# Why conservatives can't get what they want **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582 "2006-06-29T01:31:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/61 "2006-07-02T16:07:23Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > OK, feeling that your vote counts, and indeed it does, is a benefit of sorts. > > But what about the actual political functioning of the country after all those reps from all those parties go to work? > > You get colition governments, which are just mushy big tents even worse than those in the US. Or am I wrong–what am I missing? On the evidence, you get **better results.** You might get the “European social model” instead of the American. From [“The American Paradox,”](http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1155) an article by Ted Halstead, in the February 1, 2003, edition of The Atlantic Monthly: > [@](#): > > Nothing illustrates America’s profound contradictions more starkly than a comparison with other advanced democracies: among these the United States is either the very best or the very worst performer on a wide range of social and economic criteria. We are simultaneously the leader and the laggard among our peers—almost always exceptional, almost never in the middle. > > Without question we are the richest, most powerful, and most creative nation on the planet. Our economic and military might stems from our embrace of a particularly high-octane brand of capitalism, supported by financial markets that are deeper and broader than any others, labor markets that are more flexible, and a culture of entrepreneurialism that is unparalleled. These attributes have turned America into the world’s unrivaled engine of innovation and wealth creation. We boast more patent applications than the entire European Union; almost three times as many Nobel laureates as Britain, our closest competitor; and more business start-ups per capita than almost every other advanced democracy. One in twelve Americans will start his or her own business, evincing another outstanding American trait—our great tolerance for risk. And our export of movies, television shows, music, and fast-food chains makes us, for better or worse, the dominant cultural force on the globe. > > But like the Roman god Janus, America has two faces. Despite being the richest nation on the planet, we suffer from higher rates of poverty, infant mortality, homicide, and HIV infection, and from greater economic inequality, than other advanced democracies. We have far more uninsured citizens, and a lower life expectancy. On a per capita basis the United States emits considerably more greenhouse gases and produces more solid waste. We spend more per student on K-12 education than almost all other modern democracies, yet our students perform near the bottom on international tests. We have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and among the highest proportions of single parents, and American parents have the least amount of free time to spend with their children; indeed, the average American works nine weeks more each year than the average European. Our performance on many social indicators is so poor, in fact, that an outsider looking at these numbers alone might conclude that we were a developing nation. > > How do we reconcile these two faces of America? To a remarkable degree the United States seems to have exchanged social cohesion and a broad-based middle class for economic dynamism and personal freedom. Have we abandoned what used to be referred to as the common good? > > \ > > THE TWO FACES OF AMERICA > > This list of “bests” and “worsts” is based on a variety of sources—including statistics from the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and a number of other groups and experts—but the basic criteria are consistent. Among advanced democracies, America had to rank in the top three for a category to be listed under “bests” and in the bottom three for a category to be listed under “worsts.” (Where applicable, all rankings were determined on a rate basis or as a percentage of population.) > > Bests-------------------------------------------------Worsts > > Gross domestic product------------------------------Poverty > Productivity---------------------------------------------Economic inequality > Business start-ups------------------------------------Carbon-dioxide emissions > Long-term unemployment---------------------------Life expectancy > Expenditure on education---------------------------Infant mortality > University graduates----------------------------------Homicide > R&D expenditure---------------------------------------Health-care coverage > High-tech exports--------------------------------------HIV infection > Movies exported---------------------------------------Teen pregnancy > Breadth of stock ownership--------------------------Personal savings > Volunteerism--------------------------------------------Voter participation > Charitable giving---------------------------------------Obesity Totaling up both sides of the column, on balance, I say we’ve made a bad bargain. Not that switching to a PR-based multiparty system would **necessarily** produce more progressive public policies (political circumstances on the ground are rather different here than any other country you can name), but it would least open up the **possibility.** Progressives would no longer be frozen out. OTOH, neither would Libertarians. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/62 "2006-07-02T16:15:07Z")
> [@BG](#): > > Totaling up both sides of the column, on balance, I say we’ve made a bad bargain. You’re assuming you can just mix and match. I’d say that list says one thing: freedom. If freedom is your goal, that list looks like a fairly logical outcome. Many of the items in the negative column are largely a matter of person choice or initiative. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/63 "2006-07-02T16:43:47Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You’re assuming you can just mix and match. I’d say that list says one thing: freedom. If freedom is your goal, that list looks like a fairly logical outcome. Many of the items in the negative column are largely a matter of person choice or initiative. It rather depends how you define “freedom”. If you want to talk about traditional liberal, libertarian, Locke-style freedoms, the US comes out on top. But on the other hand, if you talk about modern liberal, Isiah Berlin-“positive freedom”- ie. the freedom to achieve what you want irrespective of your class, family or wealth- than the US does rather worse. No matter how positive you may consider the entrepeurnerial, low-tax-based economy of the US, it is exactly that style of economy (one based on freedom from intervention) that keeps the average person born into poverty from ever getting a chance of a good education or a well-paying job. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/64 "2006-07-02T17:13:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > On the evidence, you get **better results.** You might get the “European social model” instead of the American. As a self-styled “practical democratic socialist,” I tend to agree that Europe does better. > [@](#): > > Not that switching to a PR-based multiparty system would **necessarily** produce more progressive public policies (political circumstances on the ground are rather different here than any other country you can name), but it would least open up the **possibility.** Progressives would no longer be frozen out. OTOH, neither would Libertarians. I fail to see any connection. Britain also has those goodies but not a multiparty system. I think the fact that we are not as socialist as we need to be comes from the overall political culture and not a lack of participation on the part of little parties. Conversely, if Scandanavia went to a two-party system, I doubt they would dump their welfare states. I think America will eventually move in the right direction through political evolution. It will start with people across the political board realizing (at last!) that medical care for all is absolutely necessary. Basically, the Democratic party will have to lead, just as it did under the New Deal. But I don’t want little political parties, liberal as they may be, “dividing and conquering” the Democrats while the fascists stay strong through greater cohesion. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/65 "2006-07-02T17:23:17Z")
> [@Happy Clam](#): > > It rather depends how you define “freedom”. If you want to talk about traditional liberal, libertarian, Locke-style freedoms, the US comes out on top. But on the other hand, if you talk about modern liberal, Isiah Berlin-“positive freedom”- ie. **the freedom to achieve what you want irrespective of your class, family or wealth- than the US does rather worse**. Cite for the bolded part? > [@](#): > > No matter how positive you may consider the entrepeurnerial, low-tax-based economy of the US, it is exactly that style of economy (one based on freedom from intervention) that keeps the average person born into poverty from ever getting a chance of a good education or a well-paying job. Cite that the average poor person is “kept” in poverty and doesn’t have a chance of a good eductation or a well-paying job? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/66 "2006-07-02T17:30:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It’s just that it’s not clear what you find objectionable about McCain. Too socially liberal? Insufficiently neocon-aggressive? What? Too socially liberal? _John McCain_? Let’s see… John McCain is anti-abortion. He wants the War on Drugs expanded, and drug sentences made harsher. He supports the death penalty, and in general tougher sentencing for most crimes. He’s opposed to increasing the minimum wage. He’s opposed to the Kyoto treaty. He supports a federal concealed carry gun law, and wants to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits. He has the same position as Bush on stem cells. He supports making welfare recipients donate 40 hours a week of community service or training. As for whether he’s not ‘Neocon-aggressive’ enough, whatever that is… McCain strongly supported the war in Iraq, and still does. His and Bush’s positions on the war on terror are virtually identical - so much so that some pundits have speculated that Bush will endorse McCain if McCain wants him to, despite their personal animosity, for the simple reason that McCain is the only contender out there right now who can be counted on to carry Bush’s WoT policies. McCain supports military tribunals for suspected terrorists, and supports the use of pre-emptive strikes against countries that are deemed a national security threat to the U.S. If I were a Republican presidential candidate, I’d be spending my time trying to figure out how McCain got the left to love him and think he’s a liberal. It’s a good trick. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/67 "2006-07-02T17:40:03Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > If I were a Republican presidential candidate, I’d be spending my time trying to figure out how McCain got the left to love him and think he’s a liberal. It’s a good trick. Campaign finance reform. It lets him stand up next to Russ Feingold and play populist, and complain about how big corporations and special interests have too much influence. People eat that up. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/68 "2006-07-02T17:42:25Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You’re assuming you can just mix and match. I’d say that list says one thing: freedom. If freedom is your goal, that list looks like a fairly logical outcome. Many of the items in the negative column are largely a matter of person choice or initiative. True. You can make good arguments on both sides. But we the American people, voting under our present system, never get the chance to make a meaningful choice between those alternatives in those terms. