What future might the Political "Right" have?

[charles brough]

In all the enthusiasm over the election, it is easy to forget about the "Right." We know it as "the more conservative Republicans." These people think in terms of economic and religious ideals---and a well deserved sense of unity with the military. Unfortunately, the economic ideals are very different than is recognized by the media and hence the more liberal public. These economic ideals form a sort-of economic-cult based upon the teachings of Van Mises and M. Friedman in which, it is believed, business enterprise can fulfill all or almost all duties of government.

 

To those it describes as well as to those who are liberal, it seems a position based upon sound ideals, but I refer to it as a "cult" because no such system has ever existed. For at least the last 5,000 years, we in the nations of the mainstream world have always had to have governments. Also, they have been unable to "sell" their doctrines to the general public in any country anywhere. In response to this, the Economic Right learned in the 1970s and 1980s that the only way to even begin to implement their ideological plan is to force it upon the public. This is what they did in Chili, Argentina, and Uruguay. This effectively stripped away all social programs and minimized the role of government, but government was still needed to run the system and support the military's murdering and torturing of the "socialists" (people who disagreed with them).

 

Later, they learned that by going to war for one reason or another---or by being shocked by a financial crisis, hyper inflation, a military attack (such as 9/11) or some widespread natural disaster, they could quickly implement minimal government at the expense of the lower and middle classes.

 

Fortunately, the Right of the U.S. has so far not been able to implement their full strategy and the liberals won the election. But what have they (we) won? We won a monumental financial crisis, a losing war in Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, widespread piracy, and widespread shortage, escalating narcotic-gang and illegal alien problems, to name just a few.

 

Solving all these problems in a friendly, humanistic manner will not be possible. In the years ahead if not months ahead, the public will become impatient and the media will turn on our new Democratic leadership. We will end up with dramatically worsened race relations, a recovery leading into hyperinflation and an escalating war in the mountains of Afghanistan that will require the instituting of the draft.

 

The military, libertarian, religious Right alliance will return and this time, to stay.

 

I have a solution. Does anyone else have a "solution?"

[Moontanman]

With any luck, the intellectual left will make it into space and leave this planet far behind, spread out into the galaxy and let the right simmer here on a slowing warming dying planet. They can then fight each other over money and religion until the sun expands and engulfs them all.

[TheBigDog]

Rumors of our demise are greatly exaggerated.

[Buffy]

Rumors of our demise are greatly exaggerated.

Bill's right. :)

 

No seriously, most Americans either consciously or unconsciously realize that the country is nothing without both sides. It's very much like the Star Trek episode where a transporter accident splits Capt. Kirk into a "good-weak" Kirk and an "evil-strong" Kirk, and if both sides are not put back into balance, all heck breaks loose.

 

The problem isn't so much that some people lean right or left, it's the *extremists* on *both* ends of the spectrum. Let the extremists go too far, and the American people yank the choke chain really hard: that was 2008.

 

I think its pretty much the same everywhere, the problem being that unless there is a strong constitution, a rule of law, and support for the constituent institutions that the extremists can take over seemingly permanently as in Russia right now.

 

As I've said elsewhere, I think the Republicans have been taken over by extremists, but there's lots of hope that the more rational centrists will come back to rescue the party.

 

I don't think Bill has to do any shopping around for parties, but he can certainly help right the ship! Right Bill? :phones:

 

I don't think there was any Reagan revolution. This country is based, its economy is based, on free enterprise. The government's based on a constitutional democracy. And all Reagan did was to continue what Harry Truman did and George Washington started, ;)

Buffy

[Turtle]

...As I've said elsewhere, I think the Republicans have been taken over by extremists, but there's lots of hope that the more rational centrists will come back to rescue the party. ...

 

Buffy

 

Hope? Isn't that Obama's bag? Here's your hope. :naughty:

 

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 60,800 for Jindal creationism

Web News Results 1 - 10 of about 996,000 for Jindal hope of Republicans

 

Little Green Footballs - Ask Bobby Jindal About His Creationism

Here are some things I’d like to see Jindal address.

 

Everything the media tried to pin on Sarah Palin, Jindal actually did: he promoted and signed a creationism bill (with help from the Discovery Institute), he took part in an amateur exorcism and claimed it cured a woman of cancer, and possibly worst of all, he pals around with people on the extreme edges of fundamentalist Christianity, and at least one person who has associated with outright neo-Nazis: ...

