The Great Repudiation: Why voters have had enough of conservative rule
By David Neiwert Friday Nov 07, 2008 10:00amThe Concern Trolls are roaming free in the Village these days: John King, Laura Ingraham, Charles Krauthammer, Tom Brokaw, Karl Rove, Ruth Marcus … I don't know how many talking heads I've heard claim that "America is still a center-right country" in the past few days, but if it were a drinking game, I'd have alcohol poisoning.
I guess I'm confused. I keep hearing from a lot of conservatives that McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough -- that is, he was essentially a center-right candidate. And I think that's the consensus about where he sat on the political spectrum.
So if America is a "center-right country," then why didn't they elect the center-right candidate?
It's all bullshit, of course. As a CAF/Media Matters study found last year: "Media perceptions and past Republican electoral successes notwithstanding, Americans are progressive across a wide range of controversial issues, and they're growing more progressive all the time." In fact, as CAF's Robert Borosage points out, "Voters didn't just elect Democrats, they elected progressives." This is a liberal mandate.
Yet it's probably true that the election doesn't necessarily reflect an all-out embrace of all things liberal. Obama largely succeeded by making clear that he has a moderate temperament on a number of issues, and more importantly, in his style of governance. So a certain caution is probably wise.
No, this election was about one thing primarily: a sweeping repudiation of movement conservatism.
The breadth and depth of Democrats' victory was a loud shout from the American public: We have had enough of this crap.
Specifically, we've had enough of two things: conservative governance, and conservative politics.
GOVERNANCE:
The swirling global economic crisis produced by Republican rule is only the most prominent debacle produced by eight years of conservative philosophy being put into action. Conservatives never met a deregulation scheme they didn't like -- and it was that very mania for breaking down well-established institutional barriers, particularly in the financial sector, that led to the housing bubble and the collapse on Wall Street. Certainly, Democrats played along, often eagerly -- but they were being conservative when they did.
No doubt the solutions to the economic crisis will entail re-regulating the financial sector and imposing strict government oversight. And when they do, no doubt conservatives will accuse Democrats of indulging "socialism". But it is to laugh: the right has earned all the credibility of Joe the Plumber on such matters.
Especially when you consider all the other fruits of conservative governance:
- Foreign-policy debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- A government that invades nations under false pretenses.
- A nation less secure and at greater risk of terrorist attacks than ever.
- A sinking economy.
- An expanding gap between rich and poor.
- Utter inaction on global warming.
- $5-a-gallon gasoline.
- An unresolved immigration problem.
- An incapacity to deal with natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
- A debacle in public-school education testing and funding.
- Declining food and consumer-product safety standards.
- A government that spies on its own citizens.
- A government that tortures prisoners held in their detention facilities.
These messes weren't the result of George W. Bush being too liberal and straying too far from the movement's party line. To the contrary -- they're the direct result of him toeing that line to the millimeter. They are all the direct product of the conservative philosophy of governance.
POLITICS:
Conservatives have practiced a politics of fear for the past forty years -- since 1968, when Richard Nixon perfected the technique. Since then, as Rick Perlstein has brilliantly limned, we've been living "Nixonland." In recent years, the right has turned politics into a dark art: a relentless parade of smears, demonization, and eliminationism that has profoundly poisoned the public well and deeply divided the country.
In the past decade, we've been subjected to a nonstop battering, cheapening, and demeaning of the nation's public discourse. Nonstop public attacks on liberals -- their policies and their persons -- have come in the form of vicious attack-dog pundits for whom "pushing the envelope" has entailed dredging into the very worst kind of ugly innuendo, and wingnut politicians for whom no smear is too low to stoop to.
Look at what has littered our landscape as a result:
- The absurd impeachment of Bill Clinton in spite of the public's broad disapproval.
- The caricaturization of a future Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore, in the course of foisting a Bush presidency upon an unsuspecting public.
- The relentless campaign to portray anyone dissenting from Bush's post-9/11 war plans as insufficiently patriotic and "soft on terrorism."
- The tireless recourse to a string of "Friedman units" in excusing the interminable extension of the Iraq war.
