AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Bigger than Barack
Did progressives get a mandate from last week’s election? Lots of people would like to claim that they didn’t " that we’re still a “center-right nation.” And one of the assertions you hear to back that claim is that Obama’s victory wasn’t matched by down-ticket Democratic success.
Except it’s not true: down-ticket Democrats actually did even better than Obama. The Dem share of the House vote, in particular, was higher than Obama’s share of the Prez vote.
I’d been meaning to write this up, but hadn’t had time to do the math. And now I don’t need to: Andrew Gelman is on the case. Here’s the key graph:


Maybe the reason people don’t see this is that the Democratic House gains were spread over two elections. But combining 2006 and 2008, what we’ve seen is a “Democratic revolution” substantially bigger than the “Republican revolution” of 1994.

Foxfyre wrote:

Now Parados, what, if any, of these fundamentals and principles do you have a problem with and why?

Parados can speak for himself. But I wouldn't expect him to have a problem with them, and I mean that in a bad way: Your definition of the term "conservative" is so wishy-washy that everyone is a conservative.

I have no idea whether people demanding a teacher be fired are liberal or conservative. It is certainly not be a conservative concept that gay people cannot be teachers.

You don't see conservatives demanding that heads roll or people be fired or driven out of their livelihood or standing because of saying something offensive or politically incorrect.

I can't speak for all conservatives.

This thread has gone more than 100 pages now, I cannot think of a single definition of conservatism that I have changed though we do keep adding to it as we go along. The definition is certainly not mine to make of course--I rather thought it should be a group effort--but conservatism is certainly not defined by any single person or group of people who call themselves conservative.

You liberals so far have been asked numerous times to offer your own definition and so far none of you have done so unless I missed a page in there somewhere.

That is the slippery slope you start down when you try to identify an ideology by a few people that you personally condemn. For every questionable or objectionable (to you) conservative you might name, there are certainly left wing wacko liberals to offer for counter balance.

Debra when you make a rational argument on the principles involved, I will be happy to engage you in discussion. So long as you wish to make this another GOP bashing thread and/or irrationally accuse me or anybody else of saying what we don't say or thinking what we don't think or advocating what we don't advocate, I am just not interested in talking about that right now. Others may be.

AN ADVANCE LOOK AT THE REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION.... It's only been a couple of days since Barack Obama was declared the president-elect, but it's hard not to notice that congressional Republicans are already striking a confrontational pose. Take these ridiculous comments from Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl (R).

Quote:

Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal.

Kyl, Arizona's junior senator, expects Obama to appoint judges in the mold of U.S Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. Those justices take a liberal view on cases related to social, law and order and business issues, Kyl said.

"He believes in justices that have empathy," said Kyl, speaking at a Federalist Society meeting in Phoenix. The attorneys group promotes conservative legal principles.

Kyl said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, he would try to block those picks via filibuster.

Think about that. The second highest ranking Republican in the Senate, just a few days after the election, is already talking about blocking Supreme Court nominations that haven't been named, in response to Supreme Court vacancies that don't exist.

I'd add, by the way, that Kyl was one of the conservative Republicans who, in 2005, supported the "nuclear option," which would have declared that filibustering a judicial nominee was against congressional rules. That, of course, was when Bush nominees were in jeopardy.

If we only had steak, we could have steak and eggs, if we had eggs.

Certainly liberals do not advocate a smaller federal government.

The more social programs the government takes on, the better: social security, food stamps, welfare, all manner of government aid to folks who need it, universal health care etc. etc. etc.

According to Joe Biden, it is our patriotic duty to want to pay more taxes if we can afford to do so. According to Barack Obama it is a matter of fairness.

Neither is suggesting that the government make do with less in anything other than defense. Speaking of defense, Liberals have not been big on peace through strength either. Many hold the military in contempt and probably the majority of liberals think too large a share of the budget goes to national defense and homeland security. And it is mostly liberals who don't seem to see the virtue in winning a war once we are in one.

It is more likely liberals who think some deserve more from society than others or deserve special privileges that others do not enjoy whether it is lowering certain standards so some can qualify that otherwise would not be able to do so, or declaring some as victims in need of rescue by government policy and initiative.

So again, how is my definition wishy washy and how does it describe liberalism?

History and truth demonstrate that it was the conservative movement that presided over the greatest redistribution of wealth EVER from the lower classes to the richest echelons of our national society. The "conservatives" convinced you that this was GOOD. In the meantime, millions of Americans lost their jobs and the dollars they earned weren't enough to feed their families and pay their mortgages.

The maximum tax rate was reduced by more than 50%

Liberals appear to think the total wealth owned by individuals in the USA is constant. So they assume if the wealthy get wealthier, the lower middle class gets poorer. Actually, except for depressions, the total wealth of the country grows continually. The result is that the lower middle class gets wealthier as total USA wealth grows inspite of the fact that the wealthy get even wealthier.

Over the course of this week we'll be hearing a lot about Ronald Reagan, much of it false. . . .

But Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people....

For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent -- but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down.

During Ronald Reagan's 8 years, the rate of inflation was better than halved, the number of unemployed was sharply reduced,

and the lower middle class prospered more than it had done in Jimmy Carter's 4 years.

Liberals appear to think the total wealth owned by individuals in the USA is constant. So they assume if the wealthy get wealthier, the lower middle class gets poorer.

There can be little argument that the increase under Carter beat the increase under Reagan. [...]

The increase in the second quintile was more under Reagan over 8 years but less per year than under Carter. The argument that they did better under Reagan seems a little specious comparing 8 years to 4.

Why am I not surprised?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Household_income_over_time

Household income over time
Please note that all figures are presented in 2003 dollars.


This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from 1967 to 2003, in 2003 dollars.[28]
Median household income between 1965 and 2005. Graph by the US Census Bureau.[29]Since 1967, the median