What future might the Political "Right" have?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Buffinator

Who, me?

We have a two-party system, and in such, the third parties are mostly even more radical than the Elephants and Donkeys in the middle (honestly, have you ever tried to move a representative of either species? Neither moves very quickly!). We haven't had a successful party changeover since the Republicans ran from the Whigs! ...

Buffy

Well, I was talking to anyone that fit the bill, so yes, I guess I'm talking to you. Course I pine for talking to you on any subject. You seem to say there is nothing you can do to change the whacked out Republicans, but you stay anyway and I'm wondering for what exactly? Then also after apparently giving up on changing things, you point to an historical example where such a change was made.

Originally Posted by Freeze Sucker!

Ok, I'm sick to my stomach. Reading through this thread is like an exercise in cruelty. Ouch!

Whatever happened to "good Republican values"?
Why is the dichotomy growing so disgustingly? Whatever happened to the "real" Republicans? You know, those that actually stood for the...Republic!

(freeztar absconds to count his measly pennies...1...2...3...4...I've almost got a nickel...)

A penny for your two-cents-worth friend, so you can go to the doctor.

Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh; you will not provoke me with impunity.

[Theory5]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

With any luck, the intellectual left will make it into space and leave this planet far behind, spread out into the galaxy and let the right simmer here on a slowing warming dying planet. They can then fight each other over money and religion until the sun expands and engulfs them all.

I hope that happens soon, before scientists are declared witches (again).

Whatever happened to "good Republican values"?
Why is the dichotomy growing so disgustingly? Whatever happened to the "real" Republicans? You know, those that actually stood for the...Republic!

That sounds oxymoronic, hehe Good Republican Values

I have heard clips of the so called leader of the party (Rush Limbagh) speak, and frankly, I was offended and disgusted each and every time. if someone can be that offensive and unintellegent and still lead a party, then I think America has stooped to a whole new level.
It seems to me that these guys would stab you in the back and take your wallet "for your own good".

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Buffy

No, no, no, the American way is peaceful coups from within the party. Sometimes that means driving them to their logical extremes before they come to their senses and head back to where the rest of America is (cf. McGovern in '72 or McCain in '08).

Being a free thinking conservative and defacto Republican, I have a different spin on this. President Obama sold the left as the center while McCain sold the center as the right. People like to pigeon hole McCain as some sort of conservative extremist; because of the heat of the election. They forget that in 2004 there were rumors of McCain being offered the VP ticket under Kerry before Edwards was announced, because he was such a centrist. While McCain would not have accepted, and it would not have ever been offered, the notion was taken seriously in the press and floated on the Sunday shows for a couple of weeks. Then miraculously in 2008 when McCain is the opposing candidate he is suddenly a right wing extremist? Go figure.

The majority of the criticism of the right is rhetorical in nature. The same is true of criticism of the left. The right is not the religious right. The fact that a value is in line with religious doctrine does not make it forbidden as a basis of policy. Attacking the messenger rather than the message is boring and old and does nothing to get to the roots of the matter.

Bill

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

People like to pigeon hole McCain as some sort of conservative extremist; because of the heat of the election. They forget that in 2004 there were rumors of McCain being offered the VP ticket under Kerry before Edwards was announced, because he was such a centrist. While McCain would not have accepted, and it would not have ever been offered, the notion was taken seriously in the press and floated on the Sunday shows for a couple of weeks. Then miraculously in 2008 when McCain is the opposing candidate he is suddenly a right wing extremist? Go figure.

Poor John. Being pilloried for being a politician who likes to get elected....

Nah, I actually have listened closely to John over the years and he's no extremist: he just *sounds* like one sometimes when he's speaking to particular groups that he wants to have vote for him. He himself basically repudiated the silly pandering to the extreme right that his Campaign Managers pushed him into.

Did Obama pander too? Sure, but he didn't need to do very much in comparison to McCain, and he did push toward the center with Clintonian Triangulation, while McCain moved further and further into the oxygen-starved extremist talking points to "shore up his base" as the campaign got more desperate.

He really had no chance of winning, and while I ultimately didn't even consider him because of the depth of his pandering, I *still* think he's pretty darn centrist for a Republican, and quite frankly not too different than Clinton.

What he's done in the last month has been the same sort of pandering to be the leader of the party: because so many moderates have left, in order to maintain credibility he's had to back insane positions like advocating a Spending Freeze (the exact same trick Hoover tried). He *can't* do anything different of course, because they'll start calling him a Democrat for daring to differ with Rush.

Is he the future of the "Political Right"? I don't think so, but he sure *wants* to be it, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

The majority of the criticism of the right is rhetorical in nature. The same is true of criticism of the left. The right is not the religious right. The fact that a value is in line with religious doctrine does not make it forbidden as a basis of policy. Attacking the messenger rather than the message is boring and old and does nothing to get to the roots of the matter.

There's little I'd disagree with you here on, Bill. The problem of course is who you listen to: while the extreme right have been pillorying the "MainStream Media" like the major networks, The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN as "liberal" they do spend most of their time covering politics as if it were the Super Bowl. It's in *no way* "liberal" as they simply let each side say whatever they want to say and no longer do a whole lot of real "reporting."

While considered "Communist" by the folks on the extreme right, the "liberal blogs" actually not only do some serious analysis of the problems with the specific positions of the Republicans, they have also been happily attacking Obama when he's screwed up too (no covering up of those "tax problems" of cabinet appointees!)...

Case in point, with this week's Republican "solution" was covered by most media as "the Republican's today proposed a spending freeze...the Democrat's said this was foolish." Where's the analysis? Why couldn't *any* of these so-called "news" organizations have done this:

YouTube - Ana Marie Cox on GOP spending freeze...

Sure it's snarky up front, but that's only because it's so boneheaded stupid, something that Rachel explains in a very clear and straight-forward analysis starting about 2:30 in the clip....

Are they supporting a Spending Freeze just to be mindlessly the opposite of whatever Obama does? Or is it because like Rush, they simply don't care that it will destroy the economy as long as they can think they can blame it all on Obama in 2010?

The interesting thing is that a very large number of the Republican's I know have all gone sour on the party, especially in the last several months because of this mass insanity that's taken over the party.

Unfortunately, it's all due to the fact that the moderates in the party all got voted out of office in November, so there's no one left except for the extreme right wing, which does include an odd alliance of social conservatives and neo-con ideologues. The Fiscal Conservatives--like me--have all basically abandoned the party.

A reconstituted "Right" in America is not going to be like this, it's going to be--yes--more centrist, just like Clinton and Obama have been, because that's what most Americans want.

Like Bill says, it's silly to pigeonhole the "Right" as the extremists who have control of the party these days....just as silly as it is for those extremists to pigeonhole anyone to the left of them as "Socialists" or "treasonous haters of the troops."

Let's hope we can actually start debating some real issues around here, but I understand that the media is going to have to clean up it's act first....

If we did not debate the president, debate the policy in our role as journalists, if we did not stand up and say, "This is bogus," and "You're a liar," and "Why are you doing this?" that we didn't do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It's not our role,
Buffy

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by Theory5

I have heard clips of the so called leader of the party (Rush Limbagh) speak, and frankly, I was offended and disgusted each and every time. if someone can be that offensive and unintellegent and still lead a party, then I think America has stooped to a whole new level.
It seems to me that these guys would stab you in the back and take your wallet "for your own good".

The "core-value" Republic Right Wing is the only part of the whole political process that has a unity and intensity. They see the whole of existence as being limited to "good" and "evil." Their intensity of belief has driven the direction the US has taken for the last 40 years.

It began in about 1970 after the choatic, "everything gioes" hippy anti-establishment period following the war in Vietnam. Unfortunately, its trend will continue despite the Obama Administration's efforts. The reason no Republican dared to denounce Rush LImbaugh for his remarks---except the Party chairman and then he apologized to Rush!---is that they were afraid to. Only the Right Wing has "the moral high ground" in the thinking of Republicans.

