I used to be a republican some years ago that you now call "OSC."
Reagan was not a true republican; he spent more money that put this country into a huge deficit with interest rates running double-digits. Bush is no republican either; he has never vetoed a spending bill.
True republicanism means to control government spending, and believes in self-sufficiency. Bush is not a republican by any stratch of the definition. He's created this country's biggest deficit, and has mortgaged our children's children to pay the debt he's created.
When the republicans went too far on "self-sufficiency" by treating people that cannot help themselves with no heart or compassion, that's when I left the republican party.
The present republican party has turned into a party of fundamentalist christians trying to force their religious beliefs on the rest of Americans. They are no longer republican by any stretch of the definition. They should be called "The Christian Party."
The democratic party has turned into a party of whimps. All they are famous for today are their complaining without offering any solutions. They should be called the "Lost Party."
I don't intend to offer much on the broad scope of the topic - Just want to point out that it is popular to call liberals and Democrats a party of atheists, anti religionists, etc. That is a label given by rock hard fundamentalists. Truth is, I bet there are far more religious liberals than not. The real argument stems from the fundamentalism liberals oppose.
Not willing to bet on the percentages, edgar, but I believe you are correct, overall. And I swear, not all conservatives are that high on religous fundamentalism, either. Not taking bets on the percentages there, either.
It may be true that not all conservatives are high on religious fundamentalism, but considering that they do not reject or oppose what's going on in our schools and federal government speaks volumes about where they stand on Intelligent Design, women's rights, and gay marriage.
goodfielder and fishin': you both raise excellent points.
Historically, the GOP has always had a strong social conservative element. It was stereotypically "low" Protestant (Methodist, Baptist), midwestern, rural, and insular, as opposed to the "liberal" wing of the party that was "high" Protestant (Episcopalian, Presbyterian), eastern, urban, and cosmopolitan. In the 1960s these would have been described as the "Bob Taft Republicans" and the "Nelson Rockefeller Republicans" respectively.
The change started to occur in 1964, when the party's presidential nomination went to a westerner, Barry Goldwater, who stood in neither camp. His resounding defeat paved the way for Nixon and his "southern strategy," where the GOP followed up on Goldwater's success in the traditionally Democratic deep south, picking up voters who were disillusioned by the pro-civil rights policies of JFK and LBJ. Gradually, the Republican party became more fundamentalist Christian, southern, suburban, and evangelistically self-assured.
The Rockefeller Republicans soon found themselves nudged out of the party's inner circles and then out of the party altogether. Formerly solid-red states in the northeast, such as Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire developed viable Democratic party organizations, while the GOP came to dominate in the previously all-blue south. Similarly, the Taft wing of the party, which had been built on protectionism and fiscal restraint as well as social conservatism, was either co-opted by the southern fundamentalist wing of the party or pushed out into the political wilderness. Unlike the Rockefeller Republicans, who gradually shifted over to the Democratic party, these disillusioned fiscal conservatives have yet to find a congenial home (except on the editorial pages of several magazines and at a few think tanks, like the Cato Institute). One might view George Will as their Moses, leading them through the desert in search of some promised land. It is unlikely that the Democratic party would be able to accomodate them, but it seems equally unlikely that they will be able, in the near future, to regain a dominant position within the GOP.
sozobe wrote:A fly-by post on my way to bed, but I think a piece of all of this is the south and the civil rights movement.
The south was a Democratic stronghold until then, and conservative Republicans saw an opportunity and went for it, successfully.
I would rephrase this to say that the Democratic party rid itself of the Dixiecrats by adopting a Civil Rights platform.
Jerry Pournelle has some interesting stuff on his blog, if one cares to see how a self-described "Paleo-conservative" views the world.
He does not dignify Neo-conservatives with that label, but calls them instead "Jacobins."
Wow!
There is a lot of information here to consider. Thank you all very much.
My thinking cap needs to warm up a bit.
You've given me a lot to think about....
goodfielder wrote:So the liberal would be trying to shift the status quo while the conservative would resist that attempt. Nothing wrong with that, it's how sustainable social progress is achieved.