- The swift-boating of John Kerry.
- The Terri Schiavo fiasco.
- The Graham Frost fiasco.
- The ritual and ongoing demonization of Latinos as criminals, welfare bums, America-hating, job-stealing foreigners.
- The crude dog-whistle campaign run against Obama, depicting him as a terrorist-loving, America-hating, secret Muslim brown man.
- The deeply disturbing way that conservatives acted on this rhetoric: spewing hate, racism, and threatening violence.
The right threw all of its traditional smears at Obama: Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, the "birth certificate" -- you name it, they flung it at him. And this time around, it didn't take. Poll after poll demonstrated that these attacks actually hurt Republicans across the board.
This happened in dozens of races. The most prominent was Elizabeth Dole's desperate attempt to smear Kay Hagan with a last-minute round of ads accusing her of palling around with godless types -- and she lost by an even larger margin than polls indicated. It happened at the state and local levels, too; in Washington state, Republican Dino Rossi's relentlessly negative campaign against Democrat Chris Gregoire actually worked against him -- in 2004, he lost by a handful of votes, but in 2008, the margin was a wide one.
In this election, Obama remolded the Democrats into the party of hope -- in particular, the hope for a better America. In the process, we discovered that hope can defeat fear. That is a discovery that could profoundly reshape our national politics for generations.
If Obama's presidency is successful, the "Nixonland" era will finally be over. Voters in 2008, for the first time in memory, clearly repudiated this kind of politics and this kind of governance. But it took a supreme pushback effort to get there. Staying there will be even more work -- this defeat will not mean the right will go away.
Ironically, it will now be in movement conservatives' interest to make sure that an Obama presidency fails (so much for "Country First", eh?). It will be in the interest of everyone else -- liberal, progressive, centrist, even center-rightist -- to make sure that the failure, once again, is theirs.
Login or Register to post comments.
[Deleted. Off topic. If you continue to link to unrelated articles, you'll be banned for blogwhoring. Thank you. Site Monitor]
There is a huge culture of corruption that's gripped the GOP for the past eight years. Unfortunately, Bush is likely to try and wipe it clean with a slew of pardons in the next several weeks.
They would have preferred Candidate Clinton, as they were salivating with the mud they could sling at her.
Palin was a precise pick. Kristol thought that the Republicans needed to trump Clinton as the most powerful woman in Washington.
That's one of the reasons I wanted Obama to get the nomination. I didn't want to have to hear the same old clinton lies all over again, also I knew that his nomination would bring the racism to the forefront and severly hurt the republiCons.
Believe it or not, this country is center right, this has been proven by Obama being listed as the second most liberal in the Senate and then during the election moving towards the center.
He realized this, so he moved on many positions. As for those people who think McCain is a conservative...give me a break, you know very little of the base in the Republican party if you think McCain was a true conservative.
As for the race issue, over 90% of African Americans voted for Obama and this is not racism? I know for a fact many African Americans voted for him because he was black and that was it. Here is a great example, in Louisiana right now, there is William Jefferson, he is under indictment for numerous items. He was running against a Mexican American with a good record, yet the African Americans in the district want him instead. This is extremely sad to want someone because the color of their skin alone.
Only a racist mind would say that! I have without hesitation, voted for white men in Presidential elections all of my life! How many black men have you voted for President, John? It is so wrong that bigots like you can so freely race bait because it freaks you out that a n****r is your President.
You're an ignorant, racist troll John.
I(and every black person I know) believed Obama was head over heels the best candidate! I felt that way about Clinton, Gore, Kerry...all white men! Now I know for sure where you are coming from. Unless you can produce actual proof to buttress your sick, racist theory, you need to immediately STFU!!
Everybody says so... but why is a person whose father is African and whose mother is "white" "black"?
Does it really matter? Do you think he's black or white, or just a "mutt"? You right-wingers have serious issues you must deal with. Obama is the best man for the job, full stop. He could be purple for all I care.
