I do not know whether the Democrats will win the office of President in 2008 or not.
Walmart bashing, promises of worse barriers to trade (the free trade deals with Colombia, Ecuador and Peru seem to be the latest targets of the Democrats [the various Marxist terrorist groups in Latin America will be pleased] – with demands that these countries further cripple themselves with more “union rights” and other regulations) and even bigger subsidies for universities (which will push up costs again) and even more regulations on HMOs and insurance companies (which will also push up costs again), even more money tossed away on “No-Child-Left-Behind” (and other unconstitutional welfare state schemes) than the Republicans tossed away on them and…
I doubt that this agenda will still be popular after another two years of Nancy Pelosi and the rest pushing it. Indeed I do not think it is that popular now – I think the Republicans lost the midterms partly because of sleaze and Pork, but mostly because of “the war stupid”.
And by 2008 the great George Bush – Mark Steyn project to spread democracy to the Muslims will either be abandoned (and voters will forget it fairly fast once they stop seeing American soldiers dying on the television news) or there will be some evidence that it is actually a good idea – either way it is not going to shape the 2008 elections in the way it shaped the 2006 elections.
However, the Democrats may win. The power of the mainstream (i.e. leftist) media is vast (and the left are just as good as anyone else in using the internet – perhaps better than their foes) and the Democrats have huge amounts of money that are not hit by John McCain’s death-to-the-First-Amendment ‘campaign finance reform’. Not just Mr Soros and his billionaire friends, with their ‘non profit’ organizations that are ‘not part’ of official campaigns for a candidate, but (for example) the vastly wealthy Kerry family (although I can not see John Kerry winning anything, no matter how much money his wife has got) and of course the money in the Clinton’s joint bank account. The Chinese government finds Bill’s speeches so wonderfully that they give him millions to speak in China.
There is also the problem that none of the main Republican candidates seems to have a clear line of policy for rolling back government. Everyone is against Pork, but in reality Pork is not the problem – it is the entitlement programs that are the problem. And until people do not react to charges of (say) “you want to privatize Social Security” by saying “no, no, I am as welfare statist as you really”, but instead say “I want people to have real investments rather than rely on your government Ponzi scheme which is going to collapse and leave them to starve in the gutter” nothing is going to get done.
Also there is the question of Congress. Even a good Republican President is unlikely to do much without Republican Congress (and of course a useless Republican President, like George Bush, will not try and roll back government spending even with his party in control of both houses of Congress, instead he will support new programs like the Medicare extension and the already mentioned no-child-left-behind – when he is not supporting the new taxes on steel imports that hit the auto industry, or signing new mega farm subsidy bills).
I do not know whether the Republicans will take back control of the House in 2008 or not. Nancy and her friends will (unintentionally) do their best to help the Republican cause, but I do not see such a quick turn around (although when the Republicans won the House in 1952 they managed to loose it again in 1954). And even if the Republicans retake the House that is not much good without the Senate – and most of the third of the Senators up for re-election in 2008 are Republicans.
But even if a wild spending Democratic President (say Mrs Clinton with her plan to have a government monopoly of health care) was elected in 2008 and had a Democratic Congress to help her – there is still another election for President in 2012. And there are the mid term elections of 2010.
There is not much of Defence Department for the Democrats to cut (the cuts in defence were the real secret of what good economic news there was in the Clinton years) – in spite of two wars, Donald Rumsfeld has managed to hold down military spending to about three and half per cent of GDP and there really is not much to cut (and getting rid of such things as the 101st Airmobile Division would upset a lot of people).
So any expansion in what used to be called ‘health, education and welfare’ can not be paid for by cutting defence – and raising taxes will just hit the economy. So the Democrats are boxed in. Either they boost spending and regulations as they promise – and undermine the economy and turn middle of the road voters against them. Or they break their promises – and face having their core supporters stay at home at election time.
The secret advantage that the enemies of the left have (that counter balances all our disadvantages – such as the control of the left of the mainstream media, the universities, the schools….) is that the policies of the left are crazy. So they really do face a choice of doing crazy things and upsetting people with the horrible results – or not doing crazy things and upsetting their supporters by breaking their promises.
