Challenge: Encapsulate the Red/Blue Dispute

You said it well in a nutshell.

STOP THAT!

Red state people think that differences in viewpoints can be described in two simple bullet points....

Do you mean real bullets?

OK, you're wrong.

Both parties are firm believers in the coercive power of the state and use that power at every opportunity. In that regard, there's not a dime's worth of difference between them.

Red Staters think this is the best it will ever be, and we should exert every effort to avoid any economic or social change; they look to the past with nostalgia.

Blue Staters think we can do better, and eagerly look to the future.

If you think you have something better let's hear it, after all this dispute is a major part of American life so we best understand what it is at its core.

And let's please start from the assumption that the opposition are not whack jobs....

This is not just about parties and elected officials, this dispute is cultural. We see this dispute all over A2K.

What is it all about?

That's really egregious question begging.

and so what if it is? This place is about "ask the experts" No?

I think it comes down to wallets and linens. Both Reds and Blues acknowledge that government will have a significant impact on our lives. The debate is where that impact is best applied. Blues believe that the government impact should be weighted towards our wallets and Reds believe that government impact should be weighted towards our bedrooms.

Aren't you from Texas, the quintessential Red State? You never came across the way you describe Red Staters here.

Ignoring the "state" part and moving on to the Red-vs-Blue of it, I'd say that the main difference today is that Reds have abandoned all connection to reason and evidence. Blues, by contrast, develop their policies from a basis in reality, and then hype them up with historically and geographically average levels of hot air and trickery. To be sure, the balance of power between market and state was an important difference until about 10 years ago. But today the largest difference is that Reds have rejected realism wholesale, whereas Blues haven't.

I think I'm in a good position to judge this because by the market- vs-government test, I used to be on the reddish side of purple 10 years ago. As people who knew me from when I arrived at A2K can attest, I supported Social-Security privatization, school vouchers, constitutional originalism, and many other hallmarks of conservative thought. Indeed I still do, at least to some extent.

So why did I never support the Bush administration even then, and why am I a staunch supporter of Democratic and Green positions now? It's all about acceptance of reality. From its beginnings, even from before its beginnings, Bush reigned on a basis of flim-flam. It started with candidate Bush's budget plan, which cavalierly defied the laws of arithmetic. It continued with the invasion of Iraq on ever-changing rationales, none of them realistic. Its policies about global warming, corporate governance, and the inflating housing bubble were grounded in denial. And eventually, in their last year, its bubble of denial imploded on it.

Summing up, it is still possible to swing both ways based on your stand on markets vs government. It is the Reds' persistent denial of reality that rules out Republicans for me, and I think to every person who is willing and able to think critically.

The "so what if it is" is that you are asking people to play a word game in which you have defined the discussion in advance of it taking place. The difference between red and blue states is the preponderance of partisan electoral succes--it has nothing to do with culture. What you present in your opening post is a pathetic polemical offering which describes an unreality comforting to politically conservative mind, and having no bearing on the real world. Now you want us to accept your premises and argue from there. When you set up the game, make the rules and define the terms before anyone else has spoken, you are begging the questions involved. This is nothing but a rather whopworn version of "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Austin is an island of blue in a vast ocean of red.....

I call myself a moderate today because what conservatism used to stand for no longer exists, and the far left liberals don't know how to say no to expanding social services without considering its costs.

However, to clarify, both democrats and republicans knew about the funding problems for social security and Medicare for several decades, and both never acted upon them to solve these problems. They must both share the blame.

The conservatives are now blaming Obama for the 14 trillion dollar deficit without acknowledging the simple fact that most of that 14 trillion was accumulated before Obama took over the white house. Even then, we now have gridlock in congress because the GOP will not compromise on anything, and only want Obama to fail.

Most of the 2 trillion that Obama added to the deficit went to help middle class families with tax cuts and extension of unemployment insurance for the loss of jobs from the GW Bush Great Recession.

Conservatives do not live in the real world; all they want to do is cut all expenses except defense, and continue to give tax breaks to the wealthy.

They still haven't paid for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and they complain about the federal deficit.

There's no cure for s.........

It's simple:

Democrats like kittens.

Independents like puppies.

Republicans like starting land wars in Asia.