When the actress Halle Berry won her Academy Award in 2001 for best actress, she accepted it as an African American, even though her mother was white. She was later asked the same question by someone apparently just as ignorant as you appear to be. She explained that she had been treat as a black woman all her life and that's why she considered herself "black". If Obama was on the news and had been arrested for murder, dopes like you would then call him black. Now that he's President, now you want credit. It really doesn't matter until race baiting assholes like you try to make it an issue. I'm willing to bet what Obama considers himself....thanks to treatment he's received all his life from fools like you.
Weren't there white people that voted for McCain because he is white?
Many whites voted for Obama, and not strictly because of the colour of his skin. They like him.
When they run the first gay candidate, I'll vote for him/her, or not vote for him/her, based on policies, not sexual orientation.
What is extremely sad is the way you view this country.
There is only one race sport. The Human race.
This is addressed to john.
Get over it john. Welcome to the 21st century.
You are dumb.
African Americans voted 88% for John Kerry(white). Get your head out of your ass idiot.
I've seen a lot of lists, John. Being on a list is not a meaningful distinction. You can read what the man has written and decide for yourself whether he's a right winger or left winger or whatever. I can't see anything in Obama's work that points to anything beyond a love of the Constitution and a commitment to improving the quality of life of all Americans. You're not responding to Obama; you're responding to published opinions of Obama.
Don't knock people for mistaking John McCain for a conservative; with all the fear-mongering and lust for power evident in the McCain-Palin ticket anyone could make that mistake.
Consider this.
We will still have a Corporate Republic.
...a racist media:
Fox News Inspires KKK Threats
abortion rights win every time, center right but not social conservative center right. center left socially.
mclame lost because he was the conservative candidate.
Because after 8 years of conservative horrors people are ready for a real president and a real presidency. Not another dumbya-esque puppet.
It wasn't because he wasn't conservative enough. It was because he was TOO conservative, perceived too much like Bush.
And Palin, well she was just candy for the right-wing fringe, so conservative that most people couldn't stand her on the left AND on the right.
Listen, this is nothing new. Every time the Republicans lose, they assure us that the reason the American people voted for the guy they insisted was the bastard child of Karl Marx and Mao Zedong is because the Republican candidate wasn't conservative enough. As if that argument made any sense at all.
Anyway, this is why they really lost.
If any of their candidates had spent the last few years dealing with the concerns of their constituents and doing their jobs rather than spending all their time shoveling the 'conservative agenda' into great heaping piles all over the place and making conservativism something people had to avoid stepping in, then they probably would have done a lot better.
True... I've had to replace numerous pairs of shoes since 2000.
"I've got political capital and I intend to use it." GWB
How's that working out for you George?
Like in all other things, he's into deficit spending.
Look, this is really simple. The GOP right still thinks that playing the old Rovian games..."repeat something often enough and it becomes the truth"...works.
This is their biggest mistakes. It may work in a literally homogenic society, with all due respect to our German neighbors, but the fact is that America is different. NONE OF US are real Americans, except for native Americans. The rest of us are all the sons and daughters of immigrants or slaves. Different nationalities, social mores, etc, etc. all thrown together. What joins us is our diversity...and most of all our independence. The United States was founded on principles of freedom and liberty...which both require a certain level of free thinking. Yes, there are pockets of us that are trapped inside of their cultural backgrounds, BUT...the fact is that we are joined by basic principles that demand that we think and act as individuals...take those individual views, find common ground and create a society. THAT is the great experiment and the great reality of AMERICA.
The GOP is boxed into a reality that simply doesn't exist. It may have existed for a time...but the fact is...the American people as a whole are simply to independent to be led on a lease for an extended period.
The GOP didn't offer conservatism in 2004, or 2008, all they offered was fear. In 2004 republicans won by scaring the crap out of people, overplaying terrorism, demonizing homosexuals, and making the democrats out to be pussies. There was no discussion of balancing budgets, cutting spending, cutting the size of government, because Bush had done the complete opposite the previous 4 years.
In 2008, it was different, all McCain did was spend a year telling us why you shouldn't vote for the other guy because he's a muslim, terrorist, socialist, with a crazy evangelical preacher. No substance, no issues.