 

Gracious me; don't judge me by the company I keep. :phones:

 

PS Web News Results 1 - 10 of about 758,000 for Limbaugh hope of Republican party.

[Buffy]

Gracious me; don't judge me by the company I keep. :hihi:

Oh my. You read Little Green Footballs, Turtle?

 

Mr. Jindal was chosen both because he is a True Believer in the notion that the Repblicrat Party lost the last election because they tried to be too Centrist, and he's proof that the party is an Open Tent and being Racist is something only a Democrat can do because this is the Party of Lincoln.

 

Bobby said all the right stuff, the only "problem" is that he sounds like Kenneth the Page:

 

YouTube - Fox Panel Gives Jindal's Speech Low Marks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-AGK74IyFY

 

...but as far as Rush is concerned, well, he said the right stuff, and therefore he's Right with Rush:

[T]he people on our side are really making a mistake if they go after Bobby Jindal on the basis of style. Because if you think — people on our side I’m talking to you — those of you who think Jindal was horrible, you think — in fact, I don’t ever want to hear from you ever again. … I’ve spoken to him numerous times, he’s brilliant. He’s the real deal.

 

Of course as Rahm said yesterday, "He is the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party. He has been up front about what he views and hasn't stepped back from that which is he hopes for failure." So when Rush says something, everyone better fall into line, or else!

Rushalala, 2/24

: I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.

 

Tom DeLay:

ThinkProgress: "Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that we shouldn’t hope for President Obama to succeed?" DeLay: "Well, exactly right. I don’t want this for our nation. That’s for sure."

 

Rick Santorum:

"I believe his policies will fail, I don’t know, but I hope they fail."

 

Michelle Malkin:

"When he proposes the same kind of wealth re-distributionist policies that had appalled me under the Bush administration, yes, I hope they fail." [let that one sink in a moment..."the same".... :naughty: ]

 

Mark Sanford (R-SC), 2/25:

"Anybody who wants him to fail is an idiot,"

Sanford's Communications Director, later 2/25:

"the governor was not referring to anyone" in particular when he said that anyone hoping for Obama to fail is an “idiot.” Rather, ...Sanford was speaking “generically” and did not know that Limbaugh had previously said he hopes that Obama will fail.

And that last one sure was instructive! Ya better not diss Rush!

 

Like Mark, but unlike Bobby, Michael Steele, the new RNC chairman didn't get the memo...

I'm Loving Michael Steele

 

I mean, I'm not sure how else to put it. This guy has to be about the worst, most embarrassing party chair we've seen in recent memory. It's embarrassing enough that Steele is like, what? ... the third Republican to criticize Rush and then make it less than 36 hours before being forced to undergo the 21st century Republican version of a Maoist self-criticism session. It's sad for the Republican party that no one can criticize Rush without having to be hauled out for this sort of humiliation a day or so later. But for Steele not to have realized that or not to have been sufficiently in control of his mouth to avoid saying this just shows once again that this dude is really, really not ready for prime time.

 

So if Rush says, "I hope the President fails!" you'd sure as heck better fall into line!

 

Of course not too long ago, much less explicit disagreement with Bush was met with screams of "Treason!" from these same blowhard "leaders" of the Republicrat Party.

 

Can you say "Chutzpah?"

 

Seriously, they pushed that Patriot Act, let's round 'em all up for sedition and ship 'em off to Gitmo...

 

Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking." :phones:

Buffy

[Turtle]

I love it when you get all politico! :naughty: :kiss2: :hihi: Anyway, no I don't read that Green Goober Peas thingy regularly or even ever read it before that I know of; it just happened to be near the top of my Googlination of "Jindal creationism".

 

:phones:

 

I guess if someone is contesting that point, that is the point that Jindahl is violating the Constitution of the United States with his trying to push religion into government, why then we can look for something more necessary. Shall I fact-check that Jindal exorcism, or would you like the pleasure dear? :eek2: :D

 

Honestly; you folk that say you are Republican but also say that you're not on board with this religious freak show group, y'all oughta quit the GOP and join like the Progressive party or somethin' where you can still get yer heart on against the Democrats but leave this 18th century nonsense behind you.

