The next Obama

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, there are some big differences, Monkeyleg. Broad brush-strokes sometimes have their uses.

[Ron]

The end is depressingly the same regardless of the means.

[roo_ster]

It is except that the people really do have the ability to vote their "masters" out of office. They don't do it, though. They just trade their freedom for Obamaphones.

Do read about the barriers to entry our policritters have erected regarding elective office.  Also, anti-spoils-sytem and similar laws ensure the bureaucracy can not be touched by the electorate.

Is one living in a market economy when 100% of the fruits of one's labors are taken by people with guns?  Or is that just a slave economy with numeric window dressing?  How about when we can not effectively influence nearly 100% of those with gov't power who influence our lives? 

[Monkeyleg]

Do read about the barriers to entry our policritters have erected regarding elective office.  Also, anti-spoils-sytem and similar laws ensure the bureaucracy can not be touched by the electorate.

I know very well about the barriers. I've mentioned before that I worked several years on the campaign of a good, decent, real conservative, real constitutional candidate. He finally was elected to the state senate. To do so, he had to challenge a Republican incumbent in the primary. This ticked off the Republican establishment because they then had to spend money in what was otherwise a safe seat.

Once elected, he went after the rigged system that allowed gas taxes to go up every year without the legislature having to vote on an increase. The bill was sent to his committee, but the majority leader wouldn't allow him to schedule a vote in his own committee. A Milwaukee talk show host had his audience hit the Capitol with a barrage of phone calls. The majority leader finally caved, legislators were pressured to vote to repeal the automatic increase, and it was signed into law.

The majority leader told my friend not to expect any help in the upcoming election, and he got none. A Democrat won.

If there were more candidates like him (because of people willing to help candidates like him), we could actually have an honest government somewhere in the US. It's possible. Likely? No, not with things as they are.

[De Selby]

Progressivism as we now know it is the product of the Marxists of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, with their ideas being embraced by the Progressive Party born in WI, codified into laws by Wilson and Roosevelt, made en vogue by the Kennedy's and celebrities, and now exposed for all to see by Obama. It's not the same as the serfdom of the Middle Ages.

In fairness to progressives, many of their ideas have American roots in Thomas Jefferson, and much of American progressivism that's had any success at all at the polls would better be described as Jeffersonian than Marxist.

Jefferson's loathing for bankers and mercantile policy are readily apparent in the chain of American politicians you listed there.  Example here:  http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=217&division=div1

And http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=243&division=div1

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

Of historical interest and since IP law is likely to become a hot topic in this term, I thought I'd toss out Jefferson on patents:

Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=218&division=div1

[CAnnoneer]

If these groups believe they are going to get--and more importantly, hold--what they most desire with the current leftist agenda they are sadly mistaken.  Perhaps they will find that their much-desired sexual freedom will be the ONLY freedom left to them in the world that's a-building, enjoyed furtively behind locked doors with a hostile and unsafe and fragile reality outside the barred window.

Sorry, but the above is just a representative example of conservatives blaming the electorate for being too stupid to understand what they are voting for. My counteradvice is figure out what motivates the voter segments, give them what is reasonable/acceptable, get elected, effect changes.

It is very easy to point to some dumb POS like the Obamaphonist and say "they are all like that". Sure, there is a relatively small underclass like that and they will NEVER be conservative. But there are large masses of electorate that are not at all like that and they still voted for Obama, for completely different reasons. If you understand their aspiration and include its achievement in your program, then you can convert them to your side, win elections, and make a difference on far larger issues. In my mind, with a more reasonable stance on immigration, gay rights, and abortion, the election would have been a cakewalk even with such fatally flawed candidate as Romney. The issues of liberty and anti-statism are far bigger in the long run than the other three.

[CAnnoneer]

The trouble with all this is the "we" you posit.  You think that "we" is going to prosper under the circumstances you offer here?  

By "we" I mean the USA. What do YOU mean by "we"? If your meaning is the same, why wouldn't the USA prosper under those circumstances, together with South America, Europe, and parts of Africa? If China wants another cold war, they are welcome to it. They will lose. But I am 99% sure that is not what is going to happen. China is driven by far different motivations than the USSR or Nazi Germany. They want riches and influence, not war.

And youth does not ensure a strong and thriving culture or civilization.  It might just constitute a first-rate pool of slaves.  Remember that "seniors," with their aged limbs but eternally young technology, can press The Button and exterminate untold numbers of youngsters with the flick of a wrist.

