Conservatisms Last Days (accuse, health care, weapon, independent)

[KevK]

Originally Posted by my54ford

They (libs) may get control for awhile but like France and England people will get tired of their crap and vote them out... It's just a cycle. The key is makeing a profit during the confusion of their control......

Neither France nor England have rejected the ideals of liberalism. Yes, they have voted for what they would call "conservatives" as has Canada but these "conservatives" are not the same as American conservatives. They are not going to attack the basic bedrocks of liberalism. Even in the most conservative of other nations a precieved threat against the liberal bedrocks such as education, healthcare and other programs will send a "conservative" packing as furious voters march to the polls to protect the liberal programs. This happened just last year in Australia. The "conservatives" of the other western nations are in fact more like the Democrats of the United States. The USA has not really had a true liberal political party since the labour movement was crushed in the 50s and 60s under McCarthy.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by saganista

Read a newspaper. How many filibusters have Senate Republicans run? They broke the all-time record just in the first year. Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. 60 is the new 51...

IF the Democrats win the White House and pick up seats in the Senate, they will have to reconsider the "nuclear option" if the GOP tries to use this to prevent President Obama from fulfilling his mandate. The voters are simply not going to stand for the Democrats saying "oh we cannot do anything" after being handed the White House and huge majorities in the House and Senate. That will not be accepted. So if the Democrats gain and have 57 Senate seats, look for the fillibuster to be an issue.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by odinloki1

Maybe they'd like to make the world a better place and do not want to see the free market screw over millions of people.

Free market screw over millions of people? Would that be the 10,000,000 millionaires in this country that got screwed or the screwing? And if they did the screwing, please tell me how..

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by KevK

IF the Democrats win the White House and pick up seats in the Senate, they will have to reconsider the "nuclear option" if the GOP tries to use this to prevent President Obama from fulfilling his mandate. The voters are simply not going to stand for the Democrats saying "oh we cannot do anything" after being handed the White House and huge majorities in the House and Senate. That will not be accepted. So if the Democrats gain and have 57 Senate seats, look for the fillibuster to be an issue.

With 57 Dems, two independent senators and about 5-6 Republican moderates I don't think a filibuster would be a major issue. With ~54 Senate Dems it could well be.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

Doubt it. Conservatism will change but there will always be Conservativism. Look at how many Babyboomers are now conservatives.

Perhaps not as many as you seem to think. To keep things manageable, look at the exit polls for the 2006 Senate races. See how often the Republican vote peaked in the age 30-44 bracket and then fell off. Even in the case of Olympia Snowe, who has the highest home-state popularity of any Senator. She drew 82% from the 30-44 bracket, but only 68% from those 60 and over. The same can be seen over and over again.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

1) Much of Conservativism is about either enforcing the status quo and preventing (or at least being cautious with) change.

Perhaps among paleo's and a few of these newly minted self-proclaimed Libertarians. The right-wing regulars that we hear from and talk about on a day-to-day basis are quite different. For them, it's all about changing as rapidly as possible into something that might resemble 1893. No social safety net, no labor laws, no antitrust legislation. Days when a man could wear a gun and spit in the street...when a good horse was more highly prized than a good woman. That's where these folks are trying to take us.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

2) People tend to get more conservative (both socially and economically as they get older).

This no doubt explains why the AARP is such a staunch and notoriously conservative organization. Maybe you should consider the possibility that all you are peddling here is an assortment of outdated stereotypes and old wive's tales. Even Winston Churchill was more liberal at 35 than he had been at 20.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

You get better jobs, you're more comfortable, you save up money and you start acquiring more possessions and have a pretty stable life. Once you get to that point, you probably don't think high taxes are all that great.

Or as the result of that education and experience, you realize that even if you were to face the highest possible marginal tax rate or have to pay the AMT bill instead, your effective tax rate on average would rarely wander out of the 20-25 cents on the dollar range while the national average is 12-15 cents on the dollar. That's when you start to think wow, this is a ridiculous bargain for me. I don't know why the rest of these people are letting me get away with this...

