That was never the case, actually, if you mean they stopped the Democrats from going too far. The Dems have never in their history approached that line. But the GOP used to have adults in it who kept Pubs from going to far. But the Pubs have never been a useful balance to the Dems. The only way our two-party system would work that way beneficially, each correcting the other’s overreach, would be if the two parties were the Democrats and the Socialists.
Their mistake, you see, is to think they can have those 20 kids and keep them. I think you’ll find second-generation Quiverfull families will be extremely rare.
At least, not at any time later than the TR Administration.
Ignoring your quip, they’ll win. This isn’t like presidential elections.
The House has a decided GOP bias because of how Congressional districts play out. Democrats tend to be concentrated heavily in major cities, whereas Republicans are more spread out. I can’t find the explicit right now, but over the past few years there has been a shift among congressional districts. There are now more “decidedly” GOP congressional districts than there are more “decidedly” Democratic districts, and even in “contested” districts, the GOP tends to have a slight advantage.
Please try, it’s important.
Your analysis is just as absurd as that of adaher. By this logic, the Amish should be taking over the country (or at least Pennsylvania and Ohio) considering their birth-rates. The Quiverfull is a joke practically speaking just like the Christian Reconstructionist movement and their impact on future American politics is roughly equivalent to that of the Maoists or the Hoxhaists (alright that’s a bit too far, maybe they’ll be about as relevant as the Green Party). Considering the numbers of Evangelicals who are supporting the Democrats (such as yours truly) or are leaving the faith outright along with the growth of the Hispanic and Asian populations, the GOP based on its current platform is doomed to demographic irrelevance. 2010 was the last hurrah and will be seen by future generations as equivalent to the sack of Rome 17 centuries before.
The Democrats are essentially playing the same identity politics game (and indeed is probably responsible for such a move with the rise of the civil rights and feminist movements) albeit with blacks, public employee unions, homosexuals, and abortion rights activists rather than the Christian Right.
This all is a rather interesting plot for a dystopian novel but irrelevant to future politics-how many people would be affected by moderate desertification anyways? Most agricultural production is now in the hand of agribusinesses and the number of actual farmers even in the farm states are quite small.
That is the exact opposite of what should be done-too much of the Democrats’ platform is simply “we’ll maintain the status quo of the New Deal-Great Society-Civil Rights-Sexual Revolution with gay marriage thrown in which the Republicans will wholly reverse” rather than a bold platform that overturns stereotypes and expectations by say advocating a programme of construction of dozens of new nuclear power plants.
Admittedly the Democrats haven’t helped by associating themselves by and large with groups advocating abortion, but the fact is enough Evangelicals (combined with other demographics) vote Democratic to easily beat the Christian Right.
Considering there will be no civil war anytime soon, this is quite silly.
Well, at least the left is true to form. If the people stand in the way of the government, the government can simply dissolve the people and elect a new people. That seems to be the strategy here.
I’m not sure if you realize, but this is pretty close to the “secret conspiracy against white people” stuff. Cloud cuckoo land.
Then can the triumphalism about how we’re going to have a new people soon. First, it’s not going to happen, second, it’s un-American.
Where did you/your ancestors come from, adaher? And when did they/you become Americans, by your definition?
You’re missing the point. America is a diverse country with many political viewpoints and always has been. Democrats are looking forward to a day when America becomes less diverse politically. They seem tired of all this messy democracy stuff and would rather just have a people who will rubberstamp whatever they feel like doing.
Oh no we are looking forward to a day were we can have adult opposition instead of childish anti intelectualist sexist racist homophobic opposition we have now.
Says the guy whose party’s winning strategy actually includes actual undermining of democratic principles.
The liberal hope/expectation is that demographic trends will result in more fellow citizens’ agreeing with us. The right’s strategy is to prevent them from voting, to dilute their voting strength, or otherwise frustrate their democratic voices.
Wow…that’s some pretty advanced projection. I’d be impressed if it weren’t projection of some of the most anti-democracy policies in the modern era.
You are incorrect, at least about the Democrats I know. Most Democrats (and certainly most liberals) want an actual liberal party, and a sane conservative party. What we have right now is a milquetoast center to center-right party, and a (mostly) right-wing-nuttery party. I envision a conservative party that feels ashamed of and boots the nutjobs like Bachmann, Steve King, et al, and a liberal party that demands actual progressive policies like universal health care.
So far, you’ve been almost entirely wrong about what real-world Democrats actually want and support. If you need help, I’d be happy to provide you with a real-world Democratic perspective.
Then why celebrate a possible future where most voters are assumed to be Democrats based on nothing more than their race? That’s an illiberal future.
Thankfully, Democrats are completely wrong about what demographic changes will mean.
Looking forward to a day when “Staunch Conservatives” are largely a thing of the past, certainly, as any good and decent American should, as their thinking has absolutely no . . . what’s it called . . . value. But that does not mean America by that time will be less diverse politically than it is now. It might be much more so. It has long been said that American political opinion spans the whole spectrum from A to B. There are a great many political tendencies important in other countries and almost unrepresented here; the slow death of the far right will clear space for them.
No, actually. You misunderstand our point. We don’t think they’ll be voting Democratic solely because of their race (or gender, or orientation). We think they’ll largely be voting Democratic because of how much the Republican base (and the Teabagger politicians they vote for) is enthusiastically willing to let those people know how much that same Republican base hates them for their race, gender or orientation. Of course, you miss this point because you seem to be incapable of imagining that the Republican Party can possibly do any wrong therefore of COURSE it’s not hatred or racism or homophobia or misogyny!