Sorry to say, but most of your postings seem to be refracted through the prism of your mistrust for hispanics. Yeah, there are bad apples among them, just like any other group, but the crushing majority are just like you and me, just browner and shorter. Most, once in America, AND doing well for themselves, abandon traditional ties and assimilate culturally and economically. Keeping them as an underclass, extraditing them, bullying them, keeping them in the shadows underpaid and abused, is just pushing them inward and into enclaves, and ultimately radicalizing them. They did not come here hoping to live in a ghetto functionally similar to whatever toilet they came from. Deny them the American dream, and you WILL get what you fear. Ironic but true.

[CAnnoneer]

China has the , IIRC, the largest standing army on the face of the planet.  What they lack is any realistic way of projecting it, but they will be able to project themselves into the Western Pacific more and more over the next decade or two.

They are building up their fleet as well. The difference is theirs is strategically modern because it is new. We only have a significant advantage in deep waters far from shore, because the carrier groups have a good shot at running security for the cardboard motherships. In coastal waters, we are toast. Security is impossible there due to cruise missiles and cavitation torpedoes. To project power in the West Pacific, China can certainly hug shore and numerous islands. They won't take Hawaii, but they do not need Hawaii. But all of this is just intellectual gaming. It will never come to it for a slew of political and economic reasons.

Again I recomend Nagorski's book about Hitler.  The other political parties were not so much pushed aside by the economic crises they were traunced by Hitler's national socialist movement, usually though those parties wound up being their own worst enemy.

The traditional parties bore the smear of "the stab in the back", which Hitler astutely used against them. More importantly, they did not have a solution to the social problem, because they could not adjust their ideology to allow for a solution. That is why the two major parties in Germany were the communists and the nazis. They did offer such solutions, similar but not the same. Critically, notice both were statist, socialist parties. That is very revealing. In a huge crisis, the populace DID NOT switch to conservatism. They went socialist and statist. A huge lesson to remember and quite relevant to the discussion here. Notice also this happened in one of the most civilized and cultured countries in Europe.

Cutting trade routes is not going to be a good thing for us despite how europe reacted to what the Ottomans did.

Actually, I would welcome it. It means manufacturing coming back to the US. More jobs, more prosperity, more independence, weaker international corporations, higher employment, more American pride, less internationalism, less military spending, no foreign nation building.

There were demographic and cultural arguments made back in Nixon's day too.  They changed.  Everyone has a tendency to draw straight-line projections and assume this will pan out in time, but that isn't always true.

True. That is why I allowed for discontinuity events, e.g. the oil boom or some other source of prosperity. But, barring that, we are stuck with linear projections, and the outlook is grim. Ergo, my urge to re-examine stances and adjust the menu accordingly.

Certainly, getting the younger electorate on board is important, but it is important to educate them that we can no longer be an entitlement society without bringing it down on our ears.  We just can't afford it any longer.
That's going to be a hard case to sell.

I think there are many more fiscal conservatives among the younger electorate than given credit. However, most are disgusted and appalled by the current conservative menu on social issues. Those are a huge anchor around the neck for Republicans and a great boon to Dems. Let's not kid ourselves - that is where this election was lost for the most part.

[CAnnoneer]

Ok, first let me ask if there is some part of the Republican Party that future demographics will support, and why do you think young people/immigrants will support that, and not the other things?

In an environment of prosperity, the average person will turn to fiscal conservatism because he then sees the government as the taxman taking his money away, not a social safety net or provider of services. So, that part they do and will support. However, I do not see them supporting any of the social conservatism, ever again. Ergo, what I proposed as strategy for going forward.

[makattak]

In fairness to progressives, many of their ideas have American roots in Thomas Jefferson, and much of American progressivism that's had any success at all at the polls would better be described as Jeffersonian than Marxist.

Jefferson's loathing for bankers and mercantile policy are readily apparent in the chain of American politicians you listed there.  Example here:  http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=217&division=div1

And http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=243&division=div1
Of historical interest and since IP law is likely to become a hot topic in this term, I thought I'd toss out Jefferson on patents: http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=218&division=div1

Umm... those are not "progressive" principles. That is, unless you can find any progressives opposed to CENTRAL banking, which is what Jefferson there is decrying. Not private banking, but central banking that allows the government to run up a debt. ("to be paid by our posterity")

And the second issue, though some progressives may oppose the current copyright and patent law, is most definitely not the sole realm of progressives- evidenced by the fact that it is the one place you and I find common ground.

[CAnnoneer]

To answer your question, though, there are a whole slew of reasons why Romney lost, but conservatism isn't one of them.