Now let's say the liberal view wins out and marriage is re-defined as a legal union between two people. That becomes the status quo.
Along comes a reactionary and wants to change the status quo. That's a radical reactionary at work.
This is a really very minor quibble but I don't think we can say that the status quo simply changes because a a law is passed (or repealed) or a court renders a judgement.
Just to use the Civil Rights movement in the U.S. as an example - many of the greatest gains in civil rights law and rulings happened in the 1950s through the early 1970s. As many of them went into effect there was a very large portion of the population that was strongly against them (some are STILL against them! lol). It took several years/decades for the changes to become considered the status quo.
Personally, I think the staus quo isn't established until the issue disappears into the abyss. Racially integrated schools were once fought against here in the U.S. I haven't heard anyone suggest that schools be segregated again in the last 30 years. That's an issue that, IMO, has achieved status quo. Abortion on the other hand, while made legal in the early 1970s, is still a highly debated issue that hasn't gotten there yet.
If Miers becomes a SC judge, Roe vs Wade could be ruled illegal.
cicerone imposter wrote:If Miers becomes a SC judge, Roe vs Wade could be ruled illegal.
And Swiss Cheese could be ruled to be the national food of Brazil but neither of these has anything to do with the discussion at hand.
Oh, I thought Roe vs Wade was at issue for some - both republicans and democrats. Sorry 'bout that!
Pournelle has always been one of my favoriet SF writers and editors, DrewDad. Do you have a link to the blog, or must I go hunt?
Quote:Personally, I think the staus quo isn't established until the issue disappears into the abyss
fishin' - I am indebted to you for that view of the status quo, it clarifies it immensely for me.
Joefromchicago - thank you for the information regarding the development of the Republican Party, it's the sort of detailed history that I wouldn't ordinarily be exposed to.
And DrewDad - Jerry Pournelle's blog. Excellent.
This thread has a mother lode of information in it.
I'm getting an "access denied" on the blog link.
On edit - this one might work
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/#blog
I don't see why a conservative can't be both socially conservative and economically conservative. I consider myself a social conservative Republican (and a Christian), but I also am disturbed by Bush's occasional lurches into fiscal irresponsibility and Government expansion.
I would also submit that the only perfect president (from my point of view) would be myself...all others will surely fail me in some area or other. Thus it becomes a matter of priorities. Based on my perspective of where society stands today, I can tolerate some (temporary) fiscal irresponsibility for advances in those areas important to social conservatives. At some point, I would hope that I would be sufficiently comfortable with the direction I see society going, that I could redirect my priority to fiscal issues and rolling back government expanse.
Of course, there will be others that have the direct polar opposite view.
Oh gosh. I'm sorry I've been so slow to respond. My dog had to go to the hospital and I've had to devote my time to freaking out.
While freaking I did read a really exceptional article in the November issue of Esquire called "Greetings from Idiot America". The article discusses the devaluing of science and how that coincides with what I now know to call social conservativism (thanks guys).
I tried to find the article to link it for all of you because it really is amazing. Sadly, the article is available only to subscribers and I'm not going to steal it for you.
You can buy the article here:
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Esquire/2005/11/01/1037893 -- it'll be the best three bucks you spend this week. (Or you could just by the November Esquire and get all the other good stuff (No, I don't work for Esquire and I'm not related to anyone who does).)
That said, I'm going back to review responses......
Hmmmm.....
Intrusive social agendas from both sides is an interesting thing.
What seems to me to be the difference is that the liberal standpoint is more -- if you don't like it, don't participate; where the conservative agenda is that no one should be allowed to participate.
For example, I live in Oregon where physician assisted suicide is legal. This is considered a VERY liberal policy.
Nobody forces you to kill yourself. In fact, you have to jump through a lot of hoops to use the law and not many people use it.
The liberal stance is -- don't do it if it offends you but let others make their own choice.
The consrvative stance is -- I don't want to do it and I don't want you to do it either.
Same with abortion, gay marriage, blah blah blah.
Is that a legitimate distinction between what are "intrusive agendas"?