Obama's victory isn't a big rejection of conservatism, it's a rejection of the direction the GOP have gone the last 8-12 years.
I disagree. The conservatives, or "cons" as Thom Hartmann calls them, always claim that when their candidates lose it's because they weren't "true" conservatives. There's always some mythical group of "cons" who would have been great...if only they got into power. Our local paper has a troglodyte who claims Bush was really a liberal. They had their chance. America saw what they were and soundly rejected their philosophy.
dumbya's a librul? Did he also mention what color the sky is on his planet? :D
philosophy is totally bankrupt, literally as well as figuratively. They're trying to distance themselves from the narrow-minded, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-environmental, regressive con policies. As Rachel Maddow said on Colbert, electing "cons" who hate government to govern is like having a vegan as a butcher.
I don't know if I agree with the idea that they're trying to distance themselves from xenophobic, homophobic, anti-everything rhetoric considering it's looking like they're going with the 'dumbya with boobs' model for the next election.
you're right. A lot of the "pundints" are shameless opportunists and front-runners who know their gigs would be limited unless they appear to be flexible. The con and neo-con base definitely loves them some Caribou Barbie.
He is liberal with other people's money.
used to say that they like to call it "movement conservatism" because they like to take dumps on the rest of us.
We had to go through 5 or 6 years of them blaming Clinton for their failures. Now they are blaming Obama for the stock market, Russia saying that they will put arms on the Polish border, etc. The new talking point is that conservatives did not come out for this election, so it still proves the country is center right. They are in denial that their brand of governing has failed.
It is a center right media, the education system has moved center right. Once you debunk the right wing "facts" that so many people use to base their opinion on most people are liberal. Cutting through the right wing horse puckie is almost impossible with a huge number people. The Fascists have done their propaganda job very well.
I agree, the conservatives only label themselves as that. They are not acting or legislating as conservatives, more like fascists. Kucinich is Center, proven. His platform, Kucinich, is inline with most Americans beliefs and wants.
So I argue that America is Left left, take that.
A conservative, Arlen Specter, he is a conservative.
I think I have that name right, Specter???
If you keep in mind that everything a Republican/rightwinger says is either a lie, a distortion or a delusion then everything they say makes perfect sense.
That's exactly right. This was about a repudiation of neo-conservatism and movement-conservatism.
Certainly, Obama is not a liberal's dream candidate. There are ways in which he is center-right. Many of them.
I'm not sure Americans are educated enough to understand the political spectrum, much less place themselves on it. However, ask them about basic issues on an issue-by-issue basis, and Americans are pragmatic centrists who lean slightly left. They want universal health care. They want Social Security. They want fiscal responsibility. They want religion in the public square, but not integrated with their state. They don't embrace "the other," but they're content to tolerate, to live and let live.
If we educated our country in civics and science, America would be center-left.
This is the real tragedy of NCLB. It is a sham that supposedly promotes education and achievement, but does exactly the opposite - churn out a generation more concerned with the 'right answer' than the process of determining it, or evaluating sources.
You can vote the bastards out of office, but you can't make them leave broadcasting.
they're still reading from the Cheney-Rove-Bush operations manual - If you say something enough times, it will become true.
I read somewhere, and this makes a lot of sense, that this was an election for 35ers and younger, that this was their first real president. It makes sense, because since the Reagan era, there has been this polarization in American politics and these 35ers and younger are sick of the fighting, the get-nothing-down BS. They want new blood, action and unity.
I maintain that the illusion of the 'mainstream media' was and is promulgated by the neoconservatives. It's cult thinking - isolate the subject and gradually control their worldview, so that they end up depending on you, begging you to bless them with your presence.
I think we'd also be better served if we shot half of the pundits in this country and forced people to think on their own. I'm sick of "Here to tell us what it all means is ..."