He may not be sufficiently conservative to you and some Republicans, but he was too conservative for the average voter. My guess is, he was a mediocre waiter of a crappy menu. The restaurant now chides him for the mediocrity of his service, instead of looking at the menu and firing the cook.

First, Romney's history in Massachusetts worked against him with the conservative base. He was considered "Obama-lite", as so many here have referred to him. By the time he was able to articulate his conservative ideology--whether it was real or not--it was too late.

I have no doubt that this is true. However, the only way this could have affected the election is if those conservatives stayed home because of it. That would mean they would rather have Fearless Leader for another 4 years with its horrible consequences on the country than Romney. That attitude would be insane, suicidal, and unpatriotic.

Second, the Obama campaign defined him early, painting him as a rich guy only looking to help his rich buddies. This wasn't true, and has never been true of Romney (his charitable contributions and charitable works show him to be much more compassionate than Obama will ever be). Nevertheless, Obama was able to embed that image of Romney in the public's mind.

I believe both things are true. He is a good person who genuinely gave a ton of money to charity. I'd like to have a beer with him any day and get to know his family. Bambie is a POS next to him. However, it is also true that Romney is a rich capitalist, who would have helped his buddies. He simply would have been Bush III, just smarter and more soft-spoken. And the reason is, he got backed by the Republican leadership, who are thoroughly corrupt, and the public knows it. What they do not realize as much is that the Dems are equally corrupt, they just have different PACs to mooch off of.

If I were Romney, I'd just counter with: " Yes, I am rich and successful and proud of it. I did not get rich by political corruption like my opponent, but by my labor and smarts. I am what is right with American and he is what is wrong. You have a clear choice."

Third, Romney's personality doesn't excite people. He didn't ignite passions. When he responded to Obama's "you didn't build that" remark, he showed passion for the first time in his campaign. Fourth, Romney was being too nice. He was up against a campaign that would do anything to win (witness Benghazi), and Romney was using gentleman's rules. He should have used that third debate to politely call Obama out as a liar, and worse.

True. But, it goes back to my comment about the restaurant blaming the waiter. Also, voters did not care about Benghazi, because they did not understand it. I saw FOX trumpeting about it all the time before the elections, but what they shouted was questions, not answers. They should have spent more time and more money on figuring out what happened, then present it to the public. Same goes for the Republican party. They all went collectively soft in the head. Why didn't the R congressmen summon Billary and Petraeus to testify at the end of September or in early October?

Obama also bought votes by pandering to various parts of the Democrat base, giving all of them something paid for by taxpayers. He used jealousy and class warfare to incite hatred on a level I don't think I've seen before. Obama ran one of the most vicious campaigns in political history. The constant charges of racism, the urgings to his followers to "get revenge", the smearing of primary candidates like Herman Cain, the outright lies, and the complicity of the media in covering up a scandal bigger than Watergate make this election one that will be viewed for decades as an example of the worst in politics.

True. But they can only smear you badly, if they take a truth and twist it. They do not have to work hard to portray conservatives as racists when there is a clear disdain for the underclass (which racially is mostly blacks and some hispanics), there is the immigration stance of no reconciliation but deportation and self-deportation. It also does not take much effort to portray conservatives as bigots with the stance on gay marriage. The class struggle is also easy to fuel when the party does think in terms of the 47% all the time. Romney was just honest to say it. Many conservatives think it, and the voter knows it.

[longeyes]

By "we" I mean the USA. What do YOU mean by "we"? If your meaning is the same, why wouldn't the USA prosper under those circumstances, together with South America, Europe, and parts of Africa? If China wants another cold war, they are welcome to it. They will lose. But I am 99% sure that is not what is going to happen. China is driven by far different motivations than the USSR or Nazi Germany. They want riches and influence, not war.

Sorry to say, but most of your postings seem to be refracted through the prism of your mistrust for hispanics. Yeah, there are bad apples among them, just like any other group, but the crushing majority are just like you and me, just browner and shorter. Most, once in America, AND doing well for themselves, abandon traditional ties and assimilate culturally and economically. Keeping them as an underclass, extraditing them, bullying them, keeping them in the shadows underpaid and abused, is just pushing them inward and into enclaves, and ultimately radicalizing them. They did not come here hoping to live in a ghetto functionally similar to whatever toilet they came from. Deny them the American dream, and you WILL get what you fear. Ironic but true.