[rlchurch]

[quote]Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni
You get better jobs, you're more comfortable, you save up money and you start acquiring more possessions and have a pretty stable life. Once you get to that point, you probably don't think high taxes are all that great.[quote]

Originally Posted by saganista

Or as the result of that education and experience, you realize that even if you were to face the highest possible marginal tax rate or have to pay the AMT bill instead, your effective tax rate on average would rarely wander out of the 20-25 cents on the dollar range while the national average is 12-15 cents on the dollar. That's when you start to think wow, this is a ridiculous bargain for me. I don't know why the rest of these people are letting me get away with this...

My take on this is that I personally am becoming more liberal from a social standpoint. I'm consistently a fiscal conservative, but as I grow older I recognize that American cannot be great if all we are trying to do is maximize economic growth. That approach creates huge disparities in quality of life among people and that disparity undermines the fabric of our society. I believe in the free market and that many times it will produce a better outcome than heavy handed regulation, but the free market has no soul. That's not a criticism just a factual comment.

Just as I didn't raise my son in a Darwinian free market environment where from birth he had to earn his keep. When members of my extended family need help, I don't call them lazy of freeloaders, I help them. America need to treat its needy the way we treat needy family members. Maybe there's the need for tough love sometimes, but you never turn them away from the door.

I frankly don't see how social conservatives who call themselves Christians can face themselves in the mirror. I hear a lot about how generously social conservatives give, but when I drive through the and I don't see that the gap has been bridged. The government needs to fill that gap and provide a safety net. The Europeans have proved that it's economically feasible.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by KevK

IF the Democrats win the White House and pick up seats in the Senate, they will have to reconsider the "nuclear option" if the GOP tries to use this to prevent President Obama from fulfilling his mandate. The voters are simply not going to stand for the Democrats saying "oh we cannot do anything" after being handed the White House and huge majorities in the House and Senate. That will not be accepted. So if the Democrats gain and have 57 Senate seats, look for the fillibuster to be an issue.

I think it depends on what the tone of the election results is. There are 24 current Republican Senate seats on the ballot this Fall (versus 12 for the Dems), and things will depend I think not just on how many, but which of those seats they can hold onto. If they lose Senate races the way they lost special-election races (i.e., shockingly), they might still have their 41 but there would be little left of party cohesion or loyalty, so filibusters might well disappear on their own. If things turn around somehow and Republicans lose no shockers and hang onto 45-46 seats, then I think there might be an issue. But as Trent Lott said, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail … and so far it’s working for us.” That was last Fall. "So far" doesn't last forever. The nuclear-option is not a good one...it's an absolute worst case scenario sort of thing. As was suggested earlier in the thread, particularly if the Dems were to go with someone other than Reid at the helm in the 111th Congress, there ought to be other, more tactful ways around whatever problem might arise. 11-07-06 knocked the Republicans down to maybe 40-50% of their previous, all but unthrottled operating capacity. If the debacle that everyone (including Republicans) is predicting comes to pass in November, they might be down in the 15-20% range. That wouldn't leave them very much leverage to work with...

[Frank_Carbonni]

Perhaps not as many as you seem to think. To keep things manageable, look at the exit polls for the 2006 Senate races. See how often the Republican vote peaked in the age 30-44 bracket and then fell off. Even in the case of Olympia Snowe, who has the highest home-state popularity of any Senator. She drew 82% from the 30-44 bracket, but only 68% from those 60 and over. The same can be seen over and over again.

Never said they were extreme conservatives. But I do find it intensely amusing that so many former hippies and other people who were involved in the counter-culture of the 1960s and 1970s now have many views that are the exact opposite of the what they previously were. How many politicians and voters have smoked marijuana yet are steadfastly opposed to the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana? I can think of quite a few off the top of my head.

As for the elderly, that is mostly Social Security and Medicare that make them less prone to vote for conservatives. It could also be argued that in a sense, supporting Social Security and Medicare is a form of conservativism as well, not in the way it's used in the strictly political sense, but rather in its opposition to change and the desire to keep or build upon the status quo.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that all you are peddling here is an assortment of outdated stereotypes and old wive's tales.

