Why Are Republicans More Despondent than Liberals were in 2004?
Allahpundit wonders why Republicans are so much more despondent than liberals were when Bush won a second term:
Saw this the other day and can’t stop thinking about it. It makes all the sense in the world that conservatives would be despondent after Obama’s re-election. But more despondent than liberals were after the Bushitler’s re-election?…
Update: An obvious possibility: It’s not just politics that’s got Republicans down. Democrats in 2004 could console themselves with the fact that the economy was doing fine and their jobs were secure. Not so now.
I actually think that part of the cause of Republican sadness and hopelessness is psychological and driven by class warfare and the media. If you look at the chart posted, you will see that Republicans feel much worse now than liberals did when Bush was re-elected about their own personal situation and about the future. The media and Obama blare the non-stop message that Republicans are no good, racist dogs and support fat cats. None of this is true, of course, but the media and Obama spin the message and Republicans get the blame for the majority of all that is wrong with America.
If you reversed this trend for the next 15-20 years and the media and President favored Republicans and blared to the public what wonderful freedom-loving, liberty seeking people Republicans were, how they were trying to save the economy etc., I bet their outlook and the public’s would be different, much more positive. The truth is that liberals, even in times of Republican power, have the media on their side so they are more protected than Republicans in general from pubic ire. Yes, Republicans probably understand more about reality and the truth about economics as they see the future as more bleak, but because they see their own personal situation as more bleak, I would say this has as much to do with their feelings about the propaganda and hate against them as it does with the economic situation.
Also read: Girding for 2013
I went to bed early on election night and woke a few hours later to learn the results. After that, I slept little that night. The following quote attributed to Elmer T. Peterson kept going through my mind:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”
This election seems evidence that America has passed the tipping point. I’m sincerely worried about what kind of future my young grandchildren will know. As it is, the politicians are engaging in what I call “economic pedophilia” – they’re screwing children’s futures to buy political benefit today. But then, why shouldn’t they. Their demigod economist John Maynard Keynes wrote, “The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.”
If they ever learn what we did to them, our children and grandchildren will curse all our names. Perhaps we need to heed the advice of this demotivational poster:
Mercy: Teach every child you meet the importance of forgiveness. It’s our only hope of surviving their wrath once they realize just how badly we’ve screwed things up for them.
Pretty much this, Dr. Plus see the first panel of this Day-by-Day: http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2012/12/02/
I recognize the quote Larry supplied, and believe P.J. O’Rourke used it in…I can’t remember, “Parliament of Whores” I think, on essentially the same topic: when do we get to the tipping point?
I’d phrase it this way as well: on election day this year, a (very slim) majority of Americans (but a majority nonetheless), chose European-style social democracy and turned its back forever on American democracy. For the reasons stated in Larry’s quote, it’s basically impossible to turn back once you’ve gone down that road, at least until you get to the end of that road, which is where Greece is almost at. And as we’ve seen the results of European-style social democracy and understand that we, as a country, are now headed inexorably and unstoppably down that road…well, the end game is we’re fucked.
And with all the calls for Republicans now to stop being Republicans and instead be Democrats-lite, I think what you’ll see now is precisely that: future elections will be decided by which party can promise more swag to the whores /cough electorate, just as its been with the christian and social democrat parties in Europe (generically speaking) for decades now.
So, yeah. Time now to do as best you can to keep the government’s grubby hands off as much of your property as possible, and otherwise sit back and watch the drama unfold with a snifter and cigar, laughing knowingly all the way. And that kid over there looked at the boobs who reelected President Dipsh!t and said, “HAWWW HAWWWWNH!!!”
One last thing: George Carlin had this philosophy, that people were basically lovely, wonderful creatures taken individually, but monstrous when organized into groups and, heaven forbid, institutions. I used to dismiss this as his normal left-wing extremist crankery. Now though…it’s really started making a lot more sense.
Larry J has it exactly right. This election represents a tipping point from which our nation may never recover. Joseph de Maistre said, “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” This is true for tyrannies, and even more so for democracies. Before November, I believed that the election of Obama was an anomaly, brought on by a perfect storm of scandals, crises, unjustified hope in a post-racial society, an unpopular war, and powerful propaganda from the MSM. His re-election has destroyed my belief in the essential goodness and rationality of the American electorate. More than half of our fellow citizens have chosen to reject logic, rational thought, and even the simple desire to survive and are reaching eagerly for the chains to shackle themselves and their children.
I am not despondent for myself, but I despair for the avoidable misery, poverty, and tyranny that are descending on us a nation. I believe, except for a near miracle, we are looking at a new feudal age run by bureaucrats, party hacks, and their lackeys lording it over a population of destitute serfs for decades or centuries to come. I see a 21st century even more bloody and vicious than the 20th, with a weak and supine America creating a power vacuum in the world to be filled by the most ruthless warlords who can claw their way to the top on a mountain of skulls. I am despondent that the collapse of America means that there’s nowhere on earth to run to get away from this disaster.
The liberals and socialists could take heart after Bush’s re-election, because they knew that our victory would not prevent them coming back. I believe that there is now no way back for us, because having seized power, they won’t let it get away again.
The sad thing about it is that from the perspective of the takers, it makes perfect sense for them to vote for whoever promises them more free stuff. They don’t have to pay for it. Many years ago (IIRC, early 1990s), I read a report that looked at the hourly income someone would have to make to break even with welfare benefits. This income level varied a great deal by state. Even then, a typical welfare recipient in Alabama would need a job paying over $15 an hour to break even. For one thing, that person would not only no longer get all the welfare benefits, that person would have to pay taxes. In the most generous states, they’d have to make well over $25 an hour.
Few to none of those welfare recipients had the skills to make that kind on income, so voting for more benefits was in their best interest so long as the gravy train continued. Unfortunately for everyone, that train is likely to jump the tracks before long. The country is broke in more than one way (financially, culturally, politically). While I fear for my own hopes of retirement, I weep for my grandchildren’s futures. They’re ages 8, 8, 6 and 4. If they are ever taught about what America once was (not a given in today’s schools), they’re going to curse us all for making such a mess of things.
Without you to personally educate them otherwise, then no, your grandchildren will know nothing about America’s past greatness. The only thing they will know about that America is how profoundly “unfair” it was.
Both Hitler and Lenin made very similar statements about the youth. They both said they only needed access to the minds of the youth for a few years and they will have them for life. After a decade we will have youth who don’t even have personal memories to fall back on.
The Culture War is over. The Left won it. Everything they are doing now is rearguard mop-up action.
The good news is that, like their previous utopias, their ideology runs contrary to Nature and Reality, and is therefore guaranteed to fail. Sadly, the intervening period will be one of ever more oppressive coercion as they try to force human beings to conform to their vision. But idiots have chosen this path, so they must suffer for it.
Entropy. It is as complex and simple as that. It took five hundred years to build the capital (intellectual and moral) to create our Constitutional Republic but it will take only a decade or less to dismantle its safeguards. I fear what will be destroyed and impossible to rebuild in a dozen lifetimes much more than I fear whatever the left will try to build.
Maybe I’m the eternal optimist, but I do think there’s still a chance to reverse our course. Will it be harder? By orders of magnitude. But, in this instance, the Gods of the Copybook Headings may very well prove our vanguard. What conservatives and libertarians have to be prepared to do is make the case that the havoc they wreak is not due to insufficient statism, but an excess of it. That the life of a free man is, counterintuitively, more secure than the sinecure of man kept by a political elite bent on evading reality. It’ll be a long road. And conservatives and libertarians had best be prepared for a long march.
Pretty much everything going on is recoverable except the debt, a subject our own lawmakers in Washington don’t take seriously. Or, at least, seriously enough to endanger their own precious jobs over it.
The fiscal picture is falling apart. I was probably already too late in 2012 to arrest the decline, and even had we won, a President Romney would have been unlikely to have done enough. But that was our last chance. Arguably, Ohio and Virginia, who decided the election, voted on continuing transfer payments from the feds: stimulus and defense dollars for Virginia and the auto bailouts in Ohio. That’s a taste of meltdown politics– it’s why countries stuck in a death spiral can’t climb out.
By the time 2016 rolls around, we’ll be living in a very different situation. By then, we’ll have recognized that it’s too late. 2016 will be about the blame game, a battle the democrats are already fighting. By 2020, no one will care who’s to blame, it’ll instead be a mad, cynical scramble to take as many payoffs as are still remaining while punishing your political enemies by punitively taxing them to pay for it.
“Slowly, then all at once.” These fiscal death spirals are nothing new, and they play out very similarly regardless of the country’s culture going into them.
Yes we are screwing our kids, for short term handouts today. And one day they will be screwed, when the bill comes due. But one thing causes me to lose sympathy for them, they voted for obama and the dem senate with a large majority. If they wont vote to protect their own interests, it is much harder for me to have any sympathy for them. About 30 yrs from today, I will probably be dead, our country will be broke, and our young people, now grown up, will be stuck with the mess. When that happens, they should ask themselves a simple question, did they vote for Obama. If they did, they have forfeited all moral authority to complain about what was done to them, since they did it to themselves.
My grandkids are 8, 8, 6 and 4. They and millions like them didn’t vote for anyone.
I think what adds to the despondency is that a good half of the GOP despises conservatives and libertarians as much as the Democrats do.
Amen! I could not care less about liberal logorrhea. In fact, I’ve come to expect it. But I am sick to death of the T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII of the Republican establishment talking smack about the Tea Party and Conservatives. If I’m despondent it is because I’m not only up against idiot liberals but snooty Republicans, forgive the redundancy, as well.
It’s also depressing to me because as activists, we cannot rely on our “side” to ever follow through on the promises they make to us.
At the current time, the Democrat establishment is willing to occasionally reward its activists with what they want. Right now, the GOP is nearly dogmatic in its opposition to fiscal conservatism & liberty.
