I think that the schism is overrated- I hardly think it will be permanent. The two political parties have always been ungainly coalitions of interests both temporary and long term. Right now, we all just seem to be overly generalizing our “side” to the 50% of the population that align with us on the Republican/Democratic divide. There is no particular reason why pro-labor policies have to line up with socially liberal policies rather than socially conservative views. It’s just that starting in the early 90’s party discipline (especially within the GOP, but later spreading to the Dems once they lost power) began to become more ironclad, more typical of say a parliamentary party rather than what was historically the case. The combination of our system of elections with the idea that party members should follow the national party line rather than representing their immediate constituents in what those constituents would consider the appropriately democratic/republican way has left the minority in any district or area feeling particularly disenfranchised.
At some point, perhaps with the (hopefully) imminent fall of DeLay party discipline will break down on both sides of the aisle and representatives will break party lines more. (Let’s face it, chances are a New York Republican probably has a hell of a lot more in common with a Connecticut Democrat than either does to a Texan or Montanan of the same party affiliation.) Hopefully congressional leadership will also stop leaving the minority party out in the cold.
Thanks Polycarp. I appreciate the compliments. Perhaps I should compose all my posts as though I were talking to Zoe, who I was answering at the time. She seems to bring out the best in me. And I always know she’ll try to take what I say the way I mean it.
As to your request, I’ll have to take a pass for now as time is short. But if you’d like post some of your observations in the meantime, I’d be very interested in hearing them.
But this has nothing to do with “liberalism” or “conservatism,” or else you would have to conclude that everyone in the history of the world has been more conservative than everyone who came after them. “Conservatism” is meaningful only in the context of the issues of the time; one of your imaginary time travellers shocked by 2004 society might actually have been fairly liberal.
This is true, but I don’t believe it follows that everyone in the history of the world who came before would have to more conservative than those who followed.
The question of whether the world had become more liberal or conservative to the imaginary time traveller would depend upon the direction his/her world had taken in the time since. If the world had become markedly more conservative since the time traveller’s time, he/she would be surprised at the difference between now and the time they came from; if the world has become more liberal, they would also be surprised (or in my opinion, shocked) to see what the world has become since their time.
Indeed they might have been, but then there would be the question of whether they thought it had gone too far…or not far enough.
But natually a socially and/or philosophically liberal person from that day and age would be less alarmed at the liberal changes that have occurred since their time. But such people were much less in evidence in those days than they are now. I still maintain that the typical, average housewife or businessman from fifty years would be shocked at the results of liberal influence in this country over the last fifty years.
As I’ve said, I’m conflicted myself as to whether or not this liberal influence has ultimately been for the best, but its impact on daily life in this country over the last fifty years is undeniable…and that was what I was trying to convey to Zoe in response to her question as to why I thought the country had become more liberal, given that it appears to be the opposite to her.
You guys spew malice at poor and working class whites, and then you wonder why they don’t vote for your candidates. Here’s a clue. Don’t use words like “hillbilly,” “redneck,” “white trash” or “trailer trash” if you wouldn’t use the words “nigger,” “kike,” or “spic” in the same context.
Really, guys, if you want us to support you, it would be a good idea to at least try to cover up the contempt you feel for us. It would be even better if you got rid of it completely and tried to understand that being white does not automatically confer power and privilege, but I’m not going to hope for a miracle here.
I spew venom at idiots who own multimillion dollar homes, & run businesses here, but won’t support funding education.
I spew venom at idiots who lie, cheat & steal during the week, & go all pious on Sunday.
I spew venom at idiots who censor the local library “for the childrens’ sake.” Whilst the reading skills of those kids would be regarded as feeble in a colony of cherrystone clams.
Keep your yap shut, until you learn about who and what you are defending.
That oh-so-peaceful era some people are talking about back in the 50’s and 60’s, what you don’t realize or don’t think about is it was for WHITE people only.
Immigrants like myself or born-in-America like my SO, it didn’t matter. You certainly weren’t going to have that sweet little life with the sock hops and the cute little dresses.
Oh no, to the back of the bus for you. Chinese, work on the railroads. I don’t know what Indians were doing but no doubt it was some sort of menial labor.
Let liberalism grow stronger. The conservative side has always tried to hold me back, as an immigrant, and as a woman. If it hadn’t been the the liberal side I would still be in the back of the bus.
I’m not saying I am all that liberal…I believe I’m pretty conservative economically and liberal in so-called “human issues”. But extremists are the ones who begin the change. Whether or not that can be changed remains to be seen.
You know absolutely nothing about social history except what you see on TVLand reruns of The Donna Reed Show.
Y’know what you should do? Go to the library and get out microfilm copies of local (or national) newspapers from the 1950s, and see how much “better and cleaner and nicer” life was back then. I think you’ll be in for a surprise.
Zoe, think of this: What was the margin of victory, in terms of state wins, for Nixon or Reagan, and what was it last Tuesday? Has the conservative movement really grown? I don’t see it. I’m with Pat Buchanan on this: The Conservative Movement is Dying (Perhaps he meant that literally, but that’s another story).
Election irregularities aside, the right wing was more successful at rallying their base than the left. And really, is it so surprising? What did Kerry ever do or say to rally the left-of-what we now call center in the US?
I think it’s all about balance. There wasn’t a sufficient left rally to fight the right rally. Blame whoever - or flame me for saying so - just MHO.
You know what you should do? First, get down off your high-horse. Then, live during those times like I did so you could speak from a base of experience and first-hand knowledge like I do, instead of from your anti-conservative bigotry.
I know, given your life history, that you are highly unlikely to appreciate a more conservative time in this country. And I acknowledge that there were things that existed during that time that were bad (although they weren’t caused by that time, as is commonly imagined…rather they were a result of hundreds of years of societal evolution), and I’ve praised the fact they are much better now. But that doesn’t mean we need to throw out the baby with the bath water in an effort to correct them, which is typical of liberal activism and has resulted in many of the bad or harmful qualities that exist in society today.
I remember when teachers’ top ten lists of problems started with talking in class, followed by running in the halls, followed by chewing gum in class. Now metal detectors are needed just in order to enter the building.
I don’t think there is more of a schism, especially if we look at the issues which divided the people in the past: slavery, civil rights, WWI, the USSR, Mexican War, Whiskey Rebellion, Reconstruction, the Revolution, Vietnam, British impressing our sailors, etc.
What are we divided on today? Health care is too expensive. Taxes are too low or high. The Iraq “war” where an astounding 1000 soldiers have died. STEM CELL RESEARCH for GOD’S SAKE!!!
What’s wrong with a schism anyways? If everyone is thinking the same way, then someone isn’t thinking at all.
I suspect the real moaning about schism is the recent rise of the red media. Before Fox, internet, and talk radio, the Big Three, the AP, and the NY Times were practically the only source for news in America. Now that conservatives are visible to everyone, suddenly there’s a “schism” that must be ended. In other words, we should go back to light blue and blue media only.
Interesting, but I wonder if the author’s reference to the list he mentions is the only one that ever existed. I would think that various surveys were conducted on a fairly regular basis in order to anticipate expenditures and discipline and punishment guidelines.
But I can tell you from first hand experience that the classroom experience of the fifties and sixties was, very much for the most part, as I described.
I think what we’re really divided over is not the 1,000+ dead American soldiers but the 100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians. Their lives are not worth any less than ours, are they?
That’s right. I was only prior to the much worse figure of 100,000 coming out that the 1,000 soldiers were dividing us. Now, apparently, they’re insignificant because their use as a weapon against the war effort pales in comparison with the civilian casualties.