I grew up around Hispanics, and, I'm guessing, you didn't, so I know firsthand the good and not so good points about the culture.  Actually, since you bring it up in an accusatory manner, I will note here that there are things about "latino" culture I respect and see future strength in, but they may not be the things you generalize about.  They are hardworking, adaptive, and family-oriented, and the way the world is going their propensity for tribalism and making do with what they have will avail them well against the fragmented non-latino culture I see developing.  But if you look hard at the statistics regarding in-wedlock birth rates and educational attainments, even in the second and third generation, you will see a less sanguine picture as far as fitting into today's America (for what that's worth).  Most of the newer latinos are bringing with them what they knew in Mesoamerica, with all that implies.  If you want to see rainbows because they are young and have, for now, a high birthrate, enjoy.

My point is you are positing an America in terms of unity that no longer exists and whose former strengths are waning.  Our welfare state reflects that change, not just the machinations of Progressives.  We have a people who want a welfare state, not just a welfare state foisted on them.  And I repeat, extolling youth for its own sake is a bit naive.  There are a lot of young people in Africa and the Middle East who live in, surprise, abject poverty, so youth per se is no guarantee of anything.

I gather from your nom de 'net that you are, like me, from California...?  If the lesson of what's happened here is lost on you, I don't know what to say to you.

***

For the record, I don't blame latinos for illegal immigration, I blame stupid Anglos.  We have the situation we desired.

[TommyGunn]

...............The traditional parties bore the smear of "the stab in the back", which Hitler astutely used against them. More importantly, they did not have a solution to the social problem, because they could not adjust their ideology to allow for a solution. That is why the two major parties in Germany were the communists and the nazis. They did offer such solutions, similar but not the same. Critically, notice both were statist, socialist parties. That is very revealing. In a huge crisis, the populace DID NOT switch to conservatism. They went socialist and statist. A huge lesson to remember and quite relevant to the discussion here. Notice also this happened in one of the most civilized and cultured countries in Europe.

It has been said that Germans were too well conditioned to take orders .....

You really need to read Nagorski's book!
Maybe you're misunderstanding my point.  I'm not trying to debate you on this, but it seems anyone who seems as knowledgeable as you would be even more interested in this book, as it offers direct insights from Americans who were living in Germany during this period.  Most of these people knew Hitler or atleast met him, or others in the high command.  I think you would really enjoy this book.  It's fascinating and frightening at the same time.

Cutting trade routes is not going to be a good thing for us despite how europe reacted to what the Ottomans did.

Actually, I would welcome it. It means manufacturing coming back to the US. More jobs, more prosperity, more independence, weaker international corporations, higher employment, more American pride, less internationalism, less military spending, no foreign nation building.

Only in the long run ...if then.  In the short run it would be very very disruptive.
I would like to bring a lot of manufacturing back to America but I don't think this is the way.

I think there are many more fiscal conservatives among the younger electorate than given credit. However, most are disgusted and appalled by the current conservative menu on social issues. Those are a huge anchor around the neck for Republicans and a great boon to Dems. Let's not kid ourselves - that is where this election was lost for the most part.

Every time I hear this I keep thinking I'm being told that the GOP has to surrender it's position on social issues to the liberal if they wish to gain the support of the youth.
If they do, they will only lose their older base, which will go elsewhere.
IMO the GOP needs to do a better job of presenting the case  for their stand on the disputed issues.  I think people can be educated.
But I could be wrong.

[AZRedhawk44]

Every time I hear this I keep thinking I'm being told that the GOP has to surrender it's position on social issues to the liberal if they wish to gain the support of the youth.
If they do, they will only lose their older base, which will go elsewhere.
IMO the GOP needs to do a better job of presenting the case  for their stand on the disputed issues.  I think people can be educated.
But I could be wrong.

Politically active youth that the GOP wishes they had (sub-35 or so) are largely Libertarian.

All they have to do is relinquish Statism.  The authoritah-fetish for telling people what they HAVE to do, rather than restraining government from the things it is NOT ALLOWED to do.

Sticking to Constitutional wars (rather than executive order police actions) and Constitional powers (over-reaching of DHS) would do a LOT for the GOP to woo those younger voters.

Romney was all gung-ho for another war in the sandbox and ready to let the DHS have free reins on electronic and physical transportation.  In some ways, I'm glad Obama won.  He's at least staying out of mideast wars, if for the wrong reasons (he's doing it to deliberately harm the US due to his anti-colonial brainwashing from his father and anti-capitalist feelings, while a Paulian perspective on it would restrain us to deliberately increase the honor in the wars we DID legitimately participate in after a Congressional declaration, as well as gauge true support from the population via Congressional elections after Congress did vote for/against war.)