I would remind the party that, paraphrasing Mark Twain, the Tea Party’s death has been greatly exagerated. This would be an excellent time for a little muscle flexing. We need Conservatives to contact their local reps and express that Speaker Boehner maybe a heckava nice guy but he has proven to be a weak leader and incredibily ineffective negotiator. A change in speakership would accomplish three goals: 1) we remind our “leaders” that we are viable, effective and will not be ignored; 2) it would give Conservatives a badly needed morale boost; and 3) we would have a Speaker that isn’t afraid to stand up for fiscal responsiblity.
I would like to see a true alliance between Conservatives, Libertarians and members of the Tea Party. I think we have more in common than not and that there is strength in numbers. It is past time to start a dialogue.
Mitch Daniels of Indiana called for a GOP “truce” several years ago on social issues so we could focus on fiscal issues. Libertarians and many conservatives said, “Yes, please.” Instead, we get an election cycle of rape babies, abortions, and birth control, and Obama wins again.
Re the truce…. it would have been observed, but the Obama campaign and the media (if one can see any difference) had war on women as a foundation al argument. Remember how confused we all were when stephanopolis brought contraception up in a debate? Every debate skewed to social issues I.e. free contraception via the dnc media.
What drives despair here is the utter imbecility of candidates responding to the propaganda questions and not turning them back to freedom and the economy.
This. And every social conservative who does not see the reality of the “abortion plank” in the GOP platform is culpable.
It is there to be an unachievable sop to them, one so extreme and impossible that it simultaneously re-assures moderate and libertarian voters with it’s unprincipled unreasonableness. They know it will never happen, and so feel the more okay with voting for the GOP which does not mean to achieve it in the slightest. I say unprincipled, because so few people actually believe all abortions all the time are murder. Some say they do, and then say the support exceptions for rape and incest!? Prudence is supposed to be a virtue, and those supporting that plank ignore it.
They prevent actual changes to the law which would eliminate many abortions.
They prevent GOP electoral victories which move us int he direction of improving the structural fiscal emergency.
Those same libertarian and moderate voters would generally be fine with a ban on abortions in the third trimester, because most people not on the left can see there is no distinction to be made in killing a baby one day before as opposed to one day after birth, and they don’t see much distinction to be drawn with such a killing in the third trimester.
If this obvious aspect to politics being the art of the possible cannot be negotiated with the socons, then screw them. If we can’t win with them, and we haven’t, we may as well lose without them, and be a party on the right which is in the right.
TMG,
Mitch Daniels had his chance to help and he turned it down. The Republicans lost the election because (aside from Gary Johnson) Mitt Romney, who was clearly the best of the contenders for the Republican nomination, was nonetheless a weak candidate. Mitch Daniels would have been a far better candidate, but he refused to run. Sure, the press would have written lots of nasty stuff about his marriage and his wife, but sticks and stones, you know? Since when are patriots cowed by such?
While there are thousands of people who could do a good job as President, the reality is that in any given election cycle, there are only a few people who have a realistic chance of making any headway as a candidate. When the best of them refuse to run, we lose.
The “abortion plank” is far more than a sop to “extremists”.
It is being honest about valuing life as an unalienable right … by insisting upon a dividing line between “tissue” and life that is based upon objective criteria, not upon the convenience of those who will still be living after a “procedure”, and therefore able of revision and replication to put others (like say, children with birth defects, senior citizens, those whose political views are considered “insane”) on the wrong side of that line.
The definition of that line is not subject to a majority vote, any more than slavery was morally legitimate because a majority approved it back in the day.
I will give you this, though … Progressives love to use the issue as a distraction from their abject failures, and our response to the attempts to do so has been not only ham-fisted, but WAY too civil. It is past time to throw these attempts back in their faces, whenever it occurs.
This.
And who, exactly ARE the Tea Party? By my way of thinking, the Tea Party is nothing more than working class and middle class men and women who know how to balance a checkbook. And they are appalled at the specter of a government that seems to lack such a basic skill. It’s all about the math, and the math is relentless. And after generations of public education the bulk of Americans are innumerates, who have no conception of the catastrophe that is headed our way.
Exactly, and the Bushes (tho I wish the father a quick recovery)are the epitome of the type.
Larry J: “economic pedophilia” – they’re screwing children’s futures to buy political benefit today.
I love that. Too appropriate.
I bet more and more, the “Right” is waking up to reality. And it’s depressing them and pissing them off. I sure hope so. It’s the only hope for liberty.
I think we are more depressed because we know we are going down. The country is going broke and falling apart morally at the same time. Even Republican politicians won’t do anything about it. The demographics are changing so that we will never have the chance again.
Basically, game over America as we knew it is going away, already gone. Enjoy the decline.
Exactly. How many times do we hear conservatives say something like “Well, it took the Left a century to get us to this point, it’s going to take decades to push back”?
Are they smoking crack? The new demographic reality makes such a notion embarrassingly naive.
Embrace the disintegration. At this point balkanization is a feature, not a bug.
“but the media and Obama spin the message and Republicans get the blame for the majority of all that is wrong with America.”
As an Independent I dont know how this is possible. Obama and liberals have controlled the economy for the last 4 years – I blame them entirely for the sluggish economy. They are the ones who are in charge. Bush was president a long time ago and has notihing to do with todays stagnation.
60% of voters still blamed Bush. That’s the level of stupid we are up against.
Republicans don’t “feel bad”, they just recognize the decorum needed when attending a funeral. It’s impolite to hover around the coffin, praying loudly for a resurrection. It would be in poor taste.
Good news! There’s a TON of money to made in diabetes therapeutics, pharmaceuticals for depression, pet products and the female affirmation industry.
Enjoy the decline.
From the left side of the aisle, the view looks a bit different.
In the aftermath of 2004, we understood why we’d lost. Democrats basically ran on a platform of “Bush sucks”, and the electorate wasn’t buying it. Lesson learned.
I think a lot of the Republicans’ despondency comes from not understanding why they lost. They didn’t make a compelling case for Romney’s election. “Obama sucks” isn’t an effective election strategy. Unable to accept this, they attribute the loss to the moral failings of the voters.
If the problem is a broken strategy, then there’s plenty of hope for fixing it. If the problem is a broken society, then there’e little hope. So Republicans are mourning the death of the nation when they should be looking inward to figure out how to fare better the next time around.
Obama won the popular vote by 2.8%. That’s a narrower victory margin than in 2008. If Republicans can flip 1 in 60 voters from blue to red, they can win.
Remember, national elections aren’t won on the left or the right. It’s the voters in the middle of the spectrum who decide the contest. Republicans need to ask themselves what they can do to win over moderate voters. With a margin this narrow, they could easily do this while making no changes in policy.
But first they have to shift their focus toward themselves and away from the voters who rejected them.
Yaaaaaa….no thanks. Stick a fork in her. We had a good a run, though. It’ll be amusing to watch the left scramble as the country flounders, completely baffled as to why magic unicorns aren’t employing anyone. Bwahahahaha. Grab the popcorn, this is gonna be interesting.
“Remember, national elections aren’t won on the left or the right. It’s the voters in the middle of the spectrum who decide the contest. Republicans need to ask themselves what they can do to win over moderate voters. With a margin this narrow, they could easily do this while making no changes in policy.”
The problem is worse and the solution went a glimmering last November. Romney was operating on the assumption you describe. What happened was that a lot of white lower class voters stayed home in swing states. They bought the Obama campaign’s argument that Romney was a rich man who didn’t care about them. Maybe they bought he argument that, because he was rich, he was dishonest.
This is a new tactic in US elections. Nixon was destroyed by a similar campaign but he had many personal failings. Romney has an exemplary record personally but was demonized in spite of it. Class warfare hasn’t worked in the past. Even Roosevelt had trouble with it in the depths of the Depression.
If class warfare works in this country, we are done as a democracy. We have always been about upward mobility and accomplishment. That may be over. This why we are despondent. I am 75 years old. It won’t affect me personally. I have had a great life but I have grand children who are hostages to Obama’s odd ideology. We still have the possibility of a great future but another four years of this may be enough to quench the fire of ambition. It’s as though we had lost a war.
My Dad, white middle class, retired union guy, stayed home. He doesn’t like Obama, but bought into the garbage that the Obama campaign spewed about Romney. So he simply didn’t vote. Nothing I said could convince him otherwise.
Then you have the totally ignorant, partially illiterate convience store clerk who informed my mother that if Romney won woman would no longer be allowed to work. Where in the world did that come from?? Probably Internet sites that the Obama campaign was brilliant at putting out their under the radar.
I think a large part of the (temporary) sadness is actual mourning.
But it’s also due to the realization that, despite huge crowds coming out for Romney, and the connections he was starting to make, and the rising momentum, the compatriots and fellow travelers of conservatives, centrists, and Republicans simply didn’t vote.
They didn’t go to the polls, when it mattered. They just weren’t there. The sense of being part of a dwindling band that pulls society’s economic wagon, and that the numbers are now in favor of those riding in the wagon, adds to the sense of weariness and futility. When nothing is on the horizon that might reverse that course, you get sadness, even grief for something lost.
Still, I wouldn’t call it despondency. Something a little less.
I remember well during a campaign I was working on in the 90′s for a conservative House candidate, a woman says to me “if your candidate gets elected, rape will become legal.” How on earth can we combat such awful ignorance and spite?
Romney carried “moderates” and independents by huge margins and STILL lost. We are not in danger of losing “democracy.” The problem is that “democracy” has consumed the American Republic. Have you heard the “Obamaphone” lady? That is the voice of “democracy,” that 51% of the electorate can expropriate the 49%. The “Obamaphone” is just a piecemeal example of this concept. The Democrats have also worked assiduously to “expand” the electorate. Illegal aliens voted by the thousands in Illinois where no ID was required beyond a Mexican “matricular consular” card available to anyone. Can you imagine that there were many precincts in Philadelphia where Romney got NO votes — not a single one! You would think that even in a black precinct there would be at least one curmudgeon who — even if by mistake — voted for Romney. I think that this North Korean-style voting is only possible when someone is monitoring and “adjusting” the vote, in other worlds “voter fraud.” The most frightening part of this is that the Republicans appear to have absolutely no interest in such events, which indicates that their role in the play is to lose with dignity (emphasis on the “lose”). I am 67 and, too, have grandchildren and do not know what to do. This is no longer the America of 1950 or even 1970. My feelings towards America are summed up in the first lines of Robert Penn Warren’s novel, “All the King’s Men”: “I’se seen de first, and I’se seen de last.” Goodbye, America. It was a nice run.
This is what I still don’t understand. Pollsters broke out al manner of sub categories (young married females, older married females, single men, employed men, etc….) and Romney won in each category.
Yet, he lost overall. How?
Good question. How could all Republicans have been so wrong? I was NEVER a Romney guy, but when I saw him in the first debate, I said, “This guy should be President.” I became what was called a “broken glass” Romney voter; I was prepared to crawl over broken glass to vote against Obama. With the economy so weak (and such scandals as Benghazi), it seemed certain that Romney would win. I never agreed with Dick Morris and others predicting a Romney landslide, but I finally came to believe that (1) Obama voters would be discourage and not vote, (2) many voters for Obama in 2008 would realize their mistake and vote the other way this time, and (3) Romney’s base (which was largely an anti-Obama base) would vote in heretofore unprecedented numbers. So how did he lose? I suspect unprecedented fraud. We are familiar with normal fraud, but I think there was something new that we are not aware of and do not see. Here in North Carolina, there was a problem: voting computers in 13 counties were reported to record an Obama vote when Romney’s name was selected. Did this happen and was only subject to news reporting in 13 counties? It was hushed up and explained away as a routine “computer calibration” problem that was corrected. I wonder if the real “problem” was that the machines DISCLOSED BY MISTAKE what they were doing. I heard that there was the same “problem” in other states. Have the Republicans even questioned this?
‘This is what I still don’t understand. Pollsters broke out al manner of sub categories (young married females, older married females, single men, employed men, etc….) and Romney won in each category.
Yet, he lost overall. How?’
Simple: Turnout, Turnout, Turnout, Turnout, Turnout.
Or to put it more specifically, while the GOP voters were very enthusiastic being gainst Obama, they were at best lukewarm about Romney. Obama’s attack ads and under-the-table whispering campaign worked because it played right into pre-existing perceptions about Romney. There was a reason why Romney was the candidate the Left hoped would win the nomination.
To understand 2012 you have to look at the last few elections in context. Remember that after the 2006 debacle, the GOP establishment started pushing 3 ‘acceptable’ candidates for 2008, John McCain, Rudy Giuiliani, and Mitt Romney. Eveb back then, there was a lot of hostility to them, they were lumped together under the name ‘Rudy McRomney’, but the Estasblishment managed to force them on the rank-and-file.
Of the 3, the Establishment would have preferred Rudy, but he was the least electable of the 3 because of his social issue positions. All through 2007 all we heard was that it would be Rudy, but he predictably flamed out. McCain supposedly had crossover appeal, which was based on fantasy-world analysis of the 2000 returns, and in practice we saw how much crossover appeal he had in 2008.
In 2012, Romney basically replayed McCain’s campaign…and got the same results. For that matter, there was a lot of similarity between his campaign and Bob Dole’s.
Note that in 2008 and 2012, there were insurgencies in the primaries against the Establishment candidate. In both cases, note who it was: Mike Huckabee in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012. The resistance, the fire, the energy in the GOP rank and file is largely driven by _cultural_ issues, like it or not.
Creating a functional Republican Party and a viable governing majority begins with a hard, self-honest look who votes for which party, and what _they_ want, believe in, and stand for. The truthful answers to those questions are not going to be entirely comfortable for libertarians and anybody who thinks ‘fiscal conservative/social liberal’ is a winning combination for Republicans.
Note that the Left’s media and pundits push, year after year, the idea that the GOP loses because they are too socially conservative. That in itself tells us that they think the GOP will lose by moving away from social conservatives, it they _really_ believed that they were saying, they’d say the opposite, because they want the GOP to lose.
The ‘great middle’ does not decide Presidential elections. It’s true that many people are registered as independent and claim to be swing voters, but a look at the voting track record over the last 40 years shows that most of those swingers vote for the same party over and over, they express their disatisfaction with their own party not by crossing over, but by staying home. The number of actual, genuine swing voters is not that big.
Under those circumstances, you win when your side is enthusiastic and the other side is depressed or unenthused. Looked at through that lens, 2008 and 2012 suddenly make sense.
Look at it from the POV of a social conservative voter who is moderate on economics (i.e. sympathetic to some of the New Deal, but not necessarily in favor of Obama’s huge plans). It’s a choice of social lib Obama, vs. Romney, who has a track record of social liberal comments and governance. It’s a choice between Obama, who backs Obamacare, and Romney, who created what many consider its prototype in Massachusetts. They suspect that Romney doesn’t really care about the issues they care about. He almost embodies the stereotype of the rich, out-of-touch GOPer. (Fair or not, he _did_ come across that way.) They know that a large chunk of the GOP would love to dump the social issues entirely, and would take a Romney win as a sign that the social issues aren’t critical politically.
If he wins, in 2016 they likely get a replay of the choice, once again it’s Romney or a liberal Democrat. From their POV, thus, even a Romney win was kind of a depressing thought.
So you had a contest between fired-up Dems (note that _Obama_ didn’t run away from the cultural/social issues that fire his side, he played them up) and GOP voters who love the idea of Obama losing but were at best ambivalant about Romney winning. More or less the same lineup as 2008, when the GOP voters absolutely did not want either Obama or Hillary…but were of divided mind about the desirability of President McCain.
The Republican Party probably lost the 2012 election in April, when Romney wrapped up the nomination.
All is not lost but some definitive actions are needed. Look at the life story of Margaret Thatcher and how she pushed back the socialist horde in united Kingdom – by rebelling against the conservative establishment.
Where is our Margaret Thatcher?
Leave aside the question of whether a polity that favors Hillary Clinton for President and that regularly returns the likes of Barbara Boxer to office would vote for Margaret Thatcher even at her peak. Could Margaret Thatcher be elected in today’s United Kingdom? I think not.
‘If class warfare works in this country, we are done as a democracy.’
Class warfare is as American as apple pie, and it goes back to the founding of the United States and before. It has often worked for politicians, and just as often blown up in their faces.
It runs all through much of our history in various forms, some malignant, some relatively benign, occasionally it’s been beneficial. It was a huge factor in 19th Century American politics, and FDR was able to do what he did because he was implementing ideas that had been brewing up for decades.
‘The problem is worse and the solution went a glimmering last November. Romney was operating on the assumption you describe. What happened was that a lot of white lower class voters stayed home in swing states. They bought the Obama campaign’s argument that Romney was a rich man who didn’t care about them.
This is a new tactic in US elections. Nixon was destroyed by a similar campaign but he had many personal failings. Romney has an exemplary record personally but was demonized in spite of it. Class warfare hasn’t worked in the past. Even Roosevelt had trouble with it in the depths of the Depression.’
The white ‘lower class’ voters have always been sympathetic to the Dem economic agenda. It’s the Democratic social, military, religious, and cultural agenda that broke the FDR coalition and made the GOP competitive again. That has not changed, if you want to get the ‘white working class’, you _cannot_ do so by emphasizing laissez-faire or talking about the need for more free trade. This is nothing new, it was just as true in Reagan’s time as it is now.
Note that Reagan was very careful to emphasize that it was the Great Society he opposed, not the New Deal. That key political distinction is lost on today’s GOP candidates.
Romney was not an ‘okay’ candidate, he was Obama’s dream foe. He embodied exactly what the working class dislikes about the GOP, and had a track record of opposing the things they agree with. The amazing thing is not that he lost, but that he came as close to success as he did.
There is a terrible reality in play in American elections, and that is that most American voters are not libertarians. They weren’t libertarians in the past, and they probably won’t be in the future. They are’t even particularly sympathetic to libertarianism in general, except on issues like gun rights. We can like that or hate it, but we do have to deal with it either way.
Yet there’s a deep reluctance to accept that. For example, remember the huge turnout in support of Chic-Fil-A when the Left tried to demonize them for their owner’s opposition to gay marriage? A lot of people on the Right tried to tell themselves that this was an expression of support for personal freedom of speech, which it secondarily was. But it was _primarily_ an expression of agreement with his views. They weren’t _mainly_ saying they were angry that the Left tried to silence him, they were _mainly_ saying that they oppose gay marriage and the Left’s aggressive cultural agenda.
You won’t rally those voters by calling for more free trade and more union breaking. John Galt doesn’t excite them. Many of them consider Wall Sreet the enemy. They are indipensable to a GOP governing majority.
The Right shudders at trying to rally the social conservatives, yet can’t win without them, because there’s nothing they can do that’ll bring over the Dem voters they long to get that won’t alienate even more of the voters they already have.
Well, you have a point – many of us compared this election with 1980. Obama, certainly had little to recommend him for re-election, as did Carter. Obama basically ran a negative “my opponent is a bigger idiot than I am” campaign, as did Carter. It didn’t work for Carter, but it did for Obama. Why? Maybe because Reagan was just a much better candidate than Romney?
But here’s the problem with a negative campaign “win”. A lot of the people who voted for Obama really weren’t that crazy about him. This showed in the fact that he didn’t draw a lot of crowds to his events and even the 2nd term inauguration is not well-subscribed. He “won” because, even though he sucks, he made people believe Romney would suck worse. So he’s still in office, but it doesn’t mean he sucks any less. That’s going to become apparent as the next four years drag on, especially when his “signature accomplishment” Obamacare hits the fan. If you think the national mood is bad now, wait ’till next year.