When are these clowns going away?!?!??! They make me want to vomit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GO AWAY CLOWNS GO AWAY YOU LOST WE HATE YOU GO AND TAKE YOUR ILL GOTTEN BOOTY WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, throughout the campaign, we were told that Obama and the Democrats were so far left that they went into the territory of Marxism so, a CENTER Right country would vote for extreme leftists? Okay, sarcasm aside, I don't believe this country is center-right. I believe it's more center-left. There are significantly more self-identified Democrats that Republicans plus, over the last two elections, Independents have found themselves more in favor of Democratic policies that Republicans policies. This tells me that the country leans more center-left.
What we are hearing from these pundits are no more than Republican talking points, trying to scare Democratic politicians in not giving the Republicans a dose of what these "conservatives" have been doling out for the last 7+ years.
Just outright lies. The Republicans have lost the Latino vote, will never get the black vote, independents, losing women, etc. This party can either overhaul their hateful, paranoid, racial/economic caste system agenda or become extinct....I personally hope that they die....slowly.
"Specifically, we've had enough of two things: conservative governance, and conservative politics. " but we'll have to live with it for another 2 years with right-wingers like Pelosi and Welch in our House of Representatives. Do you people really believe that the same people who refused to stop funding for illegal wars, detentions, torture, and surviellance and refused to hold those who committed such crimes accountable are suddenly goin to do the right thing? I remember quite distinctly 2 years ago when everybody thought there was going to be some change in our government. That lasted about 6 months followed by 18 months of frustration and disappointment. I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to be one bit different this time. Sure Obama is a man of his word and will try to get some progressive policies implimented. Just don't expect that the Congressional Dems(and certainly not the rethugs) to go along with it.
As great as it is that we have an African-American president for the first time in our history, and as great as it is that we've ended the 8-year reign of the unelected George W. Bush, let's not ignore the fact that 48% - that is, close to half of all votes - went to the Republicans, and 52%, just over half, went to the Democrats. That is frightening to think about, especially since the right is still way better organized than any other group in the country, partly because of the network of right-wing churches plaguing the land.
My guess is that the youthful get-out-the-vote-for-Obama "movement" won't outlast the election, just like the last-minute but historically massive February 15, 2003, antiwar demonstrations did not constitute a movement but were a one-shot deal.
And Obama's record is pretty Clinton-esque, on the center-right of an increasingly right-wing Democratic party, despite his early, minor misgivings about the invasion of Iraq. The appointments he's made so far are not looking very "liberal" either, with a ruthless Zionist his first choice and threats against Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the truly progressive parts of Latin America. It's more of the same Clintonite crap.
And, yes, I know McCain would be worse, but let's not ignore what we can already see.
That is wrong, from what I have seen studying the map, closer to 60-40, or even maybe 65-35. Look for yourself.
The Boob Tube is not just saying we are center right they also are trying to paint the picture that McCain wasn't shut out. A Major Majority voted for Obama. McCain was shut out.
Senate and Congress, too.
We are getting down to reality. A 70-30 split, but still voter fraud exists, so I'll settle for 65-35. :P
Think about it.
http://tinyurl.com/54qe8a
"The reason for the change? Exhausted county officials had accidentally entered 24 for Franken instead of 124 when the county's final votes were tallied at 5:25 Wednesday morning."
http://tinyurl.com/54qe8a
Go Al!
I can't wait to say, Senator Al Franken! And hear that pussy O'Reilly say it.
chokes on it!
Thanks LeftandLeft!
frankin, i am sorry to report, is a putz, but still better than colman by a longshot... Dean Barkley was the only decent choice...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2EUps0vxeE
Dude, your guy Barkley is a spoiler who (just like Paul, Nader) has nothing to lose. By voting for Barkley, the end result will be the re-election of that human bed pan Coleman....period.
None of us like to pay taxes. So if a fiscal conservative could thoughtfully cut spending and balance the budget the Republicans could win every time. Unfortunately so called conservatives start expensive wars, start new unfunded programs, bail out their Republican business CEO's and to add insult cut taxes.
The Democratic Party lets everyone in on social issues. If you're prolife that's okay, if you're a member of the NRA that's okay, if you oppose gay marriage that's okay. Meanwhile the conservatives in the Republican party begin a witch hunt against anyone who doesn't espouse what they believe.
