more people, (too few, but far more than protested Libya), on totally different grounds–namely, that Bush and Company were lying at every level, (justification, motivation, ability to succeed, and awareness of reality), to get us into a war we did not need. The the opposition to Libyan intervention was scattered around random beliefs of isolationism and general opposition to anything that Obama would do on any occasion. (There was opposition to Bush, just because he was Bush, but it made up a smaller percentage of the people opposing the Iraq adventure on far more substantial grounds.)
Yes, but considering how it has turned out so far, it would be inconvenient for them to remember that.
Cite?
Are these supposed to be issues where the Tea Party is pulling the GOP to the right? All of them are things the GOP naturally opposes since they all cost rich people money. The first requires tax increases and (along with the third) lowers profits in the affected industry. Progressive taxation takes money directly from the pockets of wealthy Americans. You can’t drag someone in a direction they are already moving as fast as possible.
It annoys me that David helps fund Nova, but the Tea Partiers, in the main, seem so anti-science.
Me.