Seems to be an assumption from many on the right that because this is a center-right country, it will be so for the next thousand years. Democrats winning this year will be a minor jiggle in our inexorable tilt toward conservatism. I find this to be a pretty strange assumption. We weren't always this way, and when you look at demographic, economic and cultural trends it seems there are a number of factors that will push us in the opposite direction. Maybe not for a millennium, but possibly for another 20-30 years: - We're becoming a more urban country. The cities are the liberal base. When Palin dismisses urban parts of Virginia as not the "real America," doesn't she realize it's the fastest growing part of the state? - We're becoming a more diverse country. Conservatism and white people have gone hand in hand, and this country is becoming undeniably less white. - Corporations are becoming more international. People want their government to stand up for them in the face of these often unaccountable monoliths - The Great Depression ushered in a new era of progressives. Many compare our current fiscal crisis to that one. - We're an aging country. With age comes a greater reliance on social safety nets. Government is the enemy until you need a friend, and our citizens seem to increasingly need more friends. - Some socialized programs can help our industries be more competitive. Japanese and German car manufacturers have a built-in cost advantage because they don't have to cover health care. - Many of the old conservative go-to social issues just aren't selling as well. Younger people aren't scared of gays. Few of us gun owners really think in our hearts that all our guns are going to get taken away by the Democrats. Time and technology are slowly eroding the interest in the Pro-Life movement. Capital punishment has proven its flaws. We're still a center-right country. But there was a time when we were center-left, and it wasn't so long ago. When Republicans roll their eyes at Obama's "change," I can't help but think they are missing this point.
I agree. Isn't it weird that one of the things conservatives always say about Obama is that he's "liberal," as if that is something he's trying to hide?
I'd also add a few other factors that just occurred to me. Republicans are a victim of their own success: - It was easy to rail against taxes back in 1980, but even Republicans have to realize you can't do that forever. At some point you have to realize that they just can't be cut anymore. They've done a good job of lowering taxes to the point that few people in the middle see it as the enormous issue it was back then. - It's tough to portray the Democrats as soft on crime anymore. Thanks to 20 years of this talk, both parties seem to want to put as many people in jail, and as many cops on the street, as possible. To keep pushing this difference, they've gone to torture and wiretapping, and that's just a lot harder to sell as a good thing.
I don't think nation has an innate political ideology. It is currently center-right, because the last unifying personality who had an ideology was Ronald Reagan (by unifying, I mean he had high popularity across the nation, not just in red or blue states). Bill Clinton might have been popular, but he was a centrist. Barack Obama has the charisma to be able to unfiy the country behind a left-wing agenda and push the nation to the center-left. I think the nation will always be either center-right or center-left...the country is just too big and diverse for it to ever wander too far in either direction. Only small populations can tilt a lot in one direction (as many states in the union do). One thing I would say is that regardless of the current tilt at any particular time, the nation always drifts more progressive over time. The reason is that right-wing policies tend to be temporary while left-wing policies tend to be permanent. Left-wing policies, like social programs and more social rights for people, don't generally get reversed. The barrier is getting them passed. Once the policy gets the support to be legislated, they tend to be too popular for it to be anything but political suicide for a party to attempt to overturn. Right-wing policy like tax cuts or corporate rights are always on the table for removal or reform. They just don't become part of the national fabric like social programs and social rights.
America, for its history, has been a country that puts the individual ahead of the collective. To me, that's what being on the right is all about--liberty is the highest value. To the left, equality is the highest value. However, this battle requires constant viligence. I don't believe this election is a repudiation of conservative principles (limited government, low taxes, free markets and individual responsibility), but rather of the specific people occupying the positions of power that ran on those principles and governed far differently. Right now the American people want change. We'll see whether or not this is the kind of change that suits them. I do know one thing: You cannot consistently give the population more and more things they cannot afford in perpetuity. The bill collector will eventually knock on the door.