 

Well, I'll leave poor enough alone 'til I get new data tomorrow. :hihi:

[Buffy]

... Jindahl is violating the Constitution of the United States with his trying to push religion into government...

...oh *all* of the Pubican candidates for 2012 are creationists... and just try Googling "America is a Christian Nation"....

 

Who's expecting any intelligence from these folks other than not-so-Intelligent Design? Rushzo the Clown doesn't even know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence....

...or would you like the pleasure dear? :eek2:

Oh, no, no, no, after *you*! :hihi:

Honestly; you folk that say you are Republican but also say that you're not on board with this religious freak show group, y'all oughta quit the GOP and join like the Progressive party or somethin' where you can still get yer heart on against the Democrats but leave this 18th century nonsense behind you.

Who, me? :naughty:

 

We have a two-party system, and in such, the third parties are mostly even more radical than the Elephants and Donkeys in the middle (honestly, have you ever tried to move a representative of either species? Neither moves very quickly!). We haven't had a successful party changeover since the Republicans ran from the Whigs!

 

No, no, no, the American way is peaceful coups from within the party. Sometimes that means driving them to their logical extremes before they come to their senses and head back to where the rest of America is (cf. McGovern in '72 or McCain in '08). I must admit that here in California, the R-party has been nutzo for a long time, and in some primaries I've voted for the craziest people (gosh, remember Arianna Huffington's ex? or Bruce Herschensohn? yikes! :kiss2: )

 

It may well take a complete implosion, but no matter how bad it looks now, it's going to be easier for the Republican's to reinvent themselves than for some upstarts to get a new, slightly-right-of-center party without the sex-is-a-necessary-evil-Puritans and the deficits-don't-matter-any-more-Pseudo-Economists going....

 

Life is a process of becoming, a combination of states we have to go through. Where people fail is that they wish to elect a state and remain in it. This is a kind of death. :phones:

Buffy

[freeztar]

Ok, I'm sick to my stomach. Reading through this thread is like an exercise in cruelty. Ouch!

 

Whatever happened to "good Republican values"?

Why is the dichotomy growing so disgustingly? Whatever happened to the "real" Republicans? You know, those that actually stood for the...Republic!

 

(freeztar absconds to count his measly pennies...1...2...3...4...I've almost got a nickel...)

[charles brough]

With any luck, the intellectual left will make it into space and leave this planet far behind, spread out into the galaxy and let the right simmer here on a slowing warming dying planet. They can then fight each other over money and religion until the sun expands and engulfs them all.

I found an amazing link dealing with that:

 

Crash Course Chapter 8: The Fed - Money Creation - credit | Crash Course Videos at Chris Martenson - credit, Debt, Federal Reserve, interest, loans, money creation, perpetual expansion, the Fed, Treasury bonds

[Turtle]

Honestly; you folk that say you are Republican but also say that you're not on board with this religious freak show group, y'all oughta quit the GOP and join like the Progressive party or somethin' where you can still get yer heart on against the Democrats but leave this 18th century nonsense behind you.

Who, me? :eek2:

 

We have a two-party system, and in such, the third parties are mostly even more radical than the Elephants and Donkeys in the middle (honestly, have you ever tried to move a representative of either species? Neither moves very quickly!). We haven't had a successful party changeover since the Republicans ran from the Whigs! ...

 

Buffy

 

Well, I was talking to anyone that fit the bill, so yes, I guess I'm talking to you. Course I pine for talking to you on any subject. :lol: :kiss2: You seem to say there is nothing you can do to change the whacked out Republicans, but you stay anyway and I'm wondering for what exactly? Then also after apparently giving up on changing things, you point to an historical example where such a change was made. :eek2:

 

Ok, I'm sick to my stomach. Reading through this thread is like an exercise in cruelty. Ouch!

 

Whatever happened to "good Republican values"?

Why is the dichotomy growing so disgustingly? Whatever happened to the "real" Republicans? You know, those that actually stood for the...Republic!

 

(freeztar absconds to count his measly pennies...1...2...3...4...I've almost got a nickel...)

 

A penny for your two-cents-worth friend, so you can go to the doctor.