Nor will the international economy play well for the Democrats – counties like Britain that have gone for ever more government spending, taxes and credit money growth (growing at a 14% rate the last time I looked) will not do well over the next few years. Talk of a ‘third way’ or ‘public-private partnership’ will be met by “that does not work so well in Europe” and specifically “that does not work in Labour party Britain” (it will be like old times, such as 1946, when Republicans pointed to Britain for examples of the failures of semi-socialism). And of course, the wonderful ‘games’ will attract the attention of the whole world to Britain in 2012 – and what an over-budget farce they will see, and in what a mess of a country. It is a pity that the sole function my country will have in the future will be to be to serve as a terrible warning – but such is life.
So either way a Democratic President would not do well in the midterm elections of 2010.
And then there are the big elections of 2012. The census of 2010 will be in force – so the House of Representatives will be up for grabs. Certainly there will be big fights in the courts as Democrat controlled State legislatures try and rig things their way (and the Republican ones do the same), but a new set of seats is a new set of seats – it is a new game.
And almost all of the third of the Senate that will be up for election in 2012 will be Democrats.
So will the Republicans (especially the Republican candidate for President) be any good in 2012? I do not know, but they certainly have everything to play for.
Certainly it will be harder in financial terms to reform the entitlement programs in 2013 than it would be now. But (President Bush Treasury Secretary’s fond hopes to the contrary) it is not going happen now. And it will still be possible in 2013 (although it would be nice to do it in 2009) – there may be a world recession, but Americans will still not be eating each other by this time.
These ruminations go on up to 2013, but do recall that by then (on current projections) the US economy may have expanded by some quarter of a trillion dollars, and a country can achieve quite a bit with that.
However, my feeling is that it’s particularly pointless right now to make “linear” projections for political events, especially with the very uncertain prospects for ventures in the Middle East: a greater disaster in Iraq or a revolutionary event in Iran could vastly change current perspectives.
So any expansion in what used to be called ‘health, education and welfare’ can not be paid for by cutting defence – and raising taxes will just hit the economy. So the Democrats are boxed in. Either they boost spending and regulations as they promise – and undermine the economy and turn middle of the road voters against them. Or they break their promises – and face having their core supporters stay at home at election time.
Tell me Paul, when did not having the money ever stop government from spending? Boxed in? I think not. Look at what Shrubya did and still got re-elected. The Dems will do whatever they want just as government has done since itwas concieved. They will explain it away as neccasary to provide for all poor orphans and old folk. Then they will have perfect logic let the ‘tax cuts for the rich’ expire in 2010.
So any expansion…can not be paid for by cutting defence
Wanna bet? The US spends $450 billion, and the rest of the world combined spends $500 billion (2004 figures). Plenty of cutting room if you decide you don’t want to rule the world.
Current spending levels might be more defensible if the largest military empire in the history of the world wasn’t having its ass handed to it daily by a semi-organized unfunded group of insurgents in Iraq.
Current spending levels would be enough if they get rid of their absurd rules of engagement. They’re still fighting mostly with kid gloves. No surprise they’re stuck halfway to victory.
As usual, it’s not just about the money; it’s about the will to do what needs to be done.
The Rules of Engagement mentioned by Wobbly are certain to change. It is a matter of when, not if. And that ‘when’ is about 30 minutes after the next massive terror attack on US soil. And there will be one, sooner rather than later if the Dhimmicrats repeal the Patriot Act, de-fang the surveillance program, and leave the border with Mexico wide open.
There will be no restraint at home, nor in the larger GWOT. Muslims in America will be detained, if not lynched in the street, mosques in the US will burn to the ground, in fact, nation-wide Martial Law is not too difficult to imagine. Overseas, the terror-sponsoring nations such as Iran, Syria, and Egypt will be on the receiving end of some cruise missiles and Special Forces covert ops that will include assassinations and destruction of infrastructure. Foreign aid to Muslim nations will end, and they will collapse into anarchy.
You read it here first.
And this is a good thing why, exactly?
All US citizens are entitled to due process of law.
All private property is entitled to the protection of law.
Largest military empire in the history of the world? No even close. Oren is another fine product of state edukashun no doubt. Try to know what you are talking about before wasting so many pixels.
