2012 Election NOT a rebuke of conservatism

No matter what the actual definition is, those in power of the conservative wing of the party right now are quite religious and have been quite vocal about letting those views influence their stances.

I am a Dem, but I would consider myself to be a fiscally conservative Dem since I would like to see them cut spending accross the board, but especially on the military. I would like to see taxes stay low overall although I do believe in a gradient. Kind of how things are now but with loopholes removed. All in all, I am not looking for tons of spending or gouging the rich.

However I want to see movement on social issues and most importantly, I want a government that respects science and looks to improve our future through sience and technology. Invest in alternate energy, invest in basic sciences, invest in exploration, invest in healthcare and invest in a better tomorrow.

If the Republican Party got away from their social views and especially their war on science and information, then I would be very interested in that. But they are religious and the conservative brand is religious.


If TRUE CONSERVATIVES (ie. not religious) want to win, they can't be part of the Left, which believes in change and progress, and they can't believe in the Right, which believes in the bible and ruling according to the pulpit. They need a party all its own or else they need to take back the Republican Party and banish out the zealots.

 

I don't want to toss out a conspiracy here but. The pharmacology companies heavily endorse the Democratic party. Are you aware that there have been many "alternative findings and treatments" of cancers or other major illnesses; that the federal government has shut down? I always laughed at how many Democrats bark at how evil the oil empire is; yet they praise the medical and pharmacology industry that makes billions on kimo therapy and flu shots.

 

And this is why the republicans lost because the majority of the population does give a fuck about it, and the republicans are letting a rigid vocal minority dictate their social policies.

 

Put me down for the Denny Crane Party then! This scenario has problems though, now a party can win with 25.1% of the vote and the couintry as a whole could be ran by a well organized crackpot minority.

 

The Tea Party began like that and I think had good and honerable goals. But in the 2010 election, the people they rallied behind were de facto zealots. Those are the people who have made all the news with the rape comments and they are the ones who have been pushing for stronger anti-abortion legislation.

The religious right took over the Republican party and they have now taken over the Tea Party. The thing is, the religious right is a very motivated group with money and method to mobalize their base. Where are the Reagan Democrats? They are waiting for a more middle of the road party. I don't know what the answer is because I would expect if another party picks up steam, they will be either corrupted by the far left or the far right, there is precious few people in the middle who are willing to devote their lives to moderation.

 

I think they give to both, but perhaps more to the D's. Makes sense. Most of the basic research is done off NIH grants and then once that research starts to become interesting, Pharma invests in more research to try and turn the findings into something that makes money. It's a win win. But since the D's want to invest in research and the R's don't, or at least don't want ot invest as much, it seems like a reasonable stance.

Shut down, no. I do know that there are areas that are not invested in because they are not hot at the moment, and I also know that Pharma is not going to invest the millions needed to do research something that is "alternative" since they can't make money from something that simply grows from the earch. However, synthetic versions of many things have been made, so Pharma is learning how to make money off plants. Convienence counts. As far as treatments of cancers, I work in a lab closely affiliated with Druker up at OHSU, who discovered the only true Cure for a cancer. Granted, it is a very rare cancer and quite different from most other cancers, so the information gained in the research is not immediately applicable to other cancers. My point is that there is not a person up here who would ever hide any discovery that would lead to advancement of cancer research.

I have no problem with the oil empire making billions. I just believe that taxpayers should not be footing a 4 billion dollar per year subsidy to the oil industry when they are having record years and are not in trouble economically. I am fine with the oil empire making all the money it can, just so long as they don't use their leverage to squash research in alternatives, with will eventually be needed. But I do understand that some liberals are against the oil companies making a huge profit, just not me. I do believe in a tempered capatalism, and think that inovation and hard work should have a great reward. The oil companies are figuring out how to get oil from new places, produce the oil with fewer emissions, and working hard to make sure all corners of our nation (and world) have the power we NEED to thrive. They are important and they do deserve a hardy profit. I would hope for a company to share more profits with the workers via higher pay, but the market determins that and so it's not their fault. Likewise, I have no problem with Pharma making money, Porn making money or any industry making money. I simply feel that they should be taxed at a rate commensurate with what other people pay, and if they are given lower taxes it should be for the specific reason of competition with overseas companies or as a benefit for keeping production local.

 

Only partially, I think it's more a rebuke of our faith in the government as a whole. If it was merely a rebuke of Obama, then we'd have seen an increase of voters voting against him. Instead we see, for example, a 15% decrease in turnout in the state of Texas.

When congress has a 9% approval rating, there's a problem. Neither side was willing to work with the other and so nothing got done. Faced with the options of shit or more shit, millions more decided to vote by not voting.


As for the original question of if this was a rebuke of conservatism... I think the more accurate statement would be it's a rebuke of what a younger generation and minorities THINK conservatism stands for. If that's an inaccurate perception, then maybe that's something conservatives should think about.

 

Right... so basically what I said.