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/69 "2006-07-02T17:51:46Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You’re assuming you can just mix and match. I’d say that list says one thing: freedom. If freedom is your goal, that list looks like a fairly logical outcome. Many of the items in the negative column are largely a matter of person choice or initiative. True. You can make good arguments on both sides. But we the American people, voting under our present system, never get the chance to make a meaningful choice between those alternatives in those terms. We only get to choose within a range of options deemed safe by the corporate interests. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/70 "2006-07-02T17:53:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > True. You can make good arguments on both sides. But we the American people, voting under our present system, never get the chance to make a meaningful choice between those alternatives in those terms. We only get to choose within a range of options deemed safe by the corporate interests. :rolleyes: Americans had the chance to vote for Kucinich or Nader last time, and they just didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/71 "2006-07-02T17:53:54Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Campaign finance reform. It lets him stand up next to Russ Feingold and play populist, and complain about how big corporations and special interests have too much influence. People eat that up. I would not be at all surprised to learn the McCain-Feingold Bill is the one and only reason **pkbites** keeps saying “anyone but McCain.” ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/72 "2006-07-02T18:51:34Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Cite for the bolded part? [Why certainly.](http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560) A less broadly-based, but nevertheless interesting graphic [here](http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html) . The methodolgy represented by that graphic is explained [here.](http://www.urban.org/publications/406722.html) Note in particular the paragraph: > [@](#): > > At the same time, however, there is little evidence that this mobility has changed substantially over time. This indicates that the recent increases in inequality have not been offset by any increase in mobility. 21 Thus, the disparity in economic rewards is increasing, while there has been no positive change in the openness or availability of those rewards to everyone in the population. There is also no evidence that mobility is significantly different in the United States than it is in other countries. This suggests that the United States has not only the highest year-to-year inequality in the industrialized world, but also likely has the highest lifetime inequality among similar countries. In other words, not only is there a high degree of economic inequality in the US (which is growing- also note that the idea that the EU member states are not significantly more socially mobile than the US is questioned, for example [here](http://ideas.repec.org/p/ese/iserwp/2002-26.html)), but it is not offset by a significant amount of social mobility. Therefore, the chances of a poor man dying poor (I am representing “what you want” here as “economic success”) are much higher in the US than in other countries, certainly suggesting that the US system is less capable at delivering “equality of opportunity” than, for example, most European countries. > [@](#): > > Cite that the average poor person is “kept” in poverty and doesn’t have a chance of a good eductation or a well-paying job? The chance of economic success for a person born into poverty is certainly lower than that of a child to a rich family (both as the links above and as common sense shows; after all, the chance of going to a good university, for example, [rises exponentially with the wealth of the prospective student’s family](http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-hong19mar19,1,4471706.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)). I think that the low quality of American public schooling ([compared to other countries- warning PDF!](http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005003.pdf)) demonstrates that those with the cash are more likely to have their children succeed (since they can afford to send them to private schools, for instance), as does the discrepancy between the quality of schooling in high-income areas and low-income ones (since the majority of school funding in America is provided by regional property taxes). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/73 "2006-07-02T19:07:29Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Americans had the chance to vote for Kucinich or Nader last time, and they just didn’t. Because they’d learned a lesson from the 2000 election – but not the **only** lesson to be learned from it. In some circumstances, tacking left might well the smartest thing the Dems could do. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/74 "2006-07-02T19:16:22Z")
> [@Happy Clam](#): > > [Why certainly.](http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560) A less broadly-based, but nevertheless interesting graphic [here](http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html) . The methodolgy represented by that graphic is explained [here.](http://www.urban.org/publications/406722.html) Note in particular the paragraph: > > In other words, not only is there a high degree of economic inequality in the US (which is growing- also note that the idea that the EU member states are not significantly more socially mobile than the US is questioned, for example [here](http://ideas.repec.org/p/ese/iserwp/2002-26.html)), but it is not offset by a significant amount of social mobility. Therefore, the chances of a poor man dying poor (I am representing “what you want” here as “economic success”) are much higher in the US than in other countries, certainly suggesting that the US system is less capable at delivering “equality of opportunity” than, for example, most European countries. I don’t see how any of that proves