Ironically they tried to impeach the President nearest their values, President Clinton. He reined in spending, cut welfare and brought us the first free trade agreement.
Hopefully the phony conservatives will force the GOP to nominate Sarah Palin as President, then Obama should win by a 47-3 state majority.
HA HA HA HA!!!!
The "man" increased the government by three times. He spent more than all other presidents combined. That is not an exaggeration.
He was far from a conservative.
Though Reagan is now seen as a paragon of conservatism, his deliberately reckless deficit spending and shoveling of money from social services and education into military, police, and prisons ended up ballooning the "big government" he claimed to hate into a monstrosity. Reagan was the greatest amasser of government debt before Bush II.
Those that were paying attention at the time saw this and referred to him as a "radical" rather than a conservative. Political analysts now recognize the precedent Reagan set as a deliberate strategy to destroy "big government" by making it indebted and dysfunctional, thus tying the hands of future administrations that might want to increase spending on social services and education.
So, while a right-wing administration's creation of a massive government through mass deficits may on the face of it violate "conservative" principles, in the long term it suits the "conservative" goal of destroying "big government," or at least making it impossible to utilize those government functions that right-wingers oppose, like education and social services.
suits their goal of moving as much as possible into the prvate sector from whence they - the corporatist, republican, neo-cons -
can put all that lovely money in their pockets. The ultimate "Trickle Up" theory in practice.
And so did Reagan. It is all a myth.
tried to turn america into a corporation. not conservative.
As he was "elected" twice, this, your news dispels the myth of America being a centre-right country, doesn't it wheyghey? Yet supposed conservatives love him. What gives?
Here is my 3-Point Plan for Republicans to regain standing with the American people:
1) Stop lying.
2) Stop cheating.
3) Stop stealing.
Simple as that. If they want to actually be liked, and not just tolerated, they could add Point 4) Mind your own business: If you don't want an abortion, or to marry a gay person, or to use medical marijuana, or to end your life with dignity, or to have sex before marriage, then don't. But leave us alone.
...but also stop hating and fearing us non-white folks.
of the day.
Tom Brockaw went on Dave Letterman and said Obama lied about taking campaign financing. Can you imagine calling the President Elect a liar the day after he just won in a major way? Even if you think he lied why would say that? Ugh... Good forbid we should make SP feel bad for choosing to remain uninformed during the campaign but it OK to call BO a liar... did I say that already...
not good for a so called journalist.
America IS a center-right nation and always has been. This election has helped pull us a little to the center - a great thing, but let's not think that there is any kind of viable left wing in this country.
There is a fine line between Obama, Clinton and McCain, with Obama tending toward the center right and McCain being on the other side of center-right. Bush is further to the right, and then you've got Inhofe et al over on the far right.
Kucinich, Frank and their colleagues on the "left" of the Democratic Party are centrists.
I think having a President and Vice President Elect who are willing to talk about the role taxation plays in supporting a working, fluid economy is a step forward. I think if the door opened to allow the future election of someone who was comfortable talking enabling workers to own the means of production, then that would be an even more welcome step. When someone (other than Ron Paul) shows up willing to talk about moving away from militarism and reducing defense spending, then we're actually making progress toward the left.
It is always fascinating to hear the exact same talking points spouted by different people. It makes me wonder who is in charge of Propaganda Central. Whoever it is, they do an excellent job of making sure everyone is on topic and repetitive.
This is just a charade to make it seem like they've won after all. It is called "saving face".
Center right? Perhaps being a fiscal conservative and not allowing trillions in deficit spending is center right, but that is about all there is to latch onto at this moment.
Universal Heathcare? Not exactly center right. Tax cuts for the middle class? Nope, not really.
All I see is panic in Spin City. Very amusing.
i belive people are becoming more progressive as we move along here in time... but the government, including barak and the dem leadership i am afraid, is center right... the country has never really seen libralism, so we can only compare it to what we know... socialism, allowing other political parties to compete, free health care, compasion for all people, regulation on industry, workers rights and worker ownership of industry... that is libral... this will be the cosmetic change needed to continue the rape of the worker, and it will continue until the next revolution...