Isn’t it pretty to think so (with apologies to Hemingway). Look, Obama and Axelrod realized that it is possible to win in a horrible economy without support of “moderates” or independents, both of whom he lost by large margins. He won with the votes of the feckless young, bitter single and divorced women, minorities, and a leftist, guilt-obsessed white minority that is indifferent to its interests (unlike blacks and Hispanics). When you add in the illegal aliens who voted (it is admitted than thousands of them were bused in to Illinois where a Mexican “matricular consular” card was sufficient ID to vote) and some sort of unacknowledged voter fraud, Obama had his winning margin. The sad fact is that Obama proved that he has created a NEW, PERMANENT LEFTIST MAJORITY. He has either assembled a new electorate that can maintain itself in permanent power, or so perfected voter fraud that he has no concern for the rest of the population. Who knows what distortions the media has in store for us as we hurtle towards the poll-tested “fiscal cliff” and his third term.
‘Look, Obama and Axelrod realized that it is possible to win in a horrible economy without support of “moderates” or independents, both of whom he lost by large margins. He won with the votes of the feckless young, bitter single and divorced women, minorities, and a leftist, guilt-obsessed white minority that is indifferent to its interests (unlike blacks and Hispanics). When you add in the illegal aliens who voted (it is admitted than thousands of them were bused in to Illinois where a Mexican “matricular consular” card was sufficient ID to vote) and some sort of unacknowledged voter fraud, Obama had his winning margin. The sad fact is that Obama proved that he has created a NEW, PERMANENT LEFTIST MAJORITY.’
Nothing new about it. That’s more-or-less the same faction that elected Clinton twice, failed to elect Gore and Kerry, and successfully elected Obama twice. It all comes down to turnout, and in 2008 and 2012, the GOP ran candidates that their own voters simply didn’t want to elect very much. So enough of them stayed home that Obama scraped through each time.
Nor is about ‘makers and takers’, that’s another way that Romney and his team utterly misread the situation. Note that Obama got substantial chunks of the well off, the upper middle class, many people who pay a lot of taxes and don’t depend on the state in a direct way. If Romney had not gotten a nice chunk of the supposedly total-Dem group that does depend on the state, he’d have lost in a popular landslide instead of a fairly narrow defeat.
It’s still perfectly possible for the Republicans to win elections, just as it has been for decades, with a voter math that has stayed fairly steady election after election. It’s just that they can’t win elections they way the _want_ to win them. ‘Rudy McRomney’ doesn’t fire up the voters, and just because the Chamber of Commerce and Goldman-Sachs likes an idea doens’t mean Main Street or Farmer Jones or Truck Driver Smith or Mail Carrier Collins or coal miner Thompson thinks it’s cool.
Well put, if you ask me.
Which you didn’t, but just sayin.
In 2004 liberals could say a liberal at least came in second. In 2012 as well, a liberal came in second. Is it any wonder that conservatives are worried. (We passed the tipping point in 2008, anyway.)
Revelation 6
“15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us[f] from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their[g] wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”
Great Faith is born from great fear as it was with Jesus sweating blood. Poor poor John Galt hiding in his million dollar bunker romance with his female human live object see her become 12 hour nag then her sleep taken away and become 20 hour nag to poor poor John Galt he then get on his knees for relief from the 20 hour nag I believe
Coming into faith in God with good times wise so hand writing on wall does not disturb John so much
Why do Republicans feel worse now than Democrats did in 2004? Because liberals don’t have a single clue about how the world works. They think everything just happens – jobs appear, stuff gets made, food shows up at the grocery store – so elections are nothing more than petty power struggles to them. Important, sure, but a loss to them just means try again next time. Because liberals assume there will be a next time, no matter what.
Conservatives have a better idea how civilization works, and they know there’s no guaranteee of a “next time” if the government is bad enough, and also know liberals are hell-bent on making government worse than bad enough.
Liberals never knowingly face an existential threat because they don’t realize how tenuous civilization can be. Conservatives know better.
You hit the nail right square on the head
I’m a french 34 yo goy living near Paris. I was really upset on November the 7th, because I had the feeling that it was not just an election lost.
1) The entitlement in the USA may reach a no-return point during the second socialist term, giving the Dem an easy majority for far more than 4 years. I see this as the collapse and ruin of the middle class, and there is no democracy where there is no middle class. I worried about the very nature of America, that is changing as Obama proudly announced in his first speech 4 years ago. Entitlement is what Tocqueville feared as a ultimate stage of tyranny. I believe he was wrong. It’s the stage before ruin and drugs-barons tyranny mexican-style or tribal tyranny lebanese-style. The debt crisis will most probably lead to blind cuts in budgets and I worry that basic services will be no more assured in the USA: less lights in the streets, less cops, more body bags.
2) The Iran Bomb made this election very special, and gave a sense of urgency to it. As I said somewhere, it’s unfair to say that Obama wants to throw Israel under the bus, because it’s really clear what he dreams of is to drive the bus. Admittedly, it’s not sufficient to reassure. I saw the USA as the cop of the world, and all the more so that Europe is a political and military dwarf. The Obama withdrawal makes way to Russia, China, and Islam, which is alarming, especially with the debt crisis plaguing the free world. I am worried that it might seal the eclipse of democracy.
3) I really trusted Romney. By comparison, I think poorly of Sarkozy (even if I had to vote for him), and didn’t believe he could do very well for my country. I just saw Hollande as the lazy hateful perverse he is. But I had no real hope regarding the French election, whereas I supported Romney and Ryan wholeheartedly. And I was al the more saddened when the malignant narcissist was reelected.
4) Obama had such a bad record it was unbelievable that the average American would vote for him again. That was depressing too.
5) It’s not the conservative-bashing of the media that took me aback. It’s the almost orwellian silence about Benghazi, and on such a large scale, that was really worrying. It’s okay to disagree and being called names, even if it’s unfair. But what they did is ruining the trust that has to link people in an evolved society. In a grim future, no one will no nothing, has it happened in Algeria around 2000, or as it happens nowadays in Mexico where confusion reigns as politicians are only puppets in the hands of drug lords, as explained in this article :
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/07/02/120702fa_fact_finnegan
Benghazi. Yes.
I read somewhere a while back that were this the later 1700′s, many Americans would be marching on Washington with muskets and pitch forks. Instead we are the frogs in the pot of water.
In addition to the good commentary from Larry J, Carol, TMG, and others; there is another factor that no one wants to mention. We have lost the rule of law and the Constitution. We have not had a Constitutional budget for 4 years and the Senate has promised that we will not have one for several more. The enforcement of the law is based on who you are connected to, and not any objective standard. The courts are owned by the regime. Vote fraud is not only rampant, it is overwhelming. And the so-called Opposition has formally agreed in court not to ever do anything about it. http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/rnc-v-dnc.pdf
They vastly prefer to concentrate their efforts in joining the Left in fighting anyone more conservative than Trotsky.
Before November 6, we had hope of using the system we grew up with to fix things. Electoral and legal means are denied us now. So we know how it will go. There are more than sufficient historical precedents. There is no reason for optimism, because that is not the world we live in. There is reason for determination; to try to survive and protect those we love, to resist more effectively than those in the precedents noted, and at least to leave examples for our descendents if they do not grow up cursing our memory.
Hopes of 2014 are a distraction from the reality we face.
Subotai Bahadur
This.
If you support fedgov, use it’s paper currency and derive part of your worth from the military fedgov projects abroad, then you definitely should feel bad because this is all coming to an end. But if you support liberty first, you can sell your dollars and protect your assets, you can move to place that will defend liberty, perhaps even secede and create a new nation where people pursue liberty instead of cultural revolution at home and abroad.
The American flag is the symbol of USG, fedgov, not a symbol for liberty. Take down your flag and put up the Gadsden or Confederate flag. Understand that America is going down the tubes because it is not American. You can die on the funeral pyre trying to make non-Americans American, or you can cut loose and pursue policies that will bring liberty to those who want it.
There are many, many conservatives, people who want liberty in America. But they are no longer enough to control a democratically elected government. I would be very optimistic if conservatives were serious about liberty and willing to do what it takes to preserve it. But I’m not going to sign up for trying to “save” America.
Intrigued by your comment about our flag. I’ve begun to notice many flags being flown at half-mast around here, some at businesses. I haven’t had the guts to stop and ask, “Has someone died?” but I’m getting the sinking feeling they’re being flown to signify a state of mourning for America.
Because liberals can cement thier gains through dependency.
For them a loss is a merely a delay.
I can’t remember feeling this way after any other election loss. Usually after a day or two I’m over it. I’m so absolutely disgusted that I can barely listen to the news, talk radio, nothing. I Honestly don’t understand what the American people were thinking by reelecting a man who accomplished little that was popular. His one huge achievement, Obama care, has never been well received, so what gives?
Will Obama be the only two term President not responsible for anything that happened under his watch? It sure looks that way. That’s where the hopeless feeling comes from. I think most republicans know that no matter how little power they have, they’ll be blamed for all the bad things that happen while Obama is President.. Random shootings, recession, hurricanes, it’s conservatives/Republicans fault.
The reason we’re more despondent than you would normally expect is because most of us recognize this is the end. The last 20 years have been an uphill battle where our hard fought victories were merely delaying actions.
With this last election, the levees have been breached. Our President is a Marxist and the MSM is MiniTru. Only thing left to do is watch them ruin the Republic and wait for it all to burn down so we can start over.
Only good part is that I get to see the Occupy types learn fisthand why socialism sucks.
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate.
To echo others. Democrats seem to view this as team sport and confirmation/rejection of their ideals. Conservatives see the end of the Republic.
If we had been through 4 years of 8% unemployment in 2004 I’ll bet liberals would have been just as despondent as we are now. This is an election we should have won easily.
