No, I’m discussing presidential elections in a thread on presidential elections.
I don’t think Bill Clinton’s success proves anything, given governed like a conservative and advertised himself as a conservative. Those are not the actions of a party and an ideology confident that demographics will bail them out where persuasion has failed.
Economic conservatism (or liberalism, depending on what term you use) has in some ways been growing all over the world, China, India and Vietnam abandoned marxism and socialism for more liberal economic policies. But much of latin america has moved to the left economically as a rebellion against Chicago economics.
Plus a lot of young people in the US are growing up in an age of heavy student loan debt, predatory capitalism, lack of health insurance, etc. They likely aren’t going to subscribe to conservative economics as much as the previous generation.
Latin America’s move to the left has been highly overrated. Chile supposedly elected socialists, but you don’t see them changing the basic social contract in Chile. they’ll still have private social security accounts and they’ll still maintain the free market policies that made Chile the richest per capita nation in Latin America.
As for young people, supporting liberal economic policies will only happen if liberal economic policies get them jobs. FDR brought liberalism into dominance by getting unemployed people back to work. Obama has not had that same level of success reducing the unemployment rate, especially among young workers.
Oh yeah, like their nationalised copper industry?
You WHAT? The New Deal, a liberal policy? Ahahah!
Consult this.
Also, Paul. Keep in mind he’s one of the Tea Party luminaries. The Tea Party is ideologically promiscuous enough to encompass both the military wing and the taxed enough wing of the party, as long as they’re of the extreme Christian white variety.
Chile is one of many countries that moved to the left.
Pink tide sounds like a feminine laundry detergent though.
As far as young people, if the best young people can hope for is 30k in student loan debt combined with minimum wage jobs (or permatemp jobs) with no benefits, that isn’t going to endear them to neoliberal economics.
I wouldn’t count Ron Paul as part of the current Tea Party movement. I view him has a Libertarian (extreme Libertarian in some aspects) and his original Tea Party was to support his campaigns (as opposed to the current Tea Party who basically co-opted the name and operates more like a hate group).
In the last couple years, Ron Paul has thrown off some off his Libertarian ideals (e.g. limiting governments ability to take private property for commercial developers) in favor of Right Wing ideology (his new emphasis on Pro-Life ideology), but I still wouldn’t put him in the same category as a Bachman or a Santorum. (e.g. I haven’t seen him push the Muslim meme or the “not quite American” stuff)
First there needs to be a definition of what Fiscal Conservatism is. Are you talking Regan/Bush style (where the government and the debt grew uncontrolled despite all their talk) or actual small, financially effective government for the population.
IF the second then I submit that true fiscal conservatism would be along the lines of:
(a) Single payer health care as the most cost effective means of providing a healthy population able to learn and work
(b) Limited regulations on people’s personal lives. Forget the drug wars, release people who are jailed for ONLY marijuana possession. Quit regulating what people can consume (e.g. Raw Milk). Quit regulating “marriage” beyond the basics on contract law (e.g. inheritance, etc).
(c) Strong regulation of corporations in the areas such as environmental protection, contracts and consumer protection. This is because, unlike humans, corporations are specifically in existence to make a profit and the pursuit of profit often endangers the rights of individuals (e.g. corporation the pollutes ground water)
(d) A military to protect the rights and freedoms of US Citizens. If corporations want ‘muscle’ there are now plenty of free market solutions (e.g. XE) that they can turn to. No US tax dollars should be spent protecting any corporate resources or influence abroad. If countries want assistance, they have to have skin in the game. If our troops are off-shore on our dime, then they should be conducting humanitarian actions, not trying to lock down some oil field or copper mines.
Also, Paul. Keep in mind he’s one of the Tea Party luminaries. The Tea Party is ideologically promiscuous enough to encompass both the military wing and the taxed enough wing of the party, as long as they’re of the extreme Christian white variety.
[/QUOTE]
Ron Paul has had some team party support, but the right wing factions overwhelmingly dislike his positions on foreign policy related to a non-interventionist smaller military.
I agree with you except in preventing what people can consume. That’s the only thing keeping the corporations from poisoning us. Even if the regulations include proper labeling, the race to the bottom will mean that everything will have bad stuff in it as it’s cheaper than getting rid of it. The FDA is still needed.
I do agree that raw milk is a stupid thing to forbid. Same thing with sugary sodas.
Just so people have some facts on this: raw milk sales are regulated by the individual states, not the federal government. At present, a majority - 32 states - allow the sale of raw milk for human consumption. It is highly regulated in those states, of course, but all milk and all dairy products of whatever kind, intended for whatever audience, is highly regulated.
You can see your state’s laws and regulations starting with this page. That’s a pro-raw milk site and highly activist but I believe their summaries are accurate.
Raw milk regulation shows up an interesting gap between libertarians and conservatives. The former wants to supersede state laws by eliminating regulations on the federal level and the latter want to preserve state powers by curbing the federal government’s ability to make national rulings. I don’t see how this gap can easily be narrowed. And calling it fiscal conservatism, as Enkel did, seems to create an entirely new class of beliefs that wouldn’t please either side.
Actually, the latest NBC/WSJ poll has Romney leading with whites, but only by 53 to 40 percent; that’s significant, but not “monolithic.”
Romney’s support among African-Americans, meanwhile, is at zero percent.
The white vote isn’t monolothic now, but it could be in the future. Republicans have maintained their viability by winning more and more of the white vote. I read an article saying that Romney was doing as well among the country’s 1984 demographics as Reagan did over Mondale. That’s pretty remarkable and it shows that Republicans may not have to fear demographic change. More importantly, it shows that Democrats can’t just wait in order to win. They actually have to persuade people. Especially since Asians, who actually are a swing group, are the fastest growing immigrant population now. More Democratic than Republican, but not by the same margin as African-Americans or Hispanics.
Oh yeah, the Belaya Gvardiya come to rescue the country from the rampaging hordes. Does have a white ring to it.
They may be more successful in winning the racist white vote and the uneducated rural white vote. I believe the key demographic is not race-based or age-based or gender-based, it it simply rural vs urban. As more of the nation becomes urbanized, Republicans have a steeper hill to climb. Look at the traditional blue states- they’re the urban/industrial states. The only places where Republicans can count on electoral votes are from non-urban and southern states. Hillbillies, hayseeds, and rednecks are becoming an ever-smaller share of the electorate.
Well, no, but the more insane the Tea Party gets, the worse the republicans look and poll, and while there is a good 27% national average of people who will vote republican no matter what, the polls among most people are dropping.
That number is misleading, primarily because the well has been poisoned. People want to look conservative. However, when people are polled on real positions, rather than labels, they turn out far more liberal than one might think.
Not sure if serious.
http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html
What this conservative group sees as “economic freedom” is a pretty good proxy for economic conservatism. Economic freedom around the world gained from 1980 to 2007. There have been setbacks due to the recession, but I doubt that’s a trend.
Don’t rule out: Because there actually is a loving God who loves America and wants her to thrive.
Of course there’s someone better than Mitt. He happens to be the President of the United States.
Guiliani is actually pro-choice, but then so was Romney when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts.