Wishful thinking. Who’s to say that demographic, generational, and cultural changes are really permanent? How can we predict what changes will be shaping culture five years from now, much less fifty years from now? How do we know how demographics will change? How can we say which way future generations will lean?
Take Hispanics, a voting block that’s been on pundits’ minds quite a bit lately? We know that right now, Hispanics have more children than any other ethnic group, which means that they’re growing rapidly. But will this always be true? We have no way of knowing. And will Hispanics always vote liberal? In the last couple elections they’ve had no rational alternative, given the hateful, racist venom spewed by the Republicans. But that may change eventually. There’s no guarantee that Hispanics will always vote the way they do right now.
The bottom line is that everybody can change their minds and often does.
Not so much. You might be a liberal at 20 and a conservative at 30 or vice-versa, but whatever you are at 30, you’ll probably remain for life. There are many individual exceptions, of course, but that’s the way to bet, and political demographics is all about majorities and averages, not outliers.
I think the OP is waaaay off the mark on a lot of issues, but let’s assume he’s right and that the conservative movement is finished.
Where, exactly, does he see a n opportunity for the Republican Party to become competitive WITHOUT those objectionable conservatives?
The age of John Lindsay and Nelson Rockefeller is long gone, and it’s NEVER coming back. Can ANYONE sketch out a scenario in which the GOP succeeds as a coalition built around Olympia Snowe and Michael Bloomberg?
Look, IIRC, the Rockefeller Republicans were socially liberal, pro-civil-rights, moderately fiscally conservative, pro-business-interests but accepting and even supportive of a welfare state. Now, is that not a combination of positions very politically marketable in the present environment? It’s a politics for the most impeccably respectable of the middle to upper classes – a very important demographic.
Even if this is true, the definition of “liberal” and “conservative” change over time. Back in the 60’s and early 70’s, the baby boomers we are making love, giving peace a chance, smoking pot, and so on. When they grew up, they decided that they could live with social conservatism, militaristic foreign policy, and illegal drugs remaining illegal.
So likewise the Obama generation right now wants change they can believe in, expanded government, a post-racial society, and so on. What will the same people want thirty years from now? It’s anybody’s guess; we’ll just have to wait and see.
Exactly- there’s ALREADY a party for rich liberals, and it’s called the Democratic Party.
What on Earth can Olympia Snowe and Michael Bloomberg offer to rich liberals that the Democrats don’t already give them?
ALL they can say is, “We stand for everything the Democrats do, except we’ll run things a little more efficiently.” Not much of a platform, in my view.
Firmly on the side of fiscal conservatism? What the hell are you talking about? The stimulus bill has majority support in public polling. And the only thing Obama had to do to get Republicans in Congress to oppose him is be the Democratic President. Nothing else is required.
This is kind of the “point” of classical conservatism. Read what Roosevelt (the good one) said when he referred to himself as a conservative; he completely supported progress but didn’t support haphazard progress, he supported a gradual progression in which you continually and progressively changed over time. This was in firm opposition to many of the more radical elements of the time that were advocating a sweeping social revolution.
Proper conservatism has nothing to do with ideology. For that matter proper liberalism has little to do with what people in America think when they use the word liberal. I think “leftism” and “rightism” are possibly better terms, both of which aren’t really much used in any way other than derisively.
The truth of the matter is capitalism undermined the old aristocrats because they came from an old social order that primarily achieved power through force. Centuries and centuries ago their ancestors were the strongest and the most cunning and they killed everyone who tried to get in the way of their rule. After a few generations their families became entrenched as local leaders and much of Europe until the Enlightenment was the story of this relatively small group of people controlling millions and slowly losing their power.
They lost their power because the world evolved and money became very important and the previously powerless merchant class was a lot more proficient at acquiring it than the old nobility.
Serfdom and capitalism can’t go hand in hand. Slavery and capitalism can.
Corporations cannot exist without governments, without governments there wouldn’t be corporations to defend against. “Wealthy individuals” don’t exist so much without government.
I do agree that most of what Western people view as freedom comes entirely from the government. However real freedom is that which you can defend, with lethal force, for yourself. Anything else is an illusion that can disappear like dust in the wind.
I actually think most people don’t have a defined political ideology. They may support one party or the other (often mindlessly), and probably make their decisions about who to vote for based on what rhetoric makes the most sense to them during an election cycle.
My grandmother hated, hated Ronald Reagan. She despised Oliver North and was incensed over Iran-Contra, she actually told me she thought Oliver North should be locked away (a lot of this based on her gut-level feelings over what she was seeing on television.) In 1988 she voted for Bush, because she’s a Republican and her father was a Republican and his father was a Republican.
In a perfect world we’re moving away from that and towards a more educated electorate but I’m not really convinced we’ve made all that much progress. We may have less people with a party affiliation but I don’t think we can view all the independents as much more than people who are going to be swayed by the basest rhetoric without any deeper understanding of politics.
You recall Teddy’s party name correctly, but you don’t recall the political situation back then correctly. The Democrats at the turn of the century had repudiated the big business wing of their party and had nominated socialist William Jennings Bryan for three straight elections. Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate that beat Taft and Teddy, ran on an anti-tariff, anti-trust platform that was anything but right wing.
Of course they can; they are then called “warlords”. Or some similar title.
Then all freedom is an illusion, because you can’t defend anything as an individual. Rambo fantasies of one man winning against a horde are just that; fantasies.
Bush’s first term was given to him by the supreme court, he won the second time because of the war and people do not like to change leaders in a war situation,plus many people didn’t vote.
I know Republicans who are moderates, who will not vote Republican until they quit catering to the religious right. They dropped McCain because he chose Palin a strict religious right advocate.