[CAnnoneer]

They are hardworking, adaptive, and family-oriented, and the way the world is going their propensity for tribalism and making do with what they have will avail them well against the fragmented non-latino culture I see developing.  

All true. But, tribalism has been a characteristic of every new wave of immigrants. Anglos, Dutch, French, Irish, Germans, Jews, Chinese, Italians, Russians, Koreans, etc. all stuck together initially, then opened up and assimilated. The fragmented non-latino culture is the free, color-blind society at large. I think you fear their tribalism will allow the latinos to gain concessions from the rest by means of voting en bloc. That is not necessarily a bad thing. To them, it is a defensive measure. Keep pushing them down, and they will defend themselves. Ease the pressure, and they will open up and fragment, just like everybody else.

I suspect what you fear is unlimited tidal immigration, an open border, which allow such a mass of newcomers that instead of assimilating, they change the local culture too much and colonize, or reconquer, put it as you will. That indeed is a problem, so I do believe that borders need to be secured. But that cannot be done without simultaneously allowing a path to legalization for those who are already here, combined with some form of guest worker program. There is just way too much economic pressure and political and demographic realities to get anything different done.

But if you look hard at the statistics regarding in-wedlock birth rates and educational attainments, even in the second and third generation, you will see a less sanguine picture as far as fitting into today's America (for what that's worth).  

Jorge does not need to be a rocket scientist to assimilate. Pay him fairly for a job well done and he will buy a big TV, a barbeque, a small house some place in the hinterland, and he will take care of his three kids. If those kids are satisfied with the lifestyle, it is all cool. If they want better, they have to study harder. None of this prevents them from living full and fulfilling lives as Americans. That is not that much different than Average Anglo Joe does anyway.

Most of the newer latinos are bringing with them what they knew in Mesoamerica, with all that implies.

If what they had there were any better than what we can offer, they would not have left. If we make it so that they got nothing to look forward to other than what they brought, then yes, they will turn L.A. into Mesoamerica. But then we get what we deserve, don't we?

My point is you are positing an America in terms of unity that no longer exists and whose former strengths are waning.

In the context of the talk about China, if  evil China does emerge as a military adversary, I think the country can unite just as it did in facing Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. I think you may have lost faith in the good in people and in America. The same can be regrettably said about many posters here. Yes, leftist demagogues have done a lot of damage over the decades, but curiously such always shut the hell up and run for their burrows when the big enough threats emerge.

 Our welfare state reflects that change, not just the machinations of Progressives.  We have a people who want a welfare state, not just a welfare state foisted on them.

There are SOME people that want it. Most people just want steady decent employment and to be left the hell alone. When they are under economic pressure, they naturally become more susceptible to statist propaganda, because they are afraid. When prosperity hits, nobody pays attention to demagogues, because everybody is too busy spending and enjoying themselves. It is just human nature.

 And I repeat, extolling youth for its own sake is a bit naive.  There are a lot of young people in Africa and the Middle East who live in, surprise, abject poverty, so youth per se is no guarantee of anything.

Show me where I have extolled youth for its own sake. What I say instead is youthful groups are the future voters. That is a neutral statement.

I gather from your nom de 'net that you are, like me, from California...?  If the lesson of what's happened here is lost on you, I don't know what to say to you.

I have lived in Southern California for most of my life. What happened here is uncontrollable immigration interfering with assimilation, as several industries and leftist demagogues work in parallel to help the process for their own ends. The answer to it is not frowning and name-calling and passive-aggressive racism as adopted by many Republicans and/or conservatives, but the system of measures I have mentioned in this thread and above.

[longeyes]

Actually, I think, at this point, we will ALL be in "gangs" in the America that is coming, and maybe that's just the way it has to be, neither good nor bad.

I think a lot of what we think is American is just the manifestation of the technological society of the last century ramifying.  The nuclear family, 25 per cent of the country being single people, especially females--these things are not the future, they are social and cultural aberrations that in my view are dead-ends except in some genetically tweaked sf future.  In a world where you can't trust "government" and/or the financial mafia people will trust those they know best, love them, hate them, or control them.  We are going to go local for survival.

[Perd Hapley]

Politically active youth that the GOP wishes they had (sub-35 or so) are largely Libertarian.

All they have to do is relinquish Statism.  The authoritah-fetish for telling people what they HAVE to do, rather than restraining government from the things it is NOT ALLOWED to do.

Sticking to Constitutional wars (rather than executive order police actions) and Constitional powers (over-reaching of DHS) would do a LOT for the GOP to woo those younger voters.