And as for the US having its arse handed to it, you really need to look at the loss rates in a historical context (try comparing it with almost any large counter insurgency in fact). Britain, with its greatly smaller population, has sustained vastly higher losses and ended up wining a great many such wars through out its history.. oh sorry, I forgot that history is not exactly your strong subject.
My crystal ball is as reliable as anyones*, so here goes:
The last time the Dems elected a President-for-life, the US was in the midst of the great depression, so bringing one of those on would be considered a plus from their point of view. I expect them to do a ‘Nam on Iraq, and pull the rug out from under it as soon as they are able to put the issue to a vote. History will then repeat:
We, and Europe, get several million refugees.
Iran and Syria divide Iraq between them, with Iran getting the oil fields and Syria getting the rest.
The Dems will attempt to natinalize health care here, causing big cost increases and drops in the level of services.
Iran, coming off a big victory over the Americans, will wait untill after the 08 elections to test it’s first nuke over Tel-Aviv as a signal for a general uprising and 3 prong invasion from Gaza, the West bank, and south Lebanon. Israili nuke response will be devastating, but in the end, will have no effect. Tehran calls for ‘retaliatory’ uprising in Europe. More refugees. Dem president urges restraint.
Dem protectionism will take a bite out of international trade, recession begins.
Iran tests second nuke on US soil, using proxy Mujihads. Dem president urges restraint.
2010 Elections: Dems become extinct as a political party, except for dem president, who urges restraint.
Domestic oil drilling and building of nuclear power plants authorized over presidents veto.
2012 Republican elected president. Beginning of a happy ending, but why do we have to do everything the hard way?
*I went to college, so my guess is as good as yours.
Oren, I’m quite aware of the Mongols, and also of the stats you quoted, thank you. No need to call me stupid.
These are arguable points, and I’d argue that they’re in no way applicable to the current situation.
1. The Mongols had a large land empire, the US has military presence in 160 countries around the world. Different strategy, different goals. Arguably the US has a larger military influence than the Mongols, over a larger area, but you didn’t argue against that: you just made an ad hominem comment, and not even a very clever one.
2. You never actually mentioned any of these wars that the UK supposedly won by name, so I’ll assume you’re talking about WW2. An intelligent guy like you should know the difference between being winning, and being on the winning side. Britain was on the winning side. And it doesn’t change the original point that the US is losing in Iraq even though it’s basically outspending the rest of the world combined in military $.
My original point stands: Dems can cut military spending in the US quite easily if they want to.
I doubt it. The majority of Dems elected this midterm were at least as or more conservative then the Repubs they beat. Nancy is not having an easy job it it right now…herding cats and all that.
The Dems won because they left their base. If they want to win in ’08, they need to stay away from it. The closer they are to their base the better it is for the Repubs.
Whatever happens with the Dems, the Republicans will still roll over and play dead like they have for six years. They’ve started already by electing ‘business as usual’ types to the leadership and bringing in losers like Baker et al.
The public hit their ‘two-year attention span limit’ in Iraq and wants a change. That doesn’t necessarily mean cut and run. If we did, and Iraq collapsed a la Vietnam, the Dems would find themselves responsible again – this time they would be held accountable.
Right now the Dems are in an inenviable position. Their only mantra for six years was ‘not Bush’. Now they have to come up with a plan. They have none.
Expect micro politics for the next two years, and little change in foreign policy.
If one gets one’s “news” from the BBC, one could be forgiven for thinking that the small (and historically normal) swing to the Democrats in the 6th year of a two-term Republican president was a massive repudiation of the situation in Iraq. Of course, that was going to be the BBC’s conclusion regardless of the outcome of the election.
Interesting that the BBC & their ilk tend to ignore Ned Lamont’s failure in Connecticut. The darling of the media and liberal activists, Lamont boldly ran on a defeatist platform in the Democrat primary election, and beat former VP candidate Lieberman who had supported the elimination of Saddam Hussein. Lieberman then ran as an Independent against Democrat candidate Lamont. Democrat voters in droves abandoned anti-war Lamont to vote for pro-war Lieberman, returning him to the Senate. Now, is that consisten with the BBC view that the Democrat Party’s narrow win in Congress represented a massive rejection of Iraq policy by the entire US population?