 

Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh; you will not provoke me with impunity. :)

[Theory5]

With any luck, the intellectual left will make it into space and leave this planet far behind, spread out into the galaxy and let the right simmer here on a slowing warming dying planet. They can then fight each other over money and religion until the sun expands and engulfs them all.

 

I hope that happens soon, before scientists are declared witches (again).

 

Whatever happened to "good Republican values"?

Why is the dichotomy growing so disgustingly? Whatever happened to the "real" Republicans? You know, those that actually stood for the...Republic!

 

That sounds oxymoronic, hehe Good Republican Values :evil:

 

I have heard clips of the so called leader of the party (Rush Limbagh) speak, and frankly, I was offended and disgusted each and every time. if someone can be that offensive and unintellegent and still lead a party, then I think America has stooped to a whole new level.

It seems to me that these guys would stab you in the back and take your wallet "for your own good".

[TheBigDog]

No, no, no, the American way is peaceful coups from within the party. Sometimes that means driving them to their logical extremes before they come to their senses and head back to where the rest of America is (cf. McGovern in '72 or McCain in '08).

Being a free thinking conservative and defacto Republican, I have a different spin on this. President Obama sold the left as the center while McCain sold the center as the right. People like to pigeon hole McCain as some sort of conservative extremist; because of the heat of the election. They forget that in 2004 there were rumors of McCain being offered the VP ticket under Kerry before Edwards was announced, because he was such a centrist. While McCain would not have accepted, and it would not have ever been offered, the notion was taken seriously in the press and floated on the Sunday shows for a couple of weeks. Then miraculously in 2008 when McCain is the opposing candidate he is suddenly a right wing extremist? Go figure.

 

The majority of the criticism of the right is rhetorical in nature. The same is true of criticism of the left. The right is not the religious right. The fact that a value is in line with religious doctrine does not make it forbidden as a basis of policy. Attacking the messenger rather than the message is boring and old and does nothing to get to the roots of the matter.

 

Bill

[Buffy]

People like to pigeon hole McCain as some sort of conservative extremist; because of the heat of the election. They forget that in 2004 there were rumors of McCain being offered the VP ticket under Kerry before Edwards was announced, because he was such a centrist. While McCain would not have accepted, and it would not have ever been offered, the notion was taken seriously in the press and floated on the Sunday shows for a couple of weeks. Then miraculously in 2008 when McCain is the opposing candidate he is suddenly a right wing extremist? Go figure.

Poor John. Being pilloried for being a politician who likes to get elected....

 

Nah, I actually have listened closely to John over the years and he's no extremist: he just *sounds* like one sometimes when he's speaking to particular groups that he wants to have vote for him. He himself basically repudiated the silly pandering to the extreme right that his Campaign Managers pushed him into.

 

Did Obama pander too? Sure, but he didn't need to do very much in comparison to McCain, and he did push toward the center with Clintonian Triangulation, while McCain moved further and further into the oxygen-starved extremist talking points to "shore up his base" as the campaign got more desperate.

 

He really had no chance of winning, and while I ultimately didn't even consider him because of the depth of his pandering, I *still* think he's pretty darn centrist for a Republican, and quite frankly not too different than Clinton.

 

What he's done in the last month has been the same sort of pandering to be the leader of the party: because so many moderates have left, in order to maintain credibility he's had to back insane positions like advocating a Spending Freeze (the exact same trick Hoover tried). He *can't* do anything different of course, because they'll start calling him a Democrat for daring to differ with Rush.

 

Is he the future of the "Political Right"? I don't think so, but he sure *wants* to be it, that's for sure.

The majority of the criticism of the right is rhetorical in nature. The same is true of criticism of the left. The right is not the religious right. The fact that a value is in line with religious doctrine does not make it forbidden as a basis of policy. Attacking the messenger rather than the message is boring and old and does nothing to get to the roots of the matter.

There's little I'd disagree with you here on, Bill. The problem of course is who you listen to: while the extreme right have been pillorying the "MainStream Media" like the major networks, The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN as "liberal" they do spend most of their time covering politics as if it were the Super Bowl. It's in *no way* "liberal" as they simply let each side say whatever they want to say and no longer do a whole lot of real "reporting."