What makes you think that younger voters prefer a smaller or more Constitutional government?

A lot of people on this board seem convinced that a majority can be built on a small-government party that ignores, or capitulates on, social issues. Where is the evidence for it?

Or where is the evidence that social issues help the Dem party?

[TommyGunn]

Politically active youth that the GOP wishes they had (sub-35 or so) are largely Libertarian.

All they have to do is relinquish Statism.  The authoritah-fetish for telling people what they HAVE to do, rather than restraining government from the things it is NOT ALLOWED to do.

Sticking to Constitutional wars (rather than executive order police actions) and Constitional powers (over-reaching of DHS) would do a LOT for the GOP to woo those younger voters.

Romney was all gung-ho for another war in the sandbox and ready to let the DHS have free reins on electronic and physical transportation.  In some ways, I'm glad Obama won.  He's at least staying out of mideast wars, if for the wrong reasons (he's doing it to deliberately harm the US due to his anti-colonial brainwashing from his father and anti-capitalist feelings, while a Paulian perspective on it would restrain us to deliberately increase the honor in the wars we DID legitimately participate in after a Congressional declaration, as well as gauge true support from the population via Congressional elections after Congress did vote for/against war.)

"Romney was all gung-ho for another war in the sandbox...."    Huh?  What?  I mssed him wanting to engage in another war.  
Yea there was/is concern over Iran but I don't recall Romney stating he'd start a war with them.
So far as Iran getting nukes is concerned, if Iran wants a nuke it will eventually get one.  Maybe Israel can stop them ...but their program is pretty well decentralized and the important parts are underground and well bunkered.
To stop Iran from getting a nuke, it would be necessary to go to war, and I just don't see that happening (with our involvement).
Israel is going to have to cope with a nuclear Iran in the future .... which may mean a really interesting war between Iran & Israel.  

[CAnnoneer]

To the contrary, progressivism can only be maintained in a prosperous society, unless the people are content to live in misery (see USSR). You can't get blood from a turnip.

Progressivism emerged as an answer to the poor working conditions of late 1800s. For every Frick there is a Teddy Roosevelt, and vice versa. They are the opposite faces of the same coin. Progressivism is just the milquetoast version of communism and nazism, on the social question. But, some of the concerns are quite legitimate. All you need to do to destroy your enemy is to take away the legitimacy basis of his demagogic argument. Saying his argument is evil nonsense without addressing its legitimate basis is fighting a losing battle. That is what the conservatives have been doing for the past 100 years.

As the economy worsens, conservatism is the only alternative to bankruptcy, whether the 50% feeding at the public trough like it or not.

Unfortunately, world history provides numerous examples to my point in the last 100 years:
1) Crushed by military defeat and ruined economy, Imperial Russia turned republican conservative in Feb 1917. In less than an year, in Nov 1917, the bolsheviks overturned that state and remained in power for the next 80 years.
2) In similar circumstances, Italy turned fascist in 1920s and stayed so until external defeat prompted a coup d'etat.
3) Crushed by reparations and the Great Depression, the Weimar Republic abandoned conservatism for socialism. It so happened that the right-wing socialists were somewhat more competent than the left-wing socialists, so the world saw Nazi Germany instead of Red Germany emerge.
4) Post-war ruined Britain kicked out Winston Churchill, the man that saved them from Hitler, and voted in the socialists.
5) Many Eastern European countries, having seen the last of communism, but in deep crisis of economic restructuring, turned corrupt statist crony capitalist, not limited government conservative, due to poverty.

The only counterexample I can think of is the UK electing Margaret Thatcher, but that was after decades of proven mismanagement by the socialists. So, yes, if we have several more terms of Obambians, perhaps a Thatcher will emerge, but I would not hold my breath.

[roo_ster]

Politically active youth that the GOP wishes they had (sub-35 or so) are largely Libertarian.

Er, not so much. Marrieds, more likely.  Singles, not so much.  Single women even less so.

Given the political demography data I have seen, socially conservative folk are more likely to hold classically liberal political philosophies than any randomly selected person under age 35. (Statistically speaking, a greater correlation between social conservatism & classical liberalism than between the general population & classical liberalism.)

Actually, I think, at this point, we will ALL be in "gangs" in the America that is coming, and maybe that's just the way it has to be, neither good nor bad.