One of the major consequences of Iraq may be the increasing estrangement of the US people (not the elites) from Europe. My crystal ball suggests that Democrat & Republican presidential candidates in 2008 will compete with each other in pouring scorn on the EU and the UN — to loud applause from a large bipartisan majority of the US population. And this will have very unfortunate consequences, mainly for people outside the US.
The lefties mis-read the role of the Iraq war at their peril. The nattering nit wits in the media and democrat politicos flush with middle eastern cash, of course will embrace a cut and run strategy. The bulk of the American people are not with them. Iraq was a topic because the feeling was it wasn’t being fought effectively. But what is projected to happen in 2012 doesn’t matter anyway because that expert global climatologist Al Gore, predicts the world will end in 2009.
While predictions are worth less than what they cost, and this is free; I tend not to worry about future electoral trends beyond 2008 at the latest. Short term events will make medium and longer term predictions less rooted in measurable reality, even the 2008 elections actually, than one can use. So we are limited to the near term. Short term: The Democrats have to have us out of Iraq quickly or face a revolt from their own ranks. This will happen, with all the consequences. Another example of how dangerous it is to be a non-European US “ally” or client unless your country is needed as a base. Write off Iraq with all of the dangerous consequences. Second, and overlapping the first, they have promised a plethora of investigations into the evil “BusHitler” regime. That will happen. The sequalae of that will be an attempt to impeach Bush; especially in the unlikely event that he resists the withdrawal from Iraq [a Congressionally ordered withdrawal under the War Powers Act could lead to a major court battle as the WPA has never been ruled on in its entirety, and the Congressional veto mechanism has been ruled unconstitutional in other cases]. Once again, after hearings start, the Democratic base will demand it. There is an interesting option, depending on how well Pelosi can “herd cats” for them to go for a double impeachment without confirming a new Vice-President under the 25th Amendment. That would leave the Speaker of the House as President. In any case, expect either paralysis domestically, if Bush resists, or a mass of Barking Moonbat legislation that will hurt the country greatly.
That will not be the major problem, however. In the wake of our withdrawal from Iraq, and absent any credible threat against Iran, North Korea, and others; we can be sure that we will be struck with WMD at home here in the US. Then all bets are off. I reference a piece at BELMONT CLUB called “The Three Conjectures” as to the consequences. They are not going to be pretty. As far as the results of a nuclear strike on Israel; I have a newsletter I put out [email, not Blog so this is not link-whoring] and I recently did a Special Project on Israel’s capability to strike back if hit. With their stockpile and delivery means, it should be easily possible to destroy all of the Ummah except for Indonesia and the Phillipines. It, once again, will not be pretty.
For the next two years, the major driver is going to be war. That is guaranteed by the last election. To quote the master of my online namesake; “You have chosen war. Only [the Great Blue Sky ] Heaven knows what will result.”
Thank you for the manifesto, Mr. Marks!
You really knocked us back by revealing the following:
1) Journalists write, en masse, differently from you in partisan conspiracy.
2) The war in Iraq may be a success, but then again, it may not.
3) We need to stop praising the profit motive that made George Soros successful and instead despise him because he derives benefit from giving to charity.
4) Wasting our tax dollars is OK, as long as it doesn’t go to government programs you dislike.
5) A thousand words is worth a picture. With as many as you gave us, we expected the Louvre but all we got was this gum wrapper comic strip.
By the way, whenever it is inferred that a vote for a Democrat (or a Republican) is a vote for terrorism (or fascism, or any other ism) you merely show that you have no faith in democracy. After all, didn’t well over half the voters vote Democrat? Over half of my countrymen are at one with terroristm? Were over half of them all committed fascists right up to the last election?
Just some additional points with this line of argument, Mr. Marks:
1) You wear shoes. Nikita Kruschev did too. You are clearly a Communist.
2) You drive on a highway. Hitler gave us the autobahn. We surmise you are a crypto brownshirt.
3) You’ve either eaten fungus or had it on your bathroom floor. You support terrorists hoping to detonate mushroom clouds over our major cities.
I am kidding. Are you?
I live in California, call myself a common-sense moderate, and happily voted for Schwarzenegger, twice. I’m fiscally very conservative (no government funding for NPR, parents should pay for their own children to go to school, etc.), but socially very libertarian (it’s your body — drug it if you want to, sell it if you want to, whether you’re selling your cooch or your last organ). The problem, for me, with the Republicans is the fact that they’re anything but conservatives, and beyond that, too often govern according to religious mumbo jumbo and the belief, without evidence, in god. (As opposed to looking to science and solid data.)