Palin/Cheney 2012
I don't think conservatism is dead, just NeoConservatism. If they found a dude/dudette like Reagan, who would actually practice fiscal conservatism (who the hell has?), the Republican party would come charging back.
regan was a fiscal concervative? i think, but i could be wrong, that he spent more on "de(of)ence than all the other presidents combined, while demonizing the black welfare mother... reagan was not a fiscal conservative compared to, say ron paul...
Government grew under Reagan and so did the deficit. Just like Bush. Two peas.
That's what I'm saying. Foreign Policy like Reagan (I really doubt Reagan would have invaded Iraq), and a real fiscal conservative. I'm not saying Reagan was one, I'm saying the Republicans need one.
was far from fiscally conservative. Between the two bushes and Ronnie, they ran up 70% of America's debt incurred since its inception. Ronnie put it all on the credit card, and raised payroll taxes to boot. He was just a telegenic used car salesman.
..what all of these Repugs who espouse conservatism are just saying:
All You People out there in America, you need to live more conservatively.
YOU need to sacrifice in your daily lives, and give all your hard-earned money to us, so we can spend it raping other countries of their natural resources.
WE know what's best for you: here are the choices we've selected -
our religion, our values, our wars, oh and did I mention, it's OUR money.
I think it's hard to make sweeping generalizations about the results of the election. I think a number of folks that voted Democratic this time around may well still be GOPers at heart but figure that the official of the party are a bunch of incompetents and/or crooks, etc. These voters could easily be drawn back to the GOP column once the GOP has distanced itself from the current crop of failure.
However, the results do indicate that people are open to a new way of doing things. If Obama and the rest of the Democrats show them that things really will be better then many of those wayward GOPers may permanently switch their allegiance.
The other point is that it's really sort of silly to try and argue about the one dimensional conservative-liberal axis. Peoples interestes have many more dimensions than that. When the current set of policies and intentions offered by a party resonate with the voters they'll go to that party. For example, when people are worried about National Security they'll go to the party that they think will be better at handling it; the party may also be offering a set of other policies that the voters do not support, but those concerns are swamped out by the currently important policy.
When you try and project a multidimensional space into a single line, the result is often says more about the people making the projection than the space being projected.
What actually has happened is a bit more subtle. the American "center" has in fact embraced "progressive" positions, yet still thinks it is not "liberal." which is the same as saying some core liberal values have permanently become mainstream.
health care is the obvious one. there is now a national consensus it is the government's job to assure affordable health care for everyone. as Obama said in the debate, that it is a "right," not as McCain said, a "responsibility" (which meant, you're on your own). there is not yet a consensus on how to do it tho. but remember, Ronald Reagan called Medicare "socialism." conservatives have lost that war, just like their anti-New Deal assault on Social Security is dead forever now too.
the crusade against abortion is likely doomed now too. assuming Obama appoints several new Supreme Court justices, Row v. Wade is now secure and "choice" is now the nation's center. and yes, many voters realized the future of the Supreme Court was up for decision in this election.
moreover, Obama clearly argued for the progressive income tax, it was very high profile. the conservative's effort to repeal that part of the Teddy Roosevelt progressive era - the "flat tax" - is now dead once and for all too.
and then there is energy/environment/global warming, where the center has clearly embraced a strong government role of some kind - but yet to be determined.
but this all happened because people are now thinking about issues, not about labels. so if you ask them if they are a "liberal" the answer is still no. they see all the above as being "center."
which is the best outcome of all.
No matter his platform, Obama was elected to do five things 1) End USer military adventurism overseas; 2) create Universal Health Care ; 3) restore the civil liberties stolen by the Busheviks in the name of national security; 4) bring alternative energy resources to parity with conventional sources , and 5) to restore economic health to the middle and lower class. When we voted for him as president, those were the five major themes that voters wanted him to pursue.