In addition to everything else, Petraeus. It was like finding out Paul Ryan was secretly in massive credit card debt. No adults left in DC.
The reason Repos are sad, is that the takers outnumber the producers and these evil takers have the same vote as the producers. As long as these evil takers(that would include all on welfare, EBT, endless unemployment, SSI, etc) have the same right to vote, or their votes count as much as the producers, as those that pay for their miserable existences there is plenty to be despondant about.
Not depressed: discouraged and disappointed. I’ve spent my lifetime listening to warnings about Marxism and Socialistic governments and yet I’ve watched this country become a Marxist Nation with a quasi-socialist government.
The combination of power hungry politicians and a population that covets others wealth have resulted in the destruction of the greatest nation and society in the history of the world.
What’s to be optimistic about? Those of us with an awareness of what has happened know there is no turning back. We will leave to our grandchildren a society with less freedom, less liberty and less prosperity then when we we young.
All of this because greedy self centered people were permitted to elect and run this country. There is no other explanation. We have failed all previous generations that built, fought for and died to give us an inheritance like no other generation ever had and we squandered it to please the whiners and neer-do-wells in our society.
Others will say Wait! Why so pessimistic? My answer: years and years of watching dishonest power mad self glorifying ‘leaders’ rain praise and adulation down on themselves and a population that can’t or won’t recognize when they are being lied too. A people that want everything and hate anyone that has more than they do. Yes, I mean Hate. A people who don’t understand Love and Compassion but think taking from one and giving to another somehow will make us all better.
I want better for my grandchildren and I’m frustrated, disappointed and discouraged in losing the fight against those who are determined to live high and mighty in their generation and to Hell with the next.
I keep looking at the unbelievable amount of damage they’ve done and will continue to do for the next four years, so when the GOP finally gets in and has to fix it, there will be nonstop howls that they’re worse than Hitler.
Because the BushChimpHitler was their paranoia speaking,
and The Obamanation is the real deal.
Despair is objectively justified.
You are correct, but I think that the Republican malaise is also based on OBJECTIVE facts.
Consider, Obama managed to get comfortably re-elected DESPITE the worst economy since the Great Depression. And it was not just a temporary economic “spell.” If Obama can still be re-elected (on a landslide basis in the Electoral College, with Romney only carrying a single “swing state” — North Carolina — even though Romney CARRIED the holy “moderates” and independents) despite the economy, despite Benghazi, despite “Fast and Furious,” despite the utter lawlessness of the Obama administration (the unconstitutional “czars” the making of “recess” appointments while Congress was still in session; the enacting of the “DREAM Act” by Executive Order, even thought the legislation had been DEFEATED in Congress; and Solyndra and other examples of “crony capitalism”), how can they expect ever to defeat Obama in a “normal” year? Pretty good reasons to be depressed.
In addition, he said that he wanted to do for ALL industries what he did for General Motors! That sounds like “socialism” or even “fascism” (with an American face) to me. Are we to reassure ourselves by saying that NOTHING Obama says is to be taken seriously?
And the news-free “media.” Yes, they create the “zeitgeist,” the media “air” that we all breathe, being the interlocutor that tells us what is “news” and what isn’t, the Obama-worshiping “media” that repeats his “talking points” and minimizes or doesn’t cover unfavorable events.
“Fast and Furious” is a perfect example. It is FAR worse than “Watergate,” which did not KILL anyone, yet is denied media oxygen. It was ignored in the campaign (partially Romney’s fault) and is being ignored and forgotten now. “Watergate” benefited from a media “drumbeat” that advanced the story day-by-day, or inserted recaps when there was no new developments.
Imagine if “Fast and Furious” had gotten the “Watergate” treatment. Members of the major media are actually ex-officio members of the Democratic Party. As Glenn says, they are Democratic hacks with bylines. And I speak as a journalist who worked for a daily metropolitan newspaper before I left to go to law school.
Is there reason to be depressed? Yes, sometimes those who are depressed as not “chemically imbalanced” and in need of medication, but are just MORE AWARE of their situation than outsiders.
Obama appears to have created a PERMANENT LEFTIST MAJORITY that will endure. Talk to someone UNDER 30 if you do not believe this NEW MAJORITY is “permanent.”
We live in an effective “one party state,” with a feckless Republican “rump” whose job is to give the illusion of “opposition.”
The night of the election H. L. Mencken’s line about democracy went through my head repeatedly: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. We are all going to be getting it good and hard soon enough. That is what is getting me depressed. Really, it’s not getting depressed. It’s having a clue.
Can I get an Obama smart phone?
Yes, I think that we all should look on the “bright side.” Eventually, we will all have “Obamaphones” (NSA-approved).
The liberals just thought that people are idiots and had been fooled. They still thought the future belonged to them. Most Republicans are married with traditional values. They not only don’t think the future belongs to them they think this election means the government is hostile to them forever.
That is depressing.
Conservatives (or really, non-liberals, and leftists) are more despondent because the other side is emotion, not fact-based. And just as they create a fake world of ailments and remedies when they are winning, they can create one when they are losing. But we can’t. Our outlook was more connected to hard facts when we were winning, and now it still is. A complete failure of a President and a man (at least publicly) won to a factually better, more competent guy. Those are immutable facts. And so is my depression.
When the left lost in 2004, they had temporary factors to blame it on. The war was still popular, 9/11 was still fresh in people’s heads, and they believed the GOP used dirty tricks against Kerry (the Swift Boat Vets, primarily). It didn’t look like a philosophical shift, and they didn’t stand to lose that much from the election.
When we lost in 2008, we has temporary factors to blame it on. McCain was an atrocious candidate, Obama’s race was a big point in his favor, the economic collapse destroyed support for Republicans, and Obama’s lies had yet to be exposed. We figured we could come back when Obama’s novelty had worn off.
In 2012, there were no temporary factors working in Obama’s favor. Romney wasn’t a great candidate but he wasn’t awful. The debt crisis and upcoming fiscal cliff should have helped us. The lack of improvement in the economy over the last 4 years should have helped us. Race was supposed to be an old issue. Dem foreign policy was a disaster. And despite all that, the left’s control over the media negated everything. No one cared about economic or foreign policiy, everything was about abortion and birth control. Benghazi and Fast and Furious were ignored. It felt less like a lost election than like a coup.
Reason #1:
Math.
Reason #2:
History.
Well said, Dr. Helen.
Personally, I’m not despondent…Well not very.
I’m pissed off and doing whatever I can to de-fund, subvert, baffle, and otherwise resist these bastard children of tyranny.
My focus is on insulating myself and my loved ones from the government the idiots deserve.
“Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.”
I think part of the despair is that the left knows that, the last few years withstanding, the Republicans never really move the ball into their territory. Whereas, Republicans know that the left has an aggressive offense. The left rails against Republicans just for the sport of it. For instance, in many ways President Obama’s policies are just a continuation of the Bush years, but what was ridiculed under Bush, is just fine when Obama does it: patriot act, foreign entanglements, out-of-control spending, etc. Take Nixon for another example, he worked his butt off to appease the Democrats, and they destroyed him at the first opportunity. We are in despair because we know that we have another four years of policies designed to aggressively weaken our freedom and limit our ability to push back.
“…we have another four years of policy…”
No – we have another twelve years – because anyone who thinks that Hillary won’t win in ’14 if she runs is fooling themselves. The Clinton/Obama/MSM machine is more powerful than some Repub newbie running against it.
The only hope is to gain ground and regain ground from the bottom up (state races, governorships, electoral offices, media, academia, blacks, hispanics, females, youth, etc, etc).
Yes, it’s hard work.
Hillary? What makes you think that Obama will leave after a second term? This is a man with ONE and ONE INTEREST ONLY — campaigning. He is an indifferent ruler, and continues a more-or-less permanent campaign. After the second term. he will still be a young man. What is he going to do? Become Secretary-General of the UN? Hillary, in contrast, in 2014 will be as old as Reagan was when he was elected. Will she not seem tired and “shopworn”? And Obama — having proved that he has created a PERMANENT, LEFTIST MAJORITY — will be younger and available. What is there to stand in his way? Only the Constitution — never a barrier for Obama. Look for a movement to amend the Constitution to allow more than two terms for the President. After all, should the nation suffer when we have this familiar, experienced man available? And the ban was NEVER part of the Constitution until Republicans added it as a postumous swipe at FDR. It will be an apparently “grass-roots” movement (remember, Axelrod became famous setting up fake “grass-roots” movements) that Obama will express puzzlement about or disinterest in. He will eventually let himself be talked into it. Have you looked at Hillary lately? She is a wreck and looks even worse that at the end of the Clinton years, when she was haggard after surviving the Monica Lewinsky affair.
“It’s not just politics that’s got Republicans down.”
No, it’s reality that’s done it. The establishment GOP foisted Romney on us–a man of no redeeming credentials considering he prototyped Obamacare, and still approves of his prototype. The establishment GOP and it’s sycophants such as Coulter, and many here at PJMedia, they must go. The obsequiousness with which the social conservatives at their most extreme are indulged, with party platform planks which are abjectly unreachable, and contrary to the principles held by most even in the GOP, let alone the libertarian middle and moderate middle, that must end.
Or there is no reasonable expectation of any GOP electoral gains doing damn much to improve the fundamentals. And the fundamentals should point at despair but spur on genuine improvement.
We need large fiscal conservative super majorities in both houses and a fiscal conservative in the oval office, and many more like Clarence Thomas on the Court–not faint hearted originalists–but justices who will take a scythe to jurisprudence of the court since 1937. The constitution and law must be repaired to the days prior to Wilson, without the errors of that day being replicated.
Or despondency is reasonable.
Last night as I was watching the Cowboys defeat themselves with turnovers and missed tackles, a left-leaning friend speculated that there was a lot of overlap between insane preppers in their bunkers and those insane Tea Party people. Somehow that thought was conflated with the failure of the world to end on December 21st and the idea that all that unused food ought to be donated to charity so it won’t go to waste. What’s depressing is that even here in Dallas, Texas there are many people who are going to be totally shocked when the borrowing stops and the income transfer ends. It almost looks like the people who lived within their means and prepared for the storm are being demonized now to justify stealing wealth and supplies later. Damn you Saul Alinsky!
I talked to a older friend to learn how people survived the government excess and high inflation of the 70s. He said that people learned to ask for “cash discounts” and bartered to avoid taxes. As a child in the 70s I remember that even my law abiding father driving down I-29 at 75mph with all the other cars on the road when the posted speed limit was 55mph. I also remember people in Kansas removing EPA mandated pollution equipment from cars and openly bragging about it. We used homemade untaxed red wine for communion at my church and a student brought some moonshine to my dad and the Chemistry department for analysis. I’m pretty sure the self-reliant government-ignoring people of my youth could survive the coming financial shock. These are the same people who survived the Joplin tornado, self-organized the transfer of patients between hospitals, and rebuilt businesses and homes fairly quickly. The sticking point is what to do if the dollar becomes worthless?
Eventually an new, gold-backed currency will rise – if only because no one will trust anything else. During the transition barter and precious metals will have to fill the gap, either gold and silver or brass and lead depending on how bad things get.
Brass, lead and copper along with lead styphnate, nitrocellulose and nitroglycerine, suitably assembled. Ammo will be worth its weight in gold. Even more, for that matter. Depending on caliber.
I figure that if it gets bad enough, the coin of the realm just might become the .22 lr round. Foraging. 1 round = 1 rabbit or squirrel. Meaning, 1 meal. Or, in the hands of a competent marksman, 1 deer or feral hog. Survival. This is, of course, assuming that civilization completely collapses. Which isn’t all that far fetched. It is also why each and every household needs a .22 lr rifle.
I remember the Seventies. The worse moments were when you felt that things were starting to spiral out of control. The problem is that the Democratic Party of 1970 still included patriots like “Scoop” Jackson and a recognized “enemy” in the Soviet Union — a ready reason not to let things get out of hand. The Democratic Party of 2012 is far more Leftist than that of 1970. Now, a majority of Democrats ADMIT their admiration of “socialism.” And we have a Leninist in the White House, a man who, like Lenin, thinks “the worse, the better,” unlike Nixon, who wanted to stay in control. I hope that you are right (and that we can keep our guns).
Yeah, I remember the ’70s as well. I came of age then. Back then, there were actually patriotic Dems, as you point out. Back then, Dems seemed to realize that outright Marxism/Socialism was the cancer that it is. Back then, the Pubs in the guise of Nixon really were all that flawed. But even back then, the hard leftist wing of the Dems was asserting their control over that party. They had a long term vision and strategy, one that has paid off in this day and age as we can see with our current death spiral. They never had the health of the republic in mind. It was all about their own short term power, and the death of our republic.
Quite frankly, the only way that I see liberty surviving in any manner is through Balkanization. Write off the left coast and the northeast. Divide Florida in half, somewhere north of Tampa/Orlando. Ill-annoys divorces Chicago and joins “Free America”, along with the northern part of Florida. Georgia denounces inner city Atlanta, Texas denounces inner city DF/W, Houston, Austin and San Antonio along with “The Valley”. Let all of the various isolated leftist enclaves go along with the rest of “Socialist America”. Basically, we have to divorce them. That’s the only way, the divisions are just too deep.
Of course, the problem with that is that there is no way that the parasitic leftists will let us productive “Free Americans” peacefully go our own way. The idiotic left is not so stupid as to allow us to leave. Parasites know that they depend on their hosts. Without us, they die. After all, they are parasites. They can’t survive on their own.
Does it ever occur that the constant comparisons of Obama to Lincoln are not coincidental? Just as Lincoln “preserved the Union,” Obama will use military force to preserve the urban cities’ domination of the rest of the country. Get ready to find yourself described as a neo-Confederate seeking to break up the Union.
I told the family that the Cowboys might actually pull it out unless Romo gets excited and sure enough, the next play ….! And yeah, I agree with you about DFW, one of the last bastions of sanity!
I agree with Dr. Helen, but I think it is important to mention the powerful impact of the entertainment community. We can’t understate the effect of the rappers, rockers and movie stars constantly condemning conservatives. Their power and influence in the popular culture is very powerful! Young people and minorities worship the likes of JLo, Eva, Kanya, JayZ, Clooney, Damon, etc.! Obama shootin hoops with NBA heroes! How powerful is that? I used to watch Disney channel with my kids when they were young, 20 years ago! I was shocked at the wise-cracks about Republicans! Kid Shows cracking on Republicans! TV shows and movies shape public opinion and world view!I think their influence is equal to, probably greater than the influence of the media!
“And yeah, I agree with you about DFW, one of the last bastions of sanity!”
Ah, Mmm, I wouldn’t be so quick to say that. Inner city urban Dallas is actually quite deep blue. South Dallas and other like areas are heavily inner city urban black, with all of the evils associated. Yeah, there’s lots of it, just like there is in my old hometown of Houston. Near north Dallas is affluent trendy white lefty, we all know the type. Houston has them as well, and Austin is just crawling with them. The solid red part of the DF/W metro is spread across the vast northern spread of ‘burbs. Which is where I happen to live. In my case, just to the east of Plano.
If you look at voting patterns in the D/FW metro, you’ll find that Dallas county is deep blue, and Tarrant county is somewhat less blue. Those correspond to the urban cores of Dallas and Fort Worth, respectively. They are surrounded by deep red counties, such as Denton county (just north of Tarrant) and Collin county (where I live, just north of Dallas). I’ve noticed similar patterns in Houston and Atlanta…
1. Because we know history, and they don’t, and we know where this is going.
2. Because Republicans (not just Republicans, pretty well everyone who is self-supporting) are the new kulaks – targets of hate and rage. We’re the Designated Evil Bad Guys – the Democrats say so, the gimme-free-shit crowd howls in response, and the journalistic heirs to Walter Duranty cheer them all along. It’s … unsettling.
We are not in a position to pick up and move (we are both 60, my husband working but we have no expectations of retirement) so, like monkeyfan, “My focus is on insulating myself and my loved ones from the government the idiots deserve.”
I wonder how we are supposed to “insulate” ourselves? Are we all supposed to dig a well? If you have a year’s food in storage, expect your “neighborhood watch” commander eventually to tell you that it is unfair for some to have so much food, while so many have none. Can you keep it secret? Probably not when they are looking for it. Live in complete isolation in a rural area? Should we move to the country now? Revert to a purely “cash” economy? Have gold coins available for barter? I think that the idea of “insulating” yourself is impractical and probably doomed if the worst happens. The feckless majority (Obama voters) are not going to allow their “Obamaphones” to go out of action while some rich guy (you) can still make calls.
OK, Joseph, we’re doomed.
Should I just shoot myself now, or what?
You might as well wait. There is still time for a ham sandwich.
“I wonder how we are supposed to “insulate” ourselves? Are we all supposed to dig a well?”
Well, true. Especially once civilizational collapse happens. We aren’t allowed to dig a well, and yet we will need fresh water. FWIW, I’ve got a suitable portable hand pumped water filter and a body of fresh water within easy walking distance. For us, that isn’t the limiting factor in the short to medium term.
“If you have a year’s food in storage, expect your “neighborhood watch” commander eventually to tell you that it is unfair for some to have so much food, while so many have none.”
I don’t have anywhere near that much food in storage. But I do have the means to obtain it, in the long run. But if they should have the temerity to make such demands, I can assume that civilization has broken down and I will deal with such tyrants as they should be treated. I’ll tell them to kiss off, and if they won’t they better have some body armor.
Do you think that there is some shortage of body armor among the SWAT teams? What do you think that the SWAT teams were really created for — desperate bank robbers? I have always thought that the ONLY logical target of the ridiculously over-armed policemen on SWAT teams was the armed public. We are about to see an attempt to disarm the public. If that fails or runs into trouble, anyone who “resists” will become a “terrorist” and be visited by the local SWAT team.
Soon, I fear that we ALL will become Branch Davidians.
Jeez Anne, you spoke my thoughts exactly.
The question presumes all conservatives are Republican and all liberals Democrat. I’m despondent because my country is permanently changed. It’s promise is gone. That cannot be won back.
This election was won the meanest way possible. I detest both parties and I saw one party utterly misrepresent the other. Not once have I ever hear a Democrat describe their opposition accurately. And this unaligned voter sees a media complicit in corruption. Presently this non gun owner non NRA member gun disliking voter is seeing all our second amendment, that thin thread that connects us, violated in concerted effort, coordinated between media and political party.
The question is bad, but I’m answering anyway, this conservative non Republican is extremely despondent, that word understates it, I am saddened beyond describing because I just now saw my country changed for the worse by evil parties for evil purposes by evil means forever.
“I’m despondent because my country is permanently changed. It’s promise is gone. That cannot be won back.”
That is both true and not true. The promise isn’t actually gone, not really. Not as long as Balkanization is still on the table. Parts of the current so called republic are solidly socialist, and should be written off. Most of the current republic still stands for Liberty. Current demographics say that the republic, in its current form, must go hard left. But a “divorce” of “Free America” from “Socialist America” along natural lines would solve the whole matter. Let the socialists have their own turf, and let them run it off the cliff to their own demise. And let us sane freedom loving patriots have our own turf and run it sanely in a prosperous manner.
Conservatives are more despondent than liberals were because liberals knew then that their caterwauling and emoting were pure hystrionics and that the Republic was not really threatened.
The Republic is now really threatened.
That’s the difference Helen.
Many of us saw Mitt Romney as the last possible hope to stave off economic collapse caused by past economic foolishness. With something like 100 Trillion in financial liabilities and 16 trillion in acknowledged debt, economic growth was the only thing which might have saved us.