If you want to believe in dumb, unproven crap, fine. Just don’t legislate my life based on your notion that there’s some big guy in the sky, or comparably, that the moon is in Aquarius.
Amy, you call yourself a common-sense moderate? That sounds a bit tame. How about free-market liberal?
And by 2008 the great George Bush – Mark Steyn project to spread democracy to the Muslims will either be abandoned (and voters will forget it fairly fast once they stop seeing American soldiers dying on the television news) or there will be some evidence that it is actually a good idea – either way it is not going to shape the 2008 elections in the way it shaped the 2006 elections.
Au contraire… It seems quite likely that Iraq will be an even bigger mess two years from now than it is today. Most likely, it will adversely affect those politicians (like the current GOP frontrunner Sen. McCain) who favor an even more hawkish foreign policy than “Shrub” currently does.
—
I hope the Dems are smart enough to let “Shrub” and the GOP self-destruct for another year by agreeing to shift even more troops to Iraq. Of course, the attempt to pacify Baghdad will fail again. By 2007, even Republican politicians will be deserting the Bush/McCain camp in droves (if they haven’t already).
—
Back in 2002-04, gloating GOP strategists were predicting “compassionately neoconservative” big government would dominate America for a generation. Turns out the massive incompetence of “Shrub” & co. may have the opposite effect instead…
If one gets one’s “news” from the BBC, one could be forgiven for thinking that the small (and historically normal) swing to the Democrats in the 6th year of a two-term Republican president was a massive repudiation of the situation in Iraq. Of course, that was going to be the BBC’s conclusion regardless of the outcome of the election.
Interesting that the BBC & their ilk tend to ignore Ned Lamont’s failure in Connecticut
Sorry, but this is utter BS. A 30-seat swing in the House is big news when one factors in the impact of gerrymandering… The GOP would have lost 50 seats without its built-in advantages. Also, Lamont was the only big casualty.
The majority of Dems elected this midterm were at least as or more conservative then the Repubs they beat.
Somewhat true, as far the Senate is concerned (Tester, Webb, Casey). However, there were very few Heath Shuler-type candidates in the House. Overall, the Senate and House clearly shifted leftwards as moderate voters deserted the GOP in droves.
MARCU$
Well first Michiganny.
There are many studies of the the political opinions of the people in the mainstream media, and of the academics and of the teachers in the schools
These studies show that most of these people are “liberals” (modern American definition of the term – i.e. they in the Welfare State and the regulation state).
“Oh but their political opinions are not reflected in what they broadcast, write and teach”.
If you really believe that Michiganny, then there is a nice bridge near the Tower of London I would like to sell you – indeed, if you pay me a lot of money, I will sell you the Tower of London as well.
However, most people now understand that “objective” “scientific” journalism (invented by the “Progressives” about a century ago) is anything but “objective” or “scientific” it is just leftism. Which is why non “Progressive” broadcasting stations (such as Fox) are growing, and why alternative universities are being founded, and private schools (religious and secular) and home schooling are on the rise. In the long run the left is doomed (as you depend on your control of the media and academia) – it is just a question of how long it takes.
Now defence spending. This is the Rothbard trap – quote the number of Dollars spent and then say (in Rothbard’s case) that the American government is “the biggest in the world” (because it spends the most money).
What matters is (contrary to the late Murry Rothbard) is what proportion of the economy is spent by the government.
As for defence – about 3.5% of G.D.P. really does not leave much to cut (unless you want to watch China become the number one military power n the world).
Whatever one thinks of the wars (and Michiganny is right I tend to avoid commenting on them) – Rumsfeld really has kept spending under some sort of control (a lot of the spending quoted would have gone on paying the soldiers and so on even if they were still in the United States).
However, I do agree that if the Democrats did end the wars they would save serious money (that is a point I missed – my bad). Of course ultra Islamic nutters would take over both Iraq and Afghanistan (and a lot of other places), sadly Iraq and Afghanistan can not really be seperated now.
