Rick Santorum
JUST KIDDING! But I’d love to see the look on your face right now!:p;)
I Haven’t decided yet, so I’ll have to be a pussy and say “anyone buy McCain” for now. I’ll have a better idea as candidates arise. It’s only 2006.
To return to the OP: Conservatives can’t get what they want because they’re a minority movement who managed to get into power by misleading a lot of people (including many in their own ranks) about what they planned to do when they actually got there.
The Republican Party is primarily the party of big business and the wealthy elites. But because money alone isn’t enough to win elections they’ve joined forces with the fundamentalists, the nativists, and the libertarians who act as the party’s foot soldiers. These groups are kept on board through a series of symbolic acts that are intended to demonstrate that the party is sympathetic to their interests without ever seriously advancing their agendas.
The reason the party doesn’t seriously advance their agendas is because even with those three groups on board the conservatives are still in the minority. In order to win elections they need to pull from the center, and, unfortunately for them, the center likes a lot of the things the party’s base hates.
The center likes Social Security. It likes abortion rights. It likes for the federal government to spend money, particularly if it’s spent close to home. It wants to be left alone to mind its own business without some religious busy-body sticking his nose in. It likes immigrants if they work hard when they get here.
So for the last decade the strategy of the Republican party has been to maintain a public face and a private face. The center was courted with talk of “compassionate conservatism” while the base was kept stoked with coded promises about the great things that would happen when the conservatives were back in power.
But now that they ARE in power, they’re stuck. The base is sick of waiting for the promised land: an abortion ban, the end of Social Security, etc. But when the Republicans make tentative moves in those directions, the center pushes back, hard. They got into power by misrepresenting their intentions, so they don’t have the leverage in the country they thought they had. Their political capital, built on a tissue of misdirection, has melted away.
The only thing they have managed to do is funnel buckets of money to the wealthy elites. But that was their primary goal all along. All the rest has always been just window dressing to get the ground troops on board.
That’s why conservatives can’t get what they want.
Great, now I’m gonna spend all afternoon trying to determine if the folks at TNR believe that “irony” is a condition to be cured with a vitamin suppliment.
No, they’re not getting what they want because Bush is a dick who only knows how to steal power.
I agree that Bush is a dick who only wants to steal power. But conservatism itself is floundering. President McCain wouldn’t have been able to kill Social Security either.
Assuming he would have wanted to, which I doubt.
Well, yeah. All that stuff you described is why. When the GOP majority was a new thing, in “Contract with America” days, they had to prove themselves. But today, the GOP’s elected officials are fat & sassy. They don’t have to prove any ideological coherence or actual statesmanlike responsibility to get into power, they can use their incumbency to help themselves stay in power.
There’s a big difference between the ideologues of the party & the officeholders. Remember that neither Wm. F. Buckley nor Pat Buchanan has ever been elected dogcatcher.
Oh, pkbites, why don’t you tell us what a conservative is, in your sense? What do you want?
Pochacco’s analysis is spot on but can be summed up more concisely. Conservatives can’t get what they want in America because America isn’t conservative.
Just my 2sense
Well, agreed, but America doesn’t really seem to be liberal, either (at least not to my, European eyes): gun rights, opposition to nationalised medicine, fierce nationalism, pervasive religous belief spilling into government; these are qualities which I would not associate with the left any more than I would associate support for social security or fierce oppostion to intervention in the rights of the individual with the right (fuzzy and indeterminate as those terms are). Plus, of course, American politics seems to vary wildly from state to state or even within states: to take an extreme example, New York might as well be in a different country to Texas, politically-speaking.
Perhaps America is so damn large it’s difficult to speak of what “America wants” without descending into meaningless generalities?
Great, now I’ve managed to offend both the left and the right.
Well, it is and it isn’t. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has done several extensive “political typology” studies since the late ‘90s. Their most recent findings show the American people, politically, fall into the following nine groups:
ENTERPRISERS
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 81% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 1% Democrat (98% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: As in 1994 and 1999, this extremely partisan Republican group’s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy, which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act.
SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES
11% OF ADULT POPULATION
13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 82% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 0% Democrat (97% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: While supportive of an assertive foreign policy, this group is somewhat more religious than are Enterprisers. In policy terms, they break from the Enterprisers in their cynical views of business, modest support for environmental and other regulation, and strong anti-immigrant sentiment.
PRO-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 58% Republican, 40% Independent/No Preference, 2% Democrat (86% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Pro-Government Conservatives stand out for their strong religious faith and conservative views on many moral issues. They also express broad support for a social safety net, which sets them apart from other GOP groups. Pro-Government Conservatives are skeptical about the effectiveness of the marketplace, favoring government regulation to protect the public interest and government assistance for the needy. They supported George W. Bush by roughly five-to-one.
UPBEATS
11% OF ADULT POPULATION
13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 39% Republican, 5% Democrat (73% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Upbeats express positive views about the economy, government and society. Satisfied with their own financial situation and the direction the nation is heading, these voters support George W. Bush’s leadership in economic matters more than on moral or foreign policy issues. Combining highly favorable views of government with equally positive views of business and the marketplace, Upbeats believe that success is in people’s own hands, and that businesses make a positive contribution to society. This group also has a very favorable view of immigrants.
DISAFFECTEDS
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 68% Independent/No Preference, 30% Republican, 2% Democrat (60% Rep/Lean Rep)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Disaffecteds are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with both their own economic situation and the overall state of the nation. Under heavy financial pressure personally, this group is deeply concerned about immigration and environmental policies, particularly to the extent that they affect jobs. Alienated from politics, Disaffecteds have little interest in keeping up with news about politics and government, and few participated in the last election.
LIBERALS
17% OF GENERAL POPULATION
19% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999. Liberal Democrats now comprise the largest share of Democrats. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration.
CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS
14% OF ADULT POPULATION
15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 89% Democrat, 11% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican,(98% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Religious orientation and conservative views set this group apart from other Democratic-leaning groups on many social and political issues. Conservative Democrats’ views are moderate with respect to key policy issues such as foreign policy, regulation of the environment and the role of government in providing a social safety net. Their neutrality on assistance to the poor is linked, at least in part, to their belief in personal responsibility.
DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS
10% OF GENERAL POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 84% Democrat; 16% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican (99% Dem/Lean Dem)
BASIC DESCRIPTION: Least financially secure of all the groups, these voters are very anti-business, and strong supporters of government efforts to help the needy. Minorities account for a significant proportion of this group; nearly a third (32%) are black, roughly the same proportion as among Conservative Democrats. Levels of disapproval of George W. Bush job performance (91%) and candidate choice in 2004 (82% for Kerry) are comparable to those among Liberals.
BYSTANDERS
10% OF ADULT POPULATION
0% OF REGISTERED VOTERS
PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 22% Republican, 22% Democrat
BASIC DESCRIPTION: These Americans choose not to participate in or pay attention to politics, or are not eligible to do so (non-citizens).
Enterprisers, Social Conservatives, and Pro-Government Conservatives, all together, total 29% of the general population, 33% of registered voters.
Liberals, Conservative Democrats, and Disadvantaged Democrats, all together, total 41% of the general population, 44% of registered voters.
So, neither side really has a majority, but the Dems have a plurality. The battles would be fought for the votes of the independent-leaning Upbeats and Disaffecteds – and such of the Bystanders as are legally eligible to vote and might be persuaded to get involved.
But whether more of the people are “liberal” or “conservative” depends, once again, on how you define the terms. On which side should the Conservative Democrats be counted? Or the Pro-Government Conservatives?
Pretty much spot on. Just look at the various American’s on this board and you get a good indications of how varied we are…especially when you look at where they come from. Even within states though there is a HUGE amount of variance.