Now we see a future in which an economic collapse and it’s associated death and destruction as a likely probability. Things can only go down from here.
The answer to the question is easy. Democrats have a far easier job in regaining power for they rely on buying votes with money looted from the other party (tax increases for the evil rich). Republicans actually believe in something above and beyond power and must convince voters, not by them. We saw how easilly the 47% won. Vote buying is always a winner until the money to buy votes fails (Greece) and then a real crash comes and all bets are off.
You confuse Republicans with Conservatives, most of whom enthusiastically voted Republican this time.
Conservatives are despondent. Republicans think of this as business as usual. The only thing that Republicans abhor more than a Democrat winning an election is a Conservative winning an election (i.e. Tea Party).
That, and the fact that the Democrat Party is now firmly in the hands of Satan.
I think that about covers it.
If it is true as I have read that the federal reserve bought 70% of treasuries last year and 90% this year then we are monetizing a trillion dollars of debt a year. If so then the collapse will be by hyperinflation.
If some state prepares to issue and use gold and silver (perhaps old US silver coins) then that state will be a place where capitalism can survive . Nevada and Alaska have the gold and silver reserves to support a currency (but a much MUCH higher valuation – maybe silver at $100/ounce and gold at $20,000 ?).
Mexico has such reserves too, and long history of silver coinage.
Alaska has always had a gold “barter” underground economy, but you can’t as it is currently constituted live a normal daily life on it. If I wanted a house, a boat, a plane, a vehicle, a piece of heavy equipment, I could probably buy it with gold with no difficulty. But, the gas stations and grocery stores and such are all corporate American and it is US paper or plastic there and since Alaska imports virtually all of its food and other domestic goods, it would take some time to come up with a workaround.
In addition to several large commercial gold mines, half the garages in Alaska have small man-portable hydraulic dredges and people work patented or rented claims all over the State. With today’s gold prices, the “Golden Beaches of Nome” practically crawl with guys running dredges just below the waterline. There are legal and illegal operations on creeks and rivers all over the State but the EPA and all the rest of the alphabet soup really looks unkindly on somebody muddying up a stream so the gestapo is out in force in the warm times – not that stream water is ever warm in Alaska.
Republicans feel worse b/c they know that this president doesn’t care much about constitutions and congressional process. They know that this is the end. The guy in the White House now is not going to give up power in four more years, and just go away quietly.
Why are Republicans more despondent now than liberals were in 2004? It’s a question of goals, and the frustration of those goals.
In my estimation, liberals have wanted the “fundamental transformation of America” for quite some time, and conservatives have wanted to preserve as much of the American experiment (as envisioned by the founders as possible).
In short, one group wants to end something and another wants to prevent it from ending. It shouldn’t be surprising to see differing degrees of distress when those different goals are frustrated.
The re-election of Bush simply delayed the goals of liberals… they saw no reason to think that the re-election of Bush would somehow permanently stymie their efforts. They just needed to keep waiting.
Conservatives, on the other hand, by trying to keep the republic alive (I refuse to capitulate to the semantic infiltration of calling this a democracy), recognize that there is a fundamental asymmetry here. We have to “be right” all the time, while those seeking to end the experiment only need to succeed once.
Once they end it, it may well be ended for good. You can’t unscramble an egg. If you want to keep an egg in the shell, and someone else wants to scramble it, you’d see the asymmetry there as well. The advocate for preservation can’t afford a loss, because there’s no going back.
To some conservatives, the re-election of Barack Obama is logically equivalent to the nation having been convinced to eat a very appetizing bonbon which just happens to contain polonium-210 inside of it. After that, it’s just a matter of time. Why wouldn’t that cause more despondency than having to wait a bit longer to meet your transformational goals?
“Once they end it, it may well be ended for good. You can’t unscramble an egg.”
I’m not so sure of that. It just may be true that the great republic is now a done thing. That is probably true, the divisions are just too great. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the great experiment in freedom is dead. It may be possible for it to survive if it were to cast off the worst parts — the bluest parts — and go it anew. Let the blue parts go off their socialistic cliff, let the rest of us pursue sane policies on our own.
Divorce. Irreconcilable differences. We go our way, they go their way. That’s the only way, as I see it.
This is functionally equivalent to an end to the “more perfect union” that has been the United States. You’ve described a civil war, with all of the attendant issues, ending in a fractured result rather than a unified one (the result of the previous civil war that the nation survived). I would call that an end to the experiment. A new one could be started, but the idea that America could persist without an end that involved a fracturing of the union would die.
That strikes me as a good reason for despondency, since I’m pretty sure that such a dissolution would be very far indeed from perfectly peaceful.
Because those of us who don’t have their heads in the sand know that not only is any Democracy doomed to failure, THIS Democracy is now a systematic and controlled fraud run by the Left, and the Constitution has become a meaningless piece of paper. There will be no more valid elections, even if enough of the multitude of fools and cheats pull their collective heads out of the sand. The Left has the game well and truly rigged. The velvet glove has been pulled off the iron fist, even if most haven’t yet realized it. Time for open slavery, fight, or flight (and where will you run?). Most will bow and kiss the feet of their masters.
Too harsh a judgement? I’m afraid we will find out very quickly.
I am 66 and may miss the worst. My kids and grandchildren will live to see it. I am saddened that my grandchildren will probably never know what it was like to live in the USA. We have seen “equality” destroy “liberty” in my lifetime. “Equality” is on its way to acquiring the force of law. No one even knows what you are talking about when you say “liberty.” Instead “freedom” is the word in use, but it seems limited to “sexual freedom” — as long as we have that, we think that we’re “free.” I do not worry about my grandchildren “having to pay back this oppressive federal debt.” It will NEVER be repaid, and anyone who thinks so is naive. To the extent to which it must be repaid, it will be inflated away. What does that mean? It means Wiemar-style inflation, wage-and-price controls, and a “siege” economy. As Obama says, he wants to “help” ALL industries the way he “helped” General Motors.
My doctor adjusted my medicine, so I feel better now.
But, I am not optimistic.
“As defense analyst Colin Gray Writes in a recent book about the near-term possibilities of major conflict, ‘Another Bloody Century,’* when considering optimism and pessimism, ‘optimism is apt to kill with greater certainty.’”
“Fear of China” by Robert D. Kaplan in The Wall Street Journal on April 21, 2006 at page A14.
Octavian has arrived.
More like Diocletian. But yeah.
It was simple for me… I took it as an article of faith that there was no way that a President could get re-elected with over 8% unemployment.
My faith is shattered. This is not the country that elected Reagan over Carter. This is the country that elected free government cheese over jobs.
Breathtakingly silly question.
Hint:
It has something to do with the House of White, and who occupies it.
Republicans are more despondent than liberals were for a very good reason:
Leftism has done a lot of damage over the last 75 years of American life, and none of it has ever been reversed.
Okay, none might be a little strong. But “almost none” would be pretty accurate.
Add in the qualifier that, in the few places where a tentative, tender little reversal has occurred, it has always been of a fragile nature, itself prone to reversal…? Add in that, and while the generalization no longer fits on a bumper sticker, it’s perfectly, 100.00% accurate: The left always either wins ground, or temporarily fails to win ground, or loses the tiniest bit of ground to regain it later.
Is this not so?
Consider the various provinces of American life which the left has any interest in influencing:
1. Education of children
2. Education of young adults
3. Criminal law
4. Civil law
5. Constitutional law
6. Popular culture & mores
7. Elite, academic, and “expert” opinion
8. News reportage
9. Language & popular thought
10. The workplace
11. The family
Is there any realm of life in which the left is interested, wherein they have not conquered with near-uniform success?
I’m not aware of any.
Given this, a defeat for the left is interpreted as a frustrating delay, a deferral of the next conquest.
But a defeat for the right is interpreted as a loss of territory, an almost-certainly unrecoverable destruction of something held dear.
That is why, immediately after a political defeat, the right is increasingly populated by men and women with nothing left to lose.
Now, for persons of a violent and wicked mindset, “nothing left to lose” is potentially-empowering: A person who has nothing to lose might dare much, and in daring, achieve much. But not so for the right: They are conservative and law-abiding by nature, and thus instinctively do not do what the left does second-naturedly; i.e., kill political opponents, destroy their property, riot violently in the streets, and shamelessly make use of fraud and corruption to pursue their ends.
Thus constrained by morality, the right have no recourse to the adolescent outbursts which the left typically uses to vent its rage in the event of a political defeat, nor do they have the left’s confidence of the defeat being merely a temporary setback. They “live to fight another day,” just as they left does, but they do not realistically expect that they live to win another day. Their prognosis is not for a cure, but a remission, a reprieve. There is no healing of the damage done; it is only that the cancer is prevented from metastasizing further.
Show me how this is not so!
I do not say that we should not fight. We should, by every moral means. (This naturally includes political and cultural activism, but excludes the terrorism and corruption and fraud in the arsenals of the left.) We are fighting a losing fight; but only a coward gives up for that reason.
And there are blessings in life: Faith and family and friends. When we look away from politics and culture towards these, we find reason not to be despondent.
But do not pollute the air with any patronizing nonsense that, when one’s attention is focused on the political and the cultural, the right has any reason to be as optimistic as the left. They simply don’t, and you damned well know it.
” And there are blessings in life faith family and friends…”
But one more nail in the GOP coffin. The demons try to kill Hillary Clinton with brain blood clot
nytimes:
“On Twitter, those sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton lashed out at Republican critics who had accused her of faking her illness. Buzz Feed helpfully chronicled the top “eight people who thought Hillary Clinton was faking her concussion” because she did not want to testify before Congress on the Benghazi attacks. They included The New York Post, which called her concussion a “head fake,” and the Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer, who called her illness “acute Benghazi allergy.”
by miracle I believe God save her life to become next President of USA , God willing
I repent of my sin calling her a beast whore may God forgive me.
