For this quote of yours, a “hear, hear” right back at you.
It’s strange. I am in sympathy with “conservative” thinking right now precisely because I consider myself a classical liberal, and conservatives seem to be the only ones willing to stand up in any meaningful way for classical liberalism. I see Democrats standing for a preservation of a failed status quo (both domestically and internationally), not to mention they sound increasingly strident and divisive. Shit, I thought only Republicans could do that.
It’s like I don’t really want to consider myself a Republican, but at this point, I have no confidence that Democrats (as they are currently aligned) are serious about promoting America’s interests, and certainly not promoting my interests.
??? First I’ve heard of this – I thought the religious right was still one of the most powerful and best-organized factions within the Republican Party. When and how did the Pubbies “shed” them? And if they did, how do you account for Bush’s commitment to “faith-based” social programs and other items on the fundie agenda?
No disrespect, XT, but that statement (per my bolding) is pretty damn near a tautology.
Measured against ourselves, of course most people are somewhere in the middle! How coiuld it be otherwise? Basically proof by definition.
Most posters here are using somewhat different defiinition of conservative and liberal, hence the slight disagreements. The US has a unique history and experience that, I believe, will keep it more on the conservative side when measured against the rest of the 1st world (especially Europe). Conservative in the sense of being religious, self-reliant, and free market oriented. In the classical (19th century) sense of the terms, of course, those last two items would be considered “liberal”.
I’ll conceed the point…I DID use myself as the measuring stick. As with many of my posts, I go by my own gut feelings on things like this…my own experience, my friends, aquaintances and co-workers, discussions with strangers and such. As no definition was provided on what ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ IS, as well as no measuring stick to judge by, I used my own definitions of the terms.
As with many of the threads on this board (especially in GD) its difficult to debate the point without a clear definition. Who are we comparing the US to to determine if its liberal or conservative? Ourselves? Europe? Asia? The ME? Africia? Outer Mongolia? Atlantis? The answer would vary wildly depending on who we are measuring ourselves against.
(Emphasis added.) I think it needs to be pointed out here that, while the U.S. is still a much more religious country than practically any in Europe, it is a much less religious country than it used to be. From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1996), pp. 278-279:
We still have a lot of traditional Christian believers – believers in Christianity as the One True Faith – but they are now a minority, and, for the first time in American history, very aware of their minority status. That’s why they fight so hard to keep their viewpoint out there.
Here’s the thing: conservatives have worked HARD to make “liberal” a pejorative term over the last couple of decades, and they’ve succeeded to the extent that it is politically unwise to get yourself labelled as such, if only because should you get identified as a liberal, you’ll spend all your time explaining that you don’t really want to force people to give all their money to the Soviet Union, and wear only brown coveralls (or similar horseshit spewed about liberalism by Rush and the boys).
If you get nailed as a liberal, you wind up spending all your time redefining liberalism rather than talking about your goals and ideas, or your opponent’s lack of same.
Nevertheless, “liberal” is not purely a pejorative term as used in common speech by regular folks as compared to conservative ideologues. Many Americans hold liberal values, many Americans don’t, but they’re not as hot under the collar about liberalism as conservative ideologues would have you believe. It’s just another set of political beliefs to most folks.
Hmmm… I would like to add that what many consider in the US as liberal could be better described as “Laissez Faire”. So not sure if this means overall the US is more conservative.
As for evaluating Con vs Lib. Politics is a better measure ? Since individual tendencies can’t be generalized. Also do take in consideration that what the US calls “leftwing” is Center or Right wing in Europe and Latin America.
Think ahead to the 2004 Republican convention in NYC. Who do you suppose will be the dominant figures at the convention, the “faces” the Republicans want to show the country as their primary symbols. My guess is they will be:
Bush (leader)
Giuliani (hero of 9/11)
Schwarzenegger (star)
Powell (respected statesman)
None of those people, I think you agree, are aligned with the “firebrand” wing of the party. Hell, Giuiliani and Ahnuld are on record as being pro-choice and gay-friendly, and Powell has taken the Republicans to task for their shaky record on minority empowerment. Sure, Bush is a born-again Christian, and Bush-haters equate him to being a tool of the Christian right. Nice try, but mainstream voters, I dare say, don’t feel that way - he’s still a likeable “regular” guy for the most part who seeks to preserve the status quo on divisive domestic issues. (Yes, he signed the partial-birth abortion ban, but polls seem to show the mainstream thinks this is a disgusting procedure that should be outlawed).
Contrast these key figures of the 2004 convention with the 1992 convention, when the Christian right’s power within the Republican Party was at its zenith. Remember Pat Buchanan’s scary speech at that convention? I do, and mainstream voters - pissed at Bush’s broken promise not to raise taxes AND leery of a party that would actually have Pat Buchanan as a keynote speaker, defected to Clinton, ending the 12-year Republican hold on the White House.
It took some time, and plenty of political ass-kickings by Clinton, but Republicans seem to have learned the lesson that the cost of pandering to extreme factions exceeds the benefit of doing so, and that overall it’s counterproductive.