"In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion."
----Lee Kuan Yew, first PM of Singapore

That paradigm is what is at work with all racial groups in America, save one.  The problem with third-world immigration and tolerating race-based political organizations is it allows for a critical mass to form and Lee Kuan Yew's statement to come true.  Future opposition to the final (rather obvious) development will be opposed in terms of "racism," but the real concern will be how the political spoils are divided once 100% of what was America gets with LKY's program.

That ^^^ is at the national level.  LKY is already in effect at the local level in the more, ah, "vibrant" metro areas.

I see this occurring in real time in Dallas, where the Big Three are the mexicans, blacks, and whites. The last couple decades, the white & black coalition has been teamed up against the mexicans.  

1. The whites(1) get control of downtown development all the way up north, to include most business ordinances.  They play the part of the goose/golden egg and essentially want to be left alone enough to do business.
2. Blacks control the rest of the city (territory-wise).  
3. Blacks get most the political patronage jobs.
4. Self-proclaimed black leaders get HUGE cash infusions by white political machines.  HUGE.
5. White politicians vote along with all blacks regarding anything in the black controlled areas.  This results in massive corruption in city gov't, very rich black politicians, and large corruption scandals every 10-15 years in the black political class.
6. Mexicans punch below their weight (population-wise) due to many of them being illegal and being shut out by the B/W coalition.

[The quickest way to get a handle on this is to study the career of John Wiley Price.  A great place to start is the local alternative newspaper the Dallas Observer & Jim Schutz's writings.]

Does all that ^^^ make you feel uncomfortable?  Grow up, that is sausage being made, that is reality in the big city.  That is what is coming to America as a whole.



(1) White in this context means "affluent whites."  Poor white trash, working class, and lower middle class whites are SOL and don't get a say in Dallas City/County gov't.  Like many of America's metro areas, the working & middle classes have been squeezed out into the suburbs.



To sum up: culture and demography.  

Let either one get out of whack and classical liberalism has no chance.

[longeyes]

And Thatcher, given the overall culture prevailing today in the U.K., was an aberration.

(See you at Angeles. :))

[CAnnoneer]

What makes you think that younger voters prefer a smaller or more Constitutional government?

A lot of people on this board seem convinced that a majority can be built on a small-government party that ignores, or capitulates on, social issues. Where is the evidence for it?

You can read some of the voter distribution analyses that have emerged since the election. One of the big miscalculations in the Romney camp is they looked at the number of registered independents and thought that those would swing for them. Some indeed did. But what the advisors failed to see is that most of those voters were the same ones that were previously registered as Republicans. I do not see the old guard doing that. Older people are just too set in their opinions. This means it was demonstratively younger Republicans that did it. If they were happy with the menu, why did they leave the restaurant?

Or where is the evidence that social issues help the Dem party?

Dems carried 75% of the latino votes who are supposed to be relatively traditional, catholic, anti-gay, and anti-black. How can you rationally explain this other than by the immigration issue?

Dems carried the young women voters by a large margin. Does it make sense that it can have something to do with abortion?

And I also have a perfect personal anecdote to share on this. My wife and I are friends with the family of her colleague M. The family is typical white middle-class suburban successful two-income nice folk. They have one teenage daughter and a couple of cats. The husband is libertarian. The wife is independent/apolitical. They make good money even for the area and pay over 75k in income taxes per year. There is no practical fiscal reason why they should ever consider voting for Bambie. I expected them to vote libertarian or simply not vote. Instead, M voted for Bambie. I asked why? The answer was "because I have a teenage daughter and I want her to have reproductive rights."

[Monkeyleg]

He may not be sufficiently conservative to you and some Republicans, but he was too conservative for the average voter. My guess is, he was a mediocre waiter of a crappy menu. The restaurant now chides him for the mediocrity of his service, instead of looking at the menu and firing the cook.

I have no doubt that this is true. However, the only way this could have affected the election is if those conservatives stayed home because of it. That would mean they would rather have Fearless Leader for another 4 years with its horrible consequences on the country than Romney. That attitude would be insane, suicidal, and unpatriotic.

I believe both things are true. He is a good person who genuinely gave a ton of money to charity. I'd like to have a beer with him any day and get to know his family. Bambie is a POS next to him. However, it is also true that Romney is a rich capitalist, who would have helped his buddies. He simply would have been Bush III, just smarter and more soft-spoken. And the reason is, he got backed by the Republican leadership, who are thoroughly corrupt, and the public knows it. What they do not realize as much is that the Dems are equally corrupt, they just have different PACs to mooch off of.

If I were Romney, I'd just counter with: " Yes, I am rich and successful and proud of it. I did not get rich by political corruption like my opponent, but by my labor and smarts. I am what is right with American and he is what is wrong. You have a clear choice."