[HydrogenBond]

The economy, like the political power, moves like a sine wave. All you have to do is check the historical trends. Things go one way, get saturated, peak, and the sine wave starts to move the other way. It is a matter of time until people get saturated, again.

People now say, I like the Democrats because we need social change. But eventually they say, they are not very good businessmen. Then they say we need to strengthen out the mess while not losing to many of the gains. When the country gets too business like, people will opt for more social change, and the cycle will begin again.

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The economy, like the political power, moves like a sine wave. All you have to do is check the historical trends. Things go one way, get saturated, peak, and the sine wave starts to move the other way. It is a matter of time until people get saturated, again.

People now say, I like the Democrats because we need social change. But eventually they say, they are not very good businessmen. Then they say we need to strengthen out the mess while not losing to many of the gains. When the country gets too business like, people will opt for more social change, and the cycle will begin again.

EXACTLY! these cycles exist. However, they also exist on trends. They hide the trend and make it difficult to recognize. Stocks work that way.

The economic cycle operates as you say, but there is also a underlying trend towards ever higher prices. Finally, there is a trend in public opinion that is creeping towards the religious right and has been in effect for the last 40 years. It led, cycle by cycle, up to Pres. Bush. I hate to think what the next neocon president will be like!

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by charles brough

... Finally, there is a trend in public opinion that is creeping towards the religious right and has been in effect for the last 40 years. ...

Mmm....I find that public opinion trend is now actually going against religion in politics or social decision making. Give us a big enough lever and We can move the world.

Pew Research Center: Public Support Falls for Religion’s Role in Politics

Originally Posted by Pew Research Center

August 21, 2008

Some Americans are having a change of heart about mixing religion and politics. A new survey finds a narrow majority of the public saying that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters. For a decade, majorities of Americans had voiced support for religious institutions speaking out on such issues. ...

Still, I find "fiscal conservative" a political euphemism for stingy and selfish. Seems to me they'uns would/did on principal alone, object to all these historical major expenses and controls by the US government. >> Infrastructure - Science Forums
But that's just how I roll.

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Mmm....I find that public opinion trend is now actually going against religion in politics or social decision making.

It is easy to be misled by appearances. This is not the first time that the over-conservatives have lost public support for a while. But no Administration achieved more religious power than the Bush one, and Obama Administration is practical more than liberal-ideologically. He is accommodating a lot with the Republicans. Bush should be charged for war crimes, but even the public would not stand for that. Obama has more than he can handle with all the problems the previous administration left him, too many problems to undo all the repressive laws left over.

We are in a religious-reaction phase of our civilization that has been going on since about 1970 in reaction to the Vietnam war hippy movement and the liberal-chaotic era that followed. It will undermine the Obama Administration and support for it will decline year after year. We are trapped into wars in Islam by Bush which will grow better, then worse, then better, then worse . . .

The way I see it, we need to face the problem realistically if we are ever going to end it.

charles
http://atheistic.science.com

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by charles brough

It is easy to be misled by appearances. This is not the first time that the over-conservatives have lost public support for a while.
...
We are in a religious-reaction phase of our civilization that has been going on since about 1970 in reaction to the Vietnam war hippy movement and the liberal-chaotic era that followed. It will undermine the Obama Administration and support for it will decline year after year. We are trapped into wars in Islam by Bush which will grow better, then worse, then better, then worse . . .

The way I see it, we need to face the problem realistically if we are ever going to end it.

charles

Well, whatever the length of the trend, it is registered and it counters your preceding contrary assertion. I thought that was a realistic dichotomy. Morover, since your assertion was a premise to a conclusion, doom & gloom?, and since your premise is false, your conclusion is false.

Originally Posted by Buffery

... A reconstituted "Right" in America is not going to be like this, it's going to be--yes--more centrist, just like Clinton and Obama have been, because that's what most Americans want. ...

Good to hear. We the People are after all in charge. Now with your strategy laid, what tactics have you in mind? (even a couple brief ones would be fine; i have to file a report monday morning with team leader and so far i got nothin'. )

In other men we faults can spy,
And blame the mote that dims their eye;
Each little speck and blemish find;
To our own stronger errors blind.