the statement you made in the earlier post about how other countires compare to the US. And your own cite makes it clear that there is disagreement among social scientists: > [@](#): > > Not all social scientists accept the conclusion that mobility is declining. Gary Solon, of the University of Michigan, argues that there is no evidence of any change in social-mobility rates, down or up. But, at the least, most people agree that the dramatic increase in income inequality over the past two decades has not been accompanied by an equally dramatic increase in social mobility. > [@](#): > > The chance of economic success for a person born into poverty is certainly lower than that of a child to a rich family (both as the links above and as common sense shows; after all, the chance of going to a good university, for example, [rises exponentially with the wealth of the prospective student’s family](http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-hong19mar19,1,4471706.story?ctrack=1&cset=true)). I think that the low quality of American public schooling ([compared to other countries- warning PDF!](http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005003.pdf)) demonstrates that those with the cash are more likely to have their children succeed (since they can afford to send them to private schools, for instance), as does the discrepancy between the quality of schooling in high-income areas and low-income ones (since the majority of school funding in America is provided by regional property taxes). I agree with that, but that’s a lot difference from what you said earlier. Are you retracting that statement, or just making a new statement independent of the earlier one? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2006, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/75 "2006-07-02T19:26:03Z")
Just to add a bit more to that last post, it’s one thing to say it’s easy for rich kids to stay rich later in life, but that has nothing whatsover to do with how hard it is for poor kids to escape their backgrounds as they grow up. It’s not that hard, if one is willing to make a few simple choices-- stay in school, don’t have kids until you can reasonably expect to afford them, and don’t get hooked on drugs. I believe that any poor person who follows those simple rules has an excellent chance of escaping poverty in the US. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/76 "2006-07-03T15:53:41Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Just to add a bit more to that last post, it’s one thing to say it’s easy for rich kids to stay rich later in life, but that has nothing whatsover to do with how hard it is for poor kids to escape their backgrounds as they grow up. It’s not that hard, if one is willing to make a few simple choices-- stay in school, don’t have kids until you can reasonably expect to afford them, and don’t get hooked on drugs. I believe that any poor person who follows those simple rules has an excellent chance of escaping poverty in the US. You really think making those choices is that **easy?** The biggest roadblock poor people face is that they have to grow up among other poor people. It’s a cycle – bad habits are reinforced by daily example. I forget who said this: “Crime is not caused by poverty, crime is caused by concentrations of poverty.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/77 "2006-07-03T16:25:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You really think making those choices is that **easy?** It’s not easy for everyone, but I don’t see why it should be difficult for the “average” poor person, which is what we were talking about. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/78 "2006-07-03T17:04:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I would not be at all surprised to learn the McCain-Feingold Bill is the one and only reason **pkbites** keeps saying “anyone but McCain.” While his attack on the First Amendment is a biggie, it’s not the only thing I don’t like about him. His vote against tax cuts, his vote against the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, which phased out many of the farming subsidy programs put into place during the Great Depression, his opposition to permanently eliminating the inheritance tax. His positions on global warming, his vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment, the awful bill he’s pushing on immigration, his position on stem cells, the fact that he talks out of both sides of his mouth on gun control. Etc., Etc., etc… I could go on&on. I fully realize that no pol is perfect. We all have to pick & choose issues when looking at a candidate. I certainly was not overly enthused with Bush. But there are way, way too many things about JM I find unacceptable. And the idea of a Democraticly control congress with a McCain presidency scares the shit out of me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/79 "2006-07-03T17:08:14Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > . . . attack on the First Amendment . . . :rolleyes: Oh, the hell with it, let’s not go **there** yet again . . . ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2006, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582/80 "2006-07-03T17:10:29Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > His vote against tax cuts, his vote against the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, which phased out many of the farming subsidy programs put into place during the Great Depression, his opposition to permanently eliminating the inheritance tax. His positions on global warming, his vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment, the awful bill he’s pushing on immigration, his position on stem cells, the fact that he talks out of both sides of his mouth on gun control. Etc., Etc., etc… I could go on&on. Just out of curiosity, do you think most Pub voters feel the way you do? Not about McCain, but about the issues you mention. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-conservatives-cant-get-what-they-want/362582.md?page=5)