True. But, it goes back to my comment about the restaurant blaming the waiter. Also, voters did not care about Benghazi, because they did not understand it. I saw FOX trumpeting about it all the time before the elections, but what they shouted was questions, not answers. They should have spent more time and more money on figuring out what happened, then present it to the public. Same goes for the Republican party. They all went collectively soft in the head. Why didn't the R congressmen summon Billary and Petraeus to testify at the end of September or in early October?

True. But they can only smear you badly, if they take a truth and twist it. They do not have to work hard to portray conservatives as racists when there is a clear disdain for the underclass (which racially is mostly blacks and some hispanics), there is the immigration stance of no reconciliation but deportation and self-deportation. It also does not take much effort to portray conservatives as bigots with the stance on gay marriage. The class struggle is also easy to fuel when the party does think in terms of the 47% all the time. Romney was just honest to say it. Many conservatives think it, and the voter knows it.

I find points where we're actually in agreement, and then other points in this post and other posts of yours that make me too tired to respond. Let me just reply to your last point by saying that the Republican party isn't racist, or at least is much less racist than the Dem's. Republicans have all sorts of minorities appointed to high-level positions based upon their qualifications. Where Democrats have minorities appointed to high-level positions, it's usually because of their status as minorities (witness one Eric Holder, a second-rate legal hack who happens to be black). The immigration stance isn't borne of disdain, it's borne of respect for the law. Gay marriage? Opposition to it is based upon gay marriage being counter to nature and/or religion. And, yes, Romney was honest in talking about 47%, but he was stupid to say it.

In your very last post you seem to imply that Republicans need to support the Democrat approach to immigration and abortion (and other issues) if they're to win. If that's the case, why should they be Republicans at all? Why not just be Democrats?

[TommyGunn]

As the economy worsens, conservatism is the only (good) alternative to bankruptcy, whether the 50% feeding at the public trough like it or not.

Unfortunately, world history provides numerous examples to my point in the last 100 years:
1) Crushed by military defeat and ruined economy, Imperial Russia turned republican conservative in Feb 1917. In less than an year, in Nov 1917, the bolsheviks overturned that state and remained in power for the next 80 years.
2) In similar circumstances, Italy turned fascist in 1920s and stayed so until external defeat prompted a coup d'etat.
3) Crushed by reparations and the Great Depression, the Weimar Republic abandoned conservatism for socialism. It so happened that the right-wing socialists were somewhat more competent than the left-wing socialists, so the world saw Nazi Germany instead of Red Germany emerge.
4) Post-war ruined Britain kicked out Winston Churchill, the man that saved them from Hitler, and voted in the socialists.
5) Many Eastern European countries, having seen the last of communism, but in deep crisis of economic restructuring, turned corrupt statist crony capitalist, not limited government conservative, due to poverty.
........

Not to much of that turned out very well did it? -- except for the Omited part where Thatcher took over.

BTW the terms "right wing socialist/left wing socialist" sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.  Socialism is leftwing.  IIRC the dichotomy was between "national socialism" and "international socialism."  Both are leftwing idologies.

[roo_ster]

Dems carried 75% of the latino votes who are supposed to be relatively traditional, catholic, anti-gay, and anti-black. How can you rationally explain this other than by the immigration issue?

Mexicans voted 47% with the last anti-illegal alien initiative in California, a larger proportion than GWB got the same year.  Immigration is a REALLY BIG DEAL with mexican political/ethnic leadership types, for obvious reasons.  With your average mexican, not so much. 

[FTR Caesar Chavez, back in the day, was against illegal immigration because he understood that new illegal alien labor undermined his efforts to unionize migrant farm workers and raise their wages.]

Mexicans vote with the Democrats because the Dems are the party of big gov't welfare spending and ethnic/racial solidarity. Free money from gov't trumps any residual traditional values.

Dems carried the young women voters by a large margin. Does it make sense that it can have something to do with abortion?

More to do with the marriage gap and cultural degradation (leading to falling marriage rates and mass bastardy).

Gender Gap = 3.8%
Marriage Gap = 21.4%

http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-gop-s-other-problem-marriage-gap-huge-in-2012-but-marriage-declining

We’ve all heard about the Gender Gap, but it’s dwarfed by the Marriage Gap, which gets practically no MSM attention. Just as importing poor, unskilled foreigners boosts the ranks of Democratic voters in the long run, so does the decline of the American marriage.

Lots and lots of chewy data.  Do read the whole article.