I think libertarians tend to be the reverse (at least the ones who aren’t really just conservatives who want legal weed).
I guess I should amend my statement – the Dems are already more fiscally conservative than most of the world’s liberals and labor parties. They’re more fiscally conservative than Republicans, in that they usually try to pay for their programs, rather than just cut taxes and assume it will all go according to plan. So, Dems are already a mix of social liberals with fiscal conservatives and liberals.
Those are Republicans. They may call themselves “fiscal conservatives”, but when actually put in charge they run up huge deficits. It’s been that way for 40 years.
Reagan was lucky that the United States was in a period of hyper-inflation (maybe not by definition, but it sure seemed that way), even with home loan rates that looked like credit card rates (20%!); throw on that a President who couldn’t work with a Congress run by his own party, and the unresolved Iranian Hostage Crisis - yeah, that’s a recipe for a landslide victory. Once in office, he was just socially liberal enough (he was the first divorced/re-married president); the economy rebounded, and the mid-term message (are you better off than you were 4 years ago?) kept the independents and “Reagan Democrats” voting for him.
Can we re-create that in the opposite direction? Well,I think that might be what got Biden elected. The independents and some Republicans realized that Trump is a despicable human being, and his handling of COVID was a disaster. Had COVID not happened, or if he had put on a #!^#ing mask and told people it was patriotic to do that, we might be well into his second term. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the economy was booming (started under Obama; continued slightly slowed under Trump, but still positive). The economy is back, but Biden isn’t getting the credit (from the loudest circles). I’m not sure how we get to a “sustained” bipartisan discussion in the immediate future. Then again, even with the “Reagan Revolution”, the Republicans only held the Presidency for 12 years. We’ve been in a (for the most part) 8-year cycle for a long time, with Carter and Trump being the exceptions.
I think “fiscal conservative” more is shorthand for “cut taxes and cut wasteful spending and favor smaller government” etc. - the whole “starve the beast” thing. Conservatives don’t acknowledge or have a phrase for what they actually do, which as you say, is spend like a drunken sailor with no revenue to pay for their party.
A great starting point would be someone independently wealthy, so that they could be elected to office and not be beholden to the interests of the wealthy financial backers that got them into office. Someone who has broad name recognition and appeal in an industry unrelated to politics prior to their foray into politics, and ties to political parties other than his/her own. Arnold Schwarzenegger comes to mind; from what I remember, when he was first elected as governor of California he had bipartisan support because he was married to a Kennedy, was a moderate conservative, and was widely known and liked for his acting and bodybuilding.
No. It would have taken a lot more than that. Before he took office there was some hope he’d be moderate (having no agenda he cared about) and would appoint competent people and say out of the way, He didn’t do that. He continued his platform of “malice tempered by incompetence” and there is no way he could have enjoyed bipartisan support.
You certainly could be right about that. It just seems that, during real times of crisis, people flock to some leader and it is up to them to screw it up. Bush was totally incompetent and incurious, but after 9/11 his approval shot up to, what, 80%? And then he screwed it up.
If Trump had just cared about people instead of the level of the Dow Jones, well, he wouldn’t be Trump. But if, say, Jeb Bush had won and the pandemic still hit, he could have seen some real bipartisan support. Even Trump got that support in Congress when passing his aid packages.
For a brief moment after 9/11, he had the libs in his pocket–he might have even kept some of them if he had been a decent person and not made unnecessary war and greedy social programs (not to mention screwing up Katrina big-time). But that means he could have forged a left-right coalition if he had been a different person–smarter, sharper, more empathetic, wiser, competent.
Yes, true. My point is that, in order to get that kind of bipartisan support, you need someone who isn’t a psychopathic narcissist or a complete dullard who happens to be in the chair when disaster strikes. And, it probably has to be a Republican, since conservative outlets will work to undermine any Democratic president.
(“Hey, RitterSport, liberal outlets do that to Republicans, too!” First of all, no one watches liberal outlets or listens to liberal talk radio. Second of all, liberal outlets also go after Democratic politicians considered not liberal enough in a way that Fox and friends don’t do with Republican presidents)
That describes the millionaires/billionaires who ran for President as Dems a couple years back - like Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Andrew Yang, and even Howard Schultz sort of. They couldn’t even get much partisan support, but much bi-partisan support.
It exists but it describes a vanishingly small part of the electorate.
Charlie Baker, Republican former governor of Massachusetts, was massively popular across the political spectrum and highly competent, but he’d never get past the primaries.
A lot of Canadians used to describe themselves as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. This was pre-pandemic before governments of every stripe list all notions of economic constraint.
As mentioned before, it is hard to imagine. However, I’d look for a structural shift rather than an usually popular individual politician.
If one party lost in a real old-fashioned landslide — say, Trump getting the 2024 nomination and losing 60-40, with a number of accompanying upsets where MAGA members of Congress lost, then some surviving Republicans would want to show how cooperative with Democrats they could be.
A similar dynamic would occur, gritting our teeth, if Trump or DeSantis won with 60 percent.
But in the real world, the U.S. is too closely divided for a landslide in the foreseeable future.
It amazes me that, in this day and age, someone universally broadly liked (The Rock? Gronk?) would still struggle and likely face shyyte storms once they picked a side. (Not meant to imply that soldiers, sportsfolk or screen stars necessarily have political skills and will, more a comment on the times.)
Well, even somebody as universally liked (well, before the revelations of his infidelity) as Schwarzenegger would have faced an uphill climb back in the day, even had he not been ineligible.
So, that part isn’t really unique to this day and age. Nor is the extreme partisanship, though to be fair we experienced that in this country in more than a century. I blame/praise WWII for that.
Very funny.