Unfortunately: 1) he merely wants to move the base of operations to Afghanistan and ENLARGE the military; 2) he merely wants to bring 'insurance' to the uninsured, and not even all of them; 3) he voted to sustain the FISA, and to RENEW the fucking Patriot Act; 4) he's for that toxic oxymoron, "Clean Coal", and ethanol for fuel, and 5) he voted for the Big Banker's Bail-out. This record does not inspire hope, because:
Each and every one of those challenges involves conflict with wealthy, embedded, CorpoRat interests to whom he is beholden. He got their "quid" (campaign money, support); now he's gotta do the whole "pro quo" thing. These are not folks who are gonna roll over and show their bellies just because his election was 'historic.' It was, but it wasn't a "landslide" or anything like it. FDR, LBJ, Nixon (in 72), Reagan (in '84): those were landslides...Historical or not, his popular vote margin is too slim to effect real change against the prevailing currents of the hegemonic interest or to compel their cooperation or even their passivity....even in the (imho unlikely) event he actually meant to accomplish them...
I'll dispute that shifting the focus to Afghanistan is counter to ending military adventurism. It is - and, I'll grant that it may be too little, too late - an attempt to define our mission and focus on al-Qaeda, with the areas we neglected, Afghanistan and Pakistan, now at greater risk than when we went after Saddam.
As for enlarging the military, again, I don't find this particularly inconsistent with bringing things under control. We've overextended our forces, and the only way to relieve those troops that have been burdened with multiple deployments and a vague, amorphous mission is to bring new troops on-line and improve support capabilities.
...our focus is not now and has never been on getting terrorists, al-Qaeda or any one else. Our focus was on ensuring that Western global energy corporations would have total control over the vast oil and gas resources of the middle east region. Period.
American policy is, and always has been, control of world resources at any cost, and by any means: Republican and Democrat both.
Hey, I googled this and my comment, here at C&L, a year ago, was on page 1 of google, look:
Wolfowitz and his 1992 Strategy of World Dominance: "The Defense ...These hypothetical conflicts, coupled with the policy guidance document, .... " U.S. foreign policy has always been based on control of world resources. ...crooksandliars.com/2007/09/23/wolfowitz-and-his-1992-strategy-of-world-dominance-the-defense-planning-guidance/ - 113k - Cached - Similar pages
Long live teh free internets: may the tubes stay clean. We are the change. Cha-ching.
Your private sex shit sometimes shows up on Google too. Beware. But no one here does that ...right?
the american people have spoken. we're tired of authoritarian rulership designed by NEOCON thinktanks. we're ready to governed. we want checks and balances. we want seperation of powers. we want to be heard. that's the change we want
What do we mean by "right"? In the context of other nations globally, both the Repubs and Dems are probably centre right.
With essentially a two party system in the U.S., the GOP includes multiple factions - financial/social conservatives, the religious "right", rednecks/bigots/racists and a large faction of otherwise uninformed. I'd like to see them split apart to leave a new true Conservative party, a Nazi party and the historic GOP remnant.
The Dems also have more than one faction, they just united better for this election cycle and finally managed to get the vote out.
If you look at US politics in relation world wide politics, we are right of center.
This tool called the Political Compass maps this out pretty well. http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
The two parties candidates for 2008 US election are both right of center:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
The political attitudes of the states based on their Senator's views, still all right of center(click the boxes to show your state):
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usstates?ia=o...
I encourage you to read through this website and take their "test" to see where you are on the compass.
"It's time to be patriotic . . . time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut," Biden said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Joe Biden and Democrats paid for this statement, but let me ask: Is it patriotic to send our young men into combat on multiple tours while we are told to go shopping and party, and pile up the debt to be paid by generations of Americans not yet dreamed of? Not that I believe it is possible to repay $10,000,000,000,000.00 within generations while adding hundreds of billions annually to that debt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
While heaping much of the blame for America's, and the world's dilemma on republican politicians, I would suggest that much of the blame can be heaped on the media, principally FoxNews. How often have I heard smears on O'Reilly but more so from Hannity that appeared the following day. I first heard Jeremiah Wright on H&C (Hannity&Colmes) followed by daily repetition everywhere else. Same for Ayers, Rezgo, and then statements taken out of context such as Iran is not a threat, Ir