Oh sure, Republicans pay lip-service to the religious right, no question. Yes, folks like DeLay and Santorum still hold power within the party, but they are no longer the symbols the party shows to the world. Bush doesn’t want to touch controversial social issues with a 10-foot pole (you didn’t hear much from him when the sodomy ruling came down, did you? And his response to the gay marriage question was pretty milquetoast - imagine how Reagan might have answered that question).
I contend that there was a definite shift of power within the party, with less extreme members staging some sort of coup to bring the party closer to the center, thereby marginalizing the extremists.
After all, why do you think Buchanan defected from the party? Haven’t heard much from Ralph Reed lately, have you? And Falwell and Robertson lost all kinds of credibility with their reactions to 9/11, and don’t count of Republican candidates sharing the dais with the likes of them when they campaign in 2004.
Now take a look at the Democrats. The “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” sounds as shrill, abrasive, angry, and yes, EXTREMIST to the country’s mainstream as the Christian right sounded when they held sway. And make no mistake - the Democrat Party extremists hold entirely too much power, as illustrated by how the presidential candidates are pandering to them during the primary season.
I certainly hope the Democrats make the same strategic decision as the Republicans - and finally start asking whether the “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party” is actually a liability rather than an asset. Let’s hope the power-brokers will excommunicate the leftists the same way.
Voted for Bush the first the first time
Voted for Clinton the first time
Voted for Bush the second
Pro abortion rights
Pro NRA
Pro legalization of marijuana
Pro decriminalization of drugs in general
Anti censorship of any kind
Anti NEA
Pro diversity in college admissions
Atheist (raised as a Catholic)
Pro universal health care as long as it doesn’t bankrupt the country
Anti mandatory sentencing (why have judges?)
And the only politician I like lately is Colin Powell. I wish he would run for president.
It’s like anything. People characterize anyone who disagrees with their beliefs as the most extreme opponent of those beliefs. For example, “Conservative” does not mean “white, racist, bigoted, ignorant, fundamentalist or narrowminded.” Every “conservative” is not Pat Buchanan just as every liberal is not a pot-smoking hippy.
Trying to characterize people, let alone a nation of 250 million people, in terms of simplistic labels (especially ones that are not easily defined) is intellectually lazy, IMO.
I think this statement of yours is basically correct, and it’s one of the reasons why the Republican Party - the traditional home party of the aforementioned dwindling hard-core Christian believers - is trending toward a less overtly religious stance - which was the point of my various posts. I would argue that changing demographics combined with geopolitics are revolutionizing the power base in the Republican Party.
Also, I think it’s important to note that the only people who may be more suspicious of those evil “neo-conservatives” than the moron International A.N.S.W.E.R. types are the Christian right. The “neo-conservatives” favor policies to aggressively take the world into the 21st century while the Christian right wants to take us back into 1955.
Who do you think has more power in the Republican Party - the “neo-conservatives” or the Christian right? I think the answer is rather obvious, n’est-ce pas?
So, GoHeels, if the fundies no longer get the respect they used to in the Republican Party, and if they are dissatisfied with the Bush Administration’s neocon foreign policy – is it possible the “people of faith” will break ranks and vote Democrat next year? Or mount a third-party challenge to Bush? (Heh-heh-heh.)
I think the democrats have more to lose whenever there is a menace of stronger third or fourth parties in the US. So too let loose their own extremists means losing definitely those votes. While I would say that the Religious Right still votes republican… even though they were “abandoned” by the Republicans.
Heh-heh-heh is about right. No, they ain’t going anywhere.
In our current “winner-take-all” system, in order to win, the Democrats have to do the same thing the Pubbies did to the Christian right - realize the leftists (AKA the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party”) are a cancer and more trouble than they’re worth. Democrats need to reconnect with the patriotic working man, poor Southerners (who IMHO they currently ignore or deride - Zell Miller is right), etc.
If the leftists want to defect to the Green Party and condemn themselves to perpetual insignificance, OK. Democrats may suffer in the short term. But usually in the long term, even the radicals realize nothing is more important than victory and come back home.
In comparing US politics to those of the rest of the industrialised democratic world, it is perhaps instructive to take a given US politician and ask where he or she might be found on the political spectrum of other countries. I would suggest that, were Al Gore to join a British party, it would most definitely be the Conservatives, and futhermore that he would be considered a distinct right-winger even amongst Conservatives. As for France, I think he would be so far to the right of Chirac that he might even have to plump for the National Front to feel most comfortable, politically speaking.
SentientMeat, I don’t know anybody (apart from some frothing-at-the-mouth conservatives) in America who thought of Gore as a left-winger. He was very much considered a moderate Democrat. I also think positioning him with the NF is absurd, and would not lump him in with right-wing Tories either. What in the world is your justification for those statements?
Merely that this man, from his presidential campaign, is by most accounts pro death penalty, pro private firearm ownership, anti socialised medicine (in a European mould, at any rate), and advocates an almost non-existent safety net of state aid (again by European standards), to name but a few. Place those policies in the context of the British or French spectrum, and he would undeniably take up a position pretty far to the right: Which of the parties in Britain or France advocates bringing back the death penalty and largely dismantling the welfare state?
The assertion that “most people are in the middle” asks for another question: where’s the middle? To me, it seems to be a lot further right in the US than it is here.