Maybe you should consider that I was merely musing on why I think there will always be something that is basically equal to conservativism in one way or another especially when considering the term and its equivalents have been around for quite some time across countless cultures and has changed from generation to generation.

Maybe you should the possibility that you like take one or two sentences out of posts from forum members you disagree with and use them to create something different than what was being said.

Perhaps among paleo's and a few of these newly minted self-proclaimed Libertarians. The right-wing regulars that we hear from and talk about on a day-to-day basis are quite different. For them, it's all about changing as rapidly as possible into something that might resemble 1893. No social safety net, no labor laws, no antitrust legislation. Days when a man could wear a gun and spit in the street...when a good horse was more highly prized than a good woman. That's where these folks are trying to take us.

I'm assuming this is the left-wing version of right-wing rants about how liberals are trying to force kids to watch gay sex and how they want to outlaw Christianity and the only crime they believe someone should go to prison for is owning a gun.

Just so you know, that doesn't sound like an insane strawman at all.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

Never said they were extreme conservatives.

Olympia Snowe isn't exactly an extreme conservative. She's an extremely popular moderate Republican from an independent-minded state. Yet she polls considerably lower amongst older voters than amongst those whose age is in the middle.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

But I do find it intensely amusing that so many former hippies and other people who were involved in the counter-culture of the 1960s and 1970s now have many views that are the exact opposite of the what they previously were. How many politicians and voters have smoked marijuana yet are steadfastly opposed to the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana? I can think of quite a few off the top of my head.

You equate having smoked a joint with having supported the legalization of pot? You believe all these latter-day stories about having been "involved" in the counter-culture? I hear these from time to time as well. Usually from people who couldn't explain why Keith Stroup and Julius Hoffman were well known names of those years. But they still have a pair of their old bell-bottoms up in the attic somewhere. Maybe some love-beads, too. Ah, those were the days!

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

As for the elderly, that is mostly Social Security and Medicare that make them less prone to vote for conservatives.

So, these are people who have automatically become more conservative as they've grown older, except that they don't vote that way because of Social Security, even though every neocon proposal floated out there in recent years has exempted everybody over 55 (or some similar age) from any changes, and because of Medicare, even though they recently got coverage for their prescription drugs out of a quite conservative administration? These people do not seem to me to be all that well set in their newly-discovered conservative ways.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

It could also be argued that in a sense, supporting Social Security and Medicare is a form of conservativism as well, not in the way it's used in the strictly political sense, but rather in its opposition to change and the desire to keep or build upon the status quo.

Supporting the preservation of welfare, affirmative action, and abortion rights would count as being conservative then as well?

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

Maybe you should consider that I was merely musing on why I think there will always be something that is basically equal to conservativism in one way or another especially when considering the term and its equivalents have been around for quite some time across countless cultures and has changed from generation to generation.

Well, I did consider that, and it's true that there there will always be those who want to go more slowly. But there are also those who don't want to go at all, and those who fervently wish to go backwards. Seach around these boards. Many of them can be found posting here.

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

Maybe you should the possibility that you like take one or two sentences out of posts from forum members you disagree with and use them to create something different than what was being said.

All I have to go by is what people post, but I typically try to sense the point that people are trying to get to, and then question either the quality of that destination, or whether the evidence they are citing actually serves to take them there. When you circulate an hypothesis in the real world, it is ordinary to expect to see it questioned. I am merely one who does that...

Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni

I'm assuming this is the left-wing version of right-wing rants about how liberals are trying to force kids to watch gay sex and how they want to outlaw Christianity and the only crime they believe someone should go to prison for is owning a gun. Just so you know, that doesn't sound like an insane strawman at all.

Rant? What do YOU hear from the right-wing regulars about the social safety net, labor laws, and antitrust legislation? Go back to 1893 and see what sort of a time that was. See how much of a match for a right-wing nirvana it might in fact have been back then. Then come and talk to me about rant.

[KevK]

The elderly of yesterday were politically conservative people because they were raised in a different day with different values- which is why they fought things like civil rights so hard. But the baby boomers are far less conservative and far more concerned about the generations that will follow them. These are people that grew up in the 50s and 60s and they are of a different mindset.