And yet the Dems have a HARD time winning in a national election…and have for quite some time. The only time they seem to have any success is with a middle of the road moderate (like Clinton)…why? If they have a ‘plurality’ and all then something must be wrong…and a good percentage of those who SHOULD vote Dem are either not voting or voting for the 'Pubs.
-XT
I was being cute. My point was that whatever camp of conservatives you look at their opinons overall don’t represent anything close to a majority of the voting population. Of course they aren’t going to get what they want. They haven’t convinced the rest of us to go along. What did they expect?
It’s just that it’s not clear what you find objectionable about McCain. Too socially liberal? Insufficiently neocon-aggressive? What?
I say it’s because the GOP works the angles better. They know not only how to get the right people to vote, and vote Republican, but how to get the wrong people to stay home.
Proof? Read the OP again. Conservatives have been in office and have been backed up by poweful media. They’ve produced bupkiss. No restrictions on abortion, no fiscal repsonsibility, no smaller government. Actually, slight progress on the latter two was made–under Clinton.
C’mon, BG, you’re smarter than that. You know what “share of mind” is; the Common Man doesn’t have enough time or inclination to understand a bunch of parties’ positions and vote with any kind of subtlety. Hence our Cro Magnon-oriented US politiics.
In multi-party systems all you get one of two things: 1) A dominant party or parties as we have now; that is, no difference from what we have now; or 2) weaker parties and thus ideologically confused and weak coilition governments.
Multi-party systems sound great to smart, conscientious people like yourself. They fail to achieve anything, however, as most people have rocks in their heads.
As for the OP, yeah, I hear you. I thought of myself as conservative back in '94 (hey, I was just 23), when the Repubs took both houses. Hooray! I thought. Finally someone with a plan was going to try to change America for the better.
Since then, as I said above, “bupkiss.”
If conservatives could actually shrink government and take some of the burden off the common man (taxes, bullshit, whatever), that would be cool. The trouble is that they blab and blab about it but never do anything. Not only don’t they do anything, I don’t think they can: like it or not, we’ve got an (extremely inept and inefficient) socialistic economic and political system, and both parties are unable to face up to that fact.
Despite the troubles we’ve faced (and caused for ourselves) since 9/11, this country has enormous potential. If we did things right, we could provide medical care and a decent lifestyle for all our citizens and double our economic output at the same time. Without breaking much of a sweat.
But to do so will upset the apple carts of the elite and require LOTS and lots of changes in how we think about ourselves and our economic system.
Let me give two examples of socialistic initiatives that greatly increased the greatness of our country and the security of our people: the Interstate Highway System and Medicare.
Are we capable or not of doing something great like that–say, just once a decade? Instead we get Vietnam, the Space Shuttle, and the Iraq War. Fuckin’ ridiculous.
Without truly enlightened leadership, America will continue in its trajectory over the toothy fish.
They work well enough in . . . well, most of the world’s democracies, now. I think the political instability of Italy says more about its political culture than its political system. But everyplace else in Europe (the UK excepted) is a model from which we should be learning.
Why not the UK? Why other European countries?
I don’t see what’s good about their systems. Not that they are awful, but I don’t see any particular benefits.
In Japan, you have a big mess of parties that all stand for jack, coilition governments that end up doing squat, etc. That’s the example I know best, and I fail to see any benefits. Also, I think the prime minister system in general sucks.
Ask the LibDems. The UK is the only country in Europe that does not elect its parliament by some form of proportional representation.
From the voter’s POV, being able to cast your ballot for a party you really believe in, instead of for the lesser of two evils (or for a party that’s such a “big tent” nobody can definitely say what policies you’re supporting when you vote for one of its candidates) has value in and of itself. Being able to vote and know your vote makes a real difference even after the election, because your choice can’t simply and absolutely “lose,” also has value. I mean, in our system, if I’m a Pub and live in a heavily Dem district, I might as well stay home on election day. If I’m a Pub and live in a heavily Pub district, I might as well stay home on election day. The only time I get to make a difference is in that very rare instance when the contest is really close. But in a PR system, every vote counts, and has a real political effect that lasts until the next election.
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?