 

While considered "Communist" by the folks on the extreme right, the "liberal blogs" actually not only do some serious analysis of the problems with the specific positions of the Republicans, they have also been happily attacking Obama when he's screwed up too (no covering up of those "tax problems" of cabinet appointees!)...

 

Case in point, with this week's Republican "solution" was covered by most media as "the Republican's today proposed a spending freeze...the Democrat's said this was foolish." Where's the analysis? Why couldn't *any* of these so-called "news" organizations have done this:

 

YouTube - Ana Marie Cox on GOP spending freeze idea http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JsOe4JyJ80

 

Sure it's snarky up front, but that's only because it's so boneheaded stupid, something that Rachel explains in a very clear and straight-forward analysis starting about 2:30 in the clip....

 

Are they supporting a Spending Freeze just to be mindlessly the opposite of whatever Obama does? Or is it because like Rush, they simply don't care that it will destroy the economy as long as they can think they can blame it all on Obama in 2010?

 

The interesting thing is that a very large number of the Republican's I know have all gone sour on the party, especially in the last several months because of this mass insanity that's taken over the party.

 

Unfortunately, it's all due to the fact that the moderates in the party all got voted out of office in November, so there's no one left except for the extreme right wing, which does include an odd alliance of social conservatives and neo-con ideologues. The Fiscal Conservatives--like me--have all basically abandoned the party.

 

A reconstituted "Right" in America is not going to be like this, it's going to be--yes--more centrist, just like Clinton and Obama have been, because that's what most Americans want.

 

Like Bill says, it's silly to pigeonhole the "Right" as the extremists who have control of the party these days....just as silly as it is for those extremists to pigeonhole anyone to the left of them as "Socialists" or "treasonous haters of the troops."

 

Let's hope we can actually start debating some real issues around here, but I understand that the media is going to have to clean up it's act first....

 

If we did not debate the president, debate the policy in our role as journalists, if we did not stand up and say, "This is bogus," and "You're a liar," and "Why are you doing this?" that we didn't do our job. And I respectfully disagree. It's not our role, :)

Buffy

[charles brough]

I have heard clips of the so called leader of the party (Rush Limbagh) speak, and frankly, I was offended and disgusted each and every time. if someone can be that offensive and unintellegent and still lead a party, then I think America has stooped to a whole new level.

It seems to me that these guys would stab you in the back and take your wallet "for your own good".

The "core-value" Republic Right Wing is the only part of the whole political process that has a unity and intensity. They see the whole of existence as being limited to "good" and "evil." Their intensity of belief has driven the direction the US has taken for the last 40 years.

 

It began in about 1970 after the choatic, "everything gioes" hippy anti-establishment period following the war in Vietnam. Unfortunately, its trend will continue despite the Obama Administration's efforts. The reason no Republican dared to denounce Rush LImbaugh for his remarks---except the Party chairman and then he apologized to Rush!---is that they were afraid to. Only the Right Wing has "the moral high ground" in the thinking of Republicans.

[HydrogenBond]

The economy, like the political power, moves like a sine wave. All you have to do is check the historical trends. Things go one way, get saturated, peak, and the sine wave starts to move the other way. It is a matter of time until people get saturated, again.

 

People now say, I like the Democrats because we need social change. But eventually they say, they are not very good businessmen. Then they say we need to strengthen out the mess while not losing to many of the gains. When the country gets too business like, people will opt for more social change, and the cycle will begin again.

[charles brough]

The economy, like the political power, moves like a sine wave. All you have to do is check the historical trends. Things go one way, get saturated, peak, and the sine wave starts to move the other way. It is a matter of time until people get saturated, again.

 

People now say, I like the Democrats because we need social change. But eventually they say, they are not very good businessmen. Then they say we need to strengthen out the mess while not losing to many of the gains. When the country gets too business like, people will opt for more social change, and the cycle will begin again.

 

EXACTLY! these cycles exist. However, they also exist on trends. They hide the trend and make it difficult to recognize. Stocks work that way.

 

The economic cycle operates as you say, but there is also a underlying trend towards ever higher prices. Finally, there is a trend in public opinion that is creeping towards the religious right and has been in effect for the last 40 years. It led, cycle by cycle, up to Pres. Bush. I hate to think what the next neocon president will be like!