In short – cut and run in Iraq and the Taliban will take Afghanistan (and the Islamic nutters will take over a lot of other places to). If the United States had not gone into Iraq in 2003 perhaps things would be different as regards Afghanistan – but not now (they are too linked in the minds of just about everyone in the Islamic world).
Actually the Democrats may still be CORRECT about cutting and running in Iraq (if the war really is unwinable) – but everyone must understand that defeat in Iraq means defeat in all of the Middle East.
“That is what some people said about Vietnam”.
The situation was quite different. Communism was the belief system of a minority in South East Asia (actually it was the belief system of a only a minority in Vietnam itself). Islam is the belief system of the vast majority of people in the Middle East – it is a matter of WHAT SORT OF ISLAM.
Both Sunni and Shia Islam have moderate and extreme factions. If the United States is defeated in Iraq, extreme Sunni and Shia will be overjoyed and many people who want to be on the winning side will join them – and everyone who is identified as a moderate Sunni or Shia (let alone a Christian or a Jew) in the Middle East will get their throats cut. Will the Democrats (with the strength of Jewish people in the Democratic party in, for example, both New York and California) really be happy to have Israel surrounded by fanatical Islamic regimes dedicated to the extermination of the Jewish people? I doubt it.
Nor is the desire of Islamists limited to the Middle East.
This will also have a major effect on which path the Muslims of Europe go on. If radical Islam wins out in Iraq it will become more popular with the Muslim populations of Europe.
There will be similar developments in the Far East in nations with large Muslim popluations.
Still – such is life. And, yes, cut and run in Iraq would save money.
As for the Democrats not careing about a slump because they got their greatest ever gain from the Great Depression.
If the Democrats control Congress and push through (Herbert Hoover style) trade protectionism, higher taxes, more government spending and regulations (if not Hoover’s crazy effort to prevent wages falling when prices were falling – restrictions that led directly to mass unemployment) then THEY WILL GET THE BLAME for the results.
F.D.R. and his gang were able to blame “free market” Hoover for the mass unemployment (even though Hoover was really the “Forgotten Progressive), because all people remembered was “Hoover in power, Hoover Republican, Republicans are pro business – therefore probusiness Republicans responsible for mass unemployment”.
So even though F.D.R. (via the “New Deal”) actually extended existing (wrong headed) Hoover policies – the whole thing could be presented as “new” and as “fighting the depression”.
If the Democrats force through bad policy and this leads to bad results – well (as they control both Houses of Congress) they can not blame anyone bar themselves.
As for the crazy desire to create cheaper prices by law (whether of gas or anything else) well that is so absurd that I can not believe they will try it (although, of course, I could soon have to eat my words).
The great unknown is how will the credit-money bubble play out. The American one is not as bad as the British one and the American money supply seems to be comming under control (whereas the British money supply is still exploding) – but there is an American credit-money bubble and that may not only effect the real estate market (with falls in house prices and the credit-bubble works its way down) but falls in the stock prices also.
A key thing is how the government reacts. In 1921 there was a credit-money bubble crash, President Harding did nothing and the economy started to recover in six months. In 1929 there was another credit-money bubble crash – contrary to the myth President Hoover and Congress were hyper active and turned a bubble bust into the Great Depression.
Lastly think about what we will see over the next few years.
The final collapse of the British National Health Service -what happens to the American left (who have been pointing to the N.H.S. as a wonder of the age for almost 60 years) when that happens?
The falling apart of the European Welfare States – Regulation States in general and the British one in particular.
How can the American left argue that the United States should move to a “European way of doing things” when the major European nations do very badly over the next few years?
And as for credit-money bubbles – it is not just the British one that is worse than the American one, the Euro zone credit-money bubble is also worse.
Also remember who is up for reelection in 2012 – Senator Kennedy, Senator Clinton (if Mrs Clinton does not get elected President in 2008 – and if the lady does she will quickly become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history, dragging down the rest of the Democrats) and most of the rest of the big government Democrats in the Senate.
As I said almost all of the third of the Senate that will be for election in 2012 will be Democrats (and so of the worst Democrats).
And the whole House will be up for election – under the new (2010 census) lines.
And the office of President will be up for election.
The left are going to get destroyed.
Unless, of course, the Republicans can not get their heads out of their arses. They must become a small government party – they have nowhere else to go.