As a casual observer of the election, I find that one of the more interesting aspects. The rhetoric is just so completely different, despite only slight differences in political climate. Down there people use the word "liberal" as a slur, whereas up here its the name of one of our more historic political parties.
I agree. This election is a repudiation of the Republican party, not conservatism. Of course, a very large portion of the population doesn't make the distinction. barfo
Your constitution has definitely enshrined those concepts, but rightness and leftness is nowhere near as constant. Over the course of America's history those two terms have always redefined themselves over and over, to the point where if you took what was considered right/left at a given time, it would differ greatly from what was considered right/left a few decades in either direction. That's one of the reasons I find the term right and left to be so arbitrary at times. It only serves to confuse things when you're talking about political philosophy over history.
This is true, but I think it says less about an innate nature of Americans and more about Republicans having had better hustle than Democrats over the past decade or two. The Republican party has done a better, more organized job of framing the discourse, which includes turning "liberal" (and even "socialism") into bad words (despite both being clearly interwoven into the US society). This isn't permanent, it just shows the Republican party has been "winning" the debate. Hopefully, Obama's incredible organization and efficiency (as illustrated by how badly he beat McCain in the ground game) is the start of a turn-around, and Democrats can begin "winning" the message wars.
Great thread. It shouldn't be only Democrats and Republicans. I don't like the Two-party system, but that's another topic.
I think the country is still pretty evenly divided between conservatives and liberals. Obama is getting swept into office primarily due to the economic crisis. In the middle of September, McCain was leading in the polls and it looked like it was going to be a tight battle. The Wall Street sell-off and the collapse of major financial institutions and subsequent bailouts have rightly, or wrongly, been pinned by more people on Bush (and McCain by association) than on Democrats. Obama benefitted from this in a huge way. Democrats would do well to avoid thinking that this election is some sort of a mandate for a major shift to leftist policies. The Republicans, God bless their pointy little heads, failed to understand this when they got the upper hand eight years ago and are now out on their keisters. Maybe the Democrats won't be quite so stupid.
Since when have taxes - all taxes taken together - been "cut" on any long term trend? And of course the issue of Federal Income Tax as a middle class hot button been defused. There has been a recent trend of both Republican and Democrat Administrations reducing middle and lower class burden for supplying Federal Income Tax revenue. Essentially, all these debates about "taxes", really the Federal Income Tax, are 100% of the voters arguing about which portion of the top 50% carries the heaviest burden. 50% of taxpayers are already out of paying. In 1980, before Reagan, the top 10% paid 32.1% of FIT revenues. By the end of his administration that was 39.5%. Latest figures (2006) are 47.3% - a record, higher than even the Clinton era. See Table 5 at the link. It is common to lower tax rates - as Bush did - and have increased revenues. Kennedy lowered rates and had the same result. Do not be surprised if any significant increase in marginal tax rates by the new Congress does not increase revenue. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html The ruling classes have devised an excellent strategy of taking the majority of voters out of being intensely interested in Federal Income Tax, which used to be the largest tax bill everbody paid. Obama and his "new way" only is pushing this old trend along, priming the "rich" for a series of political assaults. Now when they raise rates on the "rich" who will care? And if the rates are raised too far, how long will it take before a majority of the public realizes that? Why would they notice? Their bill isn't a burden. Lowered burden of FIT for many doesn't mean taxes are low for the country. Most other taxes are up, and thus a big chunk of what the past few adminstrations has "saved" the middle class has been sopped up by all the other layers of government taxes and fees.
America is a collective of individuals. Being on the right is all about liberty for certain, priviledged individuals (rich, white, male...). Like in a Monarchy, or dictatorship. It's about keeping a wide moat between the kings and the peons. (See The History of Europe). Being on the left is all about liberty for all individuals (regardless). It's about giving everyone one a chance to succeed (see The Constitution).
I'm genuinely surprised that the republicans didn't try to blame the economic disaster on Bill Clinton.
If he replies to one of my posts, you can guess that he's trying to yank my chain. I think it's cute; it's like a little internet crush.