I am despondent because I am an enemy of the State. I worked too hard and earn too much and have to be punished. I guess it would be tolerable if it wasn’t for being a parent.
I am truly desperate because my children’s future is bleak in this country.
The pessimism reflects the fact that the operative Republican Party coalition is fractured beyond recovery. Mutual excommunication is ongoing.
The problem is that this excommunication started _before_ the election…
I’m surprised nobody brought up the missing elephant in the room – Ron Paul.
He siphoned off a good deal of the youthful energy which could have carried Romney over the top.
The Republican Party establishment made no attempt to co-opt his core issues – why? Fear of appearing dovish? Fear of displeasing Wall St?
The only way the Party attempted to talk to Paul’s base of supporters was with ridicule and contempt.
Was this really so smart?
Would you mods please be so kind as to ban this waxwing01 nut? If I want to read crazy I can go to Daily Kos.
I second Mac’s request. “Waxwing’s” post, despite being theoretically a reply to mine, shows no sign of being aware of the topic of the thread save a brief quotation from my post which has nothing to do with what he goes on to say. And, what he goes on to say causes me to wonder whether English is his third language, or he has a concussion, or both.
The Dems are unified, more or less, because as a party they drove out their dissenters, most of whom are now discontently in the GOP tent. The various flavors of conservative are also depressed as well as angry because all they see are Republicans visibly eager to give the Dems everything they want except for things involving the interests of corporate America.
The perception is correct. At heart, the GOP establishment would like to maintain more-or-less the status quo, but replace the Dems at the top of it. They don’t really want to rally their own voters so much as they would like to get the Dem voters to come over to them, and for the press and other cultural institutions to treat them with the same deference they treat the Dems. They are would-be members of the same club.
The thing is that even the lefty media can be right occasionally, and when they talk about the civil war in the Republican ranks, for once they’re telling the truth. The various factions of the GOP really, really don’t share many of the same goals, long-term.
The old line was ‘fusionism’, that is, economic, national sovereignty, and cultural/religious conservatives would make common cause and fuse into a single coalition. It never happened, the three factions remain three separate and often conflicting factions.
The party elites are social liberals, they (at most) are indifferent to issues like abortion, gay marriage, public faith, etc. Many are privately very socially liberal, and hold social conservatives in contempt. Likewise, issues like illegal immigration (and the proper level of legal immigration) embarrass them. For the most part, the party elites continue to reflect the old-line GOP, which tends to be ‘whatever the Chamber of Commerce wants’. They support free trade, unlimited immigration and open borders policies, low taxes for business, no regulation, they hate unions with an irrational passion.
The social conservatives, for their part, until the 1970s used to be Democrats, in fact they used to be core members of the Dem coalition in the Dem glory days from FDR up until the MoGovernites took over. They are, today, mostly _still_ New Dealers at heart. They are not against Social Security, they aren’t so much believers in ‘small government’ as ‘medium sized government’. They hate abortion, they only tolerate free trade advocacy, for ex. They (and much of the sovereigntist faction) would prefer NAFTA had never passed, that the WTO could be depowered, etc. They SoCons are often ambivalent about unions, entitlements, etc.
The national sovereignty faction wants strong military defenses, an assertive USA that acts in national interest rather than deferring to any international authority, they tend to see the very concept of a world authority as inherently invalid. They, like the SoCons, prefer strong border control and limits on immigration, they and the SoCons are concerned about a multiplicity of language and culture weakening the U.S.
Note that these goals tend to put the Chamber of Commerce and a majority of the GOP rank-and-file on opposite tracks most of the time.
Ronald Reagan brought in the former Dem voters on social issues and security issues who the Dems drove after after 1972, and turned the GOP from a permanent minority party (albeit one that occasionally elected a President) into a competitive force. Still, the GOP elites privately disliked Reagan and were deeply hostile to the new voters he brought in, and have been trying to somehow find a way to keep their competitiveness without the new voters ever since.
Romney was simply the latest incarnation of ‘Rudy McRomney’, the sort of candidate that the GOP Establishment likes. Given their choise, the Establishment will run Bob Dole over and over and over, under different names, the theory being that you deemphasize social and national conservatism in hopes of getting the ‘women’s vote’, or the ‘Latino vote’, or some other Dem faction. The goal is to replace the hicks in the middle America with a more convenient voting base, the result as been defeat after defeat after defeat after defeat. That supposedly fool-proof approach failed in 1992, 1996, 1998, 2006, 2008, and 2012. Those were not all Presidential years, but all were marked by various efforts to ‘moderate’, by which the elites mean running away from their own base.
Republicans are not, in fact, despondent, they’re _furious_. But it’s the GOP they’re furious at, and with reason. The whole TEA Party movement is in many ways a rebellion against the Republicans, and that’s why the GOP elites detest the TEA Party, too.
So when a cultural conservative, who wants basically to trim back government somewhat but keep the New Deal, and deemphasize 60s-style social liberalism, looks at the political system, he sees nothing to vote for. Romney ran away from the issues he cares about and emphasized those on which he is ambivalent or hostile.
When a voter who wants to trim the public employees unions a little, but not break them, sees the GOP running hog-wild to break the unions, and demanding more free trade and ignoring illegal immigration (while ignoring the social and economic side-effects of both), what is he to conclude but that the GOP is the ‘party of the rich’? When the supposedly intelligent pundits keep demanding the GOP repeat the same failed electoral approach election after election, ignoring the hard facts of voter turnout and identity politics, what can they conclude but that the GOP is just a voice of the Chamber of Commerce?
Huge swaths of the GOP voting base simply looked at Obama and Romney and said, “Six of one, half a dozen of the other’. They don’t like the idea of Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie any better (and note that those were the dream-candidates of most of the GOP pundits all year).
The entire Romney approach was the ‘run on economics’, well, economics is the politically _least_ popular component of the general GOP/Conservative worldview. The GOP has been burned _every single time_ they’ve tried to bring up privatizing, voucherizing, or otherwise changing the popular entitlements for decades, yet it seems to be the only thing the GOP spokesman are comfortable talking about. They take every opposition to anything the Dems do as a sign to go forward with their old agenda, and it blows up in their face every time they do that.
In Ohio, for ex, Kasich put through a bunch of anti-union laws that were repealed by voters in short order. Those _same_ voters, in the same election, voiced disapproval of Obamacare by a huge majority. Just because people oppose Obamacare doesn’t mean they’ll be sympathetic to changes to SoSec or Medicare, yet the _first thing_ the GOP did after their big win in 2010 was to treat a victory based on opposition to Obamacare as an approval for their old economic agenda, which led straight to their defeat in 2012. The 2010 election was in no way a mandate for ‘freedom of contract’ or privatization of anything, but they acted as if it was. Even now, the GOP is letting Obama manuever them into yet another position where they must yield to Dem priorities or be pilloried as being ‘stooges for the rich’, and ignoring the issues where Obama could be profitably attacked.
With that situation in mind, it’s little wonder Republican voters are angry and depressed.
Seems to me the GOP elite will look to Hillary Clinton will be the best GOP person for President in 2014. GOP elite money will flow to her.
this means the party as you know it is doomed to total destruction. Only by uniting millions of people on moral issues can the GOP be saved. Because if Hillary is elected a new leftist party born to replace the present GOP and Roman Catholics and many many other christians will consider themselves exiles under the Great Babylon keeping themselves pure from this terrible deception in politics
look how the house controlled by the GOP failed to offer help toward the victims of Hurricane Sandy last night. there seems to be no hope to save the GOP for today
“Just because people oppose Obamacare doesn’t mean they’ll be sympathetic to changes to SoSec or Medicare…”
Let me ask you a question: what’s the difference between the two things? Especially Obamacare and Medicare. They are both cut from the same cloth — the only difference is who benefits and who pays. They are both exercises in dividing the population into haves and have-nots.
The larger issue is that the type of “social conservative” you’re talking about isn’t any kind of conservative at all. They are right-wing socialists, and they have no more respect for the Constitution or basic economic math than the left-wing socialists do.
‘Let me ask you a question: what’s the difference between the two things? Especially Obamacare and Medicare.’
The difference is that Obamacare can be, or at least it could have been, undone. By engaging in yet another futile attack on the New Deal, the GOP and the Right may have doomed themselves to enduring Obamacare, too.
The argument in American politics is _not_ about redistribution _per se_. That argument ended for practical purposes in the Great Depression. The American voters do believe in the morality and legality of redistribution in some cases and situations. The real-world argument is about _which_ forms, how much, and why.
Libertarians don’t have to like that fact, but they do have to live with it. The electorate simply will not tolerate undoing the New Deal, they’ve punished attempts to do so over, and over, and over. Likewise, they like the minimum wage, Medicare, etc.
But they opposed Obamacare and continue to oppose it. The Right could have accepted that and used it. The 2010 election was not about entitlements in general, it was not a call for laissez-faire or voucherization of Medicare, it was a vote against _Obamacare_. By pretending otherwise, the GOP turned their biggest victory in 80 years into a humiliating and needless defeat just 2 years later.
Not all principles can be implemented, and some battles end in defeat. The battle over the legitimacy of SoSec and redistribution _per se_ ended before most of us were born, in defeat for their opponents. By refusing to face up to that reality, the Right keeps empowering their enemies to do more and more and more than they _could_ still block.
It’s half a loaf or nothing. Principle may demand the full loaf, but it’s not going to happen. Without the social issues, the FDR coalition would still be totally dominant, it was ‘Abortion, Acid, and Amnesty’ that broke FDR’s coalition in the 1960s, not opposition to redistribution. There just aren’t enough libertarians to change that without alliance with somebody else, and any such alliance will demand compromise of principles.
Napoleon noted in a military context that ‘he who defends everything, defends nothing’, because the result is defeat. Likewise, refusal to compromise principle when reality demands it generally results in the defeat of that principle. Partial victory is better than utter defeat.