Trying to compete with the Democrats on handing out Pork has failed (the base Republican voters hate it – look what happened on November 7th).
And trying to be the “party of morality” is always going to flop – all the left have to do is find some Republican who is sleeping with another man’s wife (or with a boy – or is doing odd things with goats) and politicians being what they are, the left are always going to find a few Mark Foleys.
It is like John Major’s “back to basics” line in Britain. He thought he did not need Mrs Thatcher limited government ideas – he (the new Prime Minister) would make the Conservatives a party of morality instead.
The media destroyed his government – as they will (quite rightly – for once I am on their side) destroy anyone who claims to be of a higher moral standard than ordinary human beings.
So – as stated above, the Republicans have no place to go but to be a party of limited governnment (unless they want to lose).
Pork will not work (to put it mildly), and “party of morality” will not work either (again to put it mildly).
The Republicans should still keep religious voters on side – for example by defending the rights of home schoolers and religious schools against government regulations and inspectors, and by standing against government finance of abortions and experiments on babies, or government finance for using babies for spare parts.
Mr M.J. Fox is never going vote Republican (and did not before he bacame ill).
But one does not defeat him by insulting him (Rush L. style).
One defeats the left by saying “I am not going to ban your activities – but I do not think that taxpayers should be forced to pay for them either”.
And one must ARGUE THE CASE hard.
Even the best case will loose if there is not enough work (and enough money spent) – and it has to be over YEARS (not a few weeks before the election).
For example, the Republica elected as Governor of Nevada worked as an anti tax and and anti government spending man for YEARS (not weeks) before the election. So the people knew him and trusted him.
That is why the Democrat / mainstream media efforts to smear him (for example as a rapist) in support for their (academic Pol/Sci) candidate failed.
He was not an unknown, and he had not been a “let the government help the poor” man a few weeks before the election campaign and a fiscal conservative during it.
As for the internet side. People like the Daily Kos can be defeated – indeed their methods are already being studied (too late this time – but in the future…).
Just as the work of Mr Soros and his billonaire friends is being studied.
Nor all very wealthy people are leftists (indeed some nonleftist wealthy people may well be buying newspapers and kicking their “unbiased” leftist staff on to the street), and “non profits” that broadcast ads that “are in no way in support of a particular candidate” do not have come from the left.
Again the main point is to make the attack over the long term – not rely on a few weeks.
> Unless, of course, the Republicans can not get their
> heads out of their arses. They must become a small
> government party – they have nowhere else to go.
“Limited government” is a proven loser in American politics; U.S. voters may like the abstract idea, but when push comes to shove, they always want to protect their favorite government programs / services … Even Reagan was only able to slash taxes. As George Will said a few years ago, the debate about big vs. small government is over and big government won — big time. Even Republicans now concede the fact.
—
You guys are really living in the past; even America is moving further and further away from classical liberalism. “Compassionate big government conservatism”, on the other hand, could actually be a viable strategy (the GOP lost in 2006 due to incompetence and corruption — not necessarily because Karl Rove’s idea was a bad one) — but it is fundamentally incompatible with limited government and low taxes. E.g. maintaining an activist foreign policy and strong military will prove quite expensive, and an unfortunate byproduct of it will be an additional need for intrusive Patriot Act type legislation due to the threat of Islamic terrorism.
MARCU$
I visited a very interesting site, they have a vast collection of books which have been categories and are presented to viewers in an easy-to-search format. You should check it out.
http://www.khichdee.com/category-catid-11-paraid-0.htm
Marcus,
It is a thing of the past just as someone who has ‘discovered’ credit cards believes living within income is a thing of the past. And believes it right up until his house of credit collapses.
If the Republicans have been helping load up the card, when that happens they are justifiably SOL.
Out of fashion is not the same thing as proven wrong.
Everything can be found in the past (if one looks) – big government “compassion” was tried by various Roman Emperors (although at least they did not call it “conservative”) it did not work very well.
And if people really want big government they are going to vote for a big government party (the Democrats) people do not vote Republican for higher taxes (“but we can have the ever growing Welfare State without higher taxes” wrong – although we can not have the Welfare State, in the long run, even WITH higher taxes).
As for limited government being doomed (a “looser”) well then this civilization is doomed. Other civilizations may arise in the future (after a period of chaos), but that will not help us.