• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The coming war on the right

mikedennis10

Banned
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A comprehensive inspection of the right-wing political scene would detect a political body full of latent fissures and provisional collaborations. A great deal of the Republican's ability to hold things together may have come from it's power. A party of money and business, along with their long run of success at the presidential level have given them a temporary adhesive. Built over the last fifty years was the alliance of Wall Street money-men and a Southern, primarily Christian cultural base. This coalition was unsteady from it's inception, and has always been fragile despite the victories that it brought. Recent political events, like the election of Barack Obama and the coming domination of the House and Senate by the Democrats may spark a political war for the future of the Republican party.

The war on the right will be between the traditional base and the East Coast elite who know that they must change it's character if it's to ever gain power again. The situation will look like this: a solid Republican base that may stay perpetually at around 45-49% of the national vote, mainly due to demographic change and Bush's unpopular presidency. The elite of the party are likely to try to gain votes with newer groups, like Asian immigrants and Hispanics, whose roots haven't sunken in deep enough to any political party. The conservative base, in their party's inability to achieve success in the mainstream and feeling ignored by the Republican bosses may become even more entrenched in their beliefs and be very hostile to the changes that would be necessary to bring in newer voters, perpetuating the cycle of right wing losses and opening those old divides of the right that have been kept under wraps.

Jeb Bush, in an interview with Newsmax magazine on November 30th said that the G.O.P. must avoid becoming the "old white guy party" as well as begin courting Hispanic voters. He's also taken a pro-immigration position, which is not very popular in the base. It's not too likely that the right will break through the grasp that the Democrats have on the Hispanic and black votes. There's little reason for these groups to switch long-time allegiances. Only if the Republicans heavily altered their platform could they do so, but they'd be alienating their current base in the process. The Republicans may become a permanent minority party on Capitol Hill in the long term.

It might be that the Reagan-style conservatism which continued to serve the right on through Bush Sr., Republican revolution of 1994, and George Bush Jr. is on it's death bed. No political ideology of that image and label will share it's popularity of the past. The Bush years may have cemented it's fate. Only something different can get into the Oval Office in the future, and it will be a tooth-and-nail race to see who scurries out ahead. The conservatism of the future will either adapt and lose it's character or remain hard and dogged, and set the course for a more culturally fractured America.

Mike Dennis: The coming war on the right
 
The ultimate goal of the wealthy Republican wing, cut taxes they pay as much as possible, will always have a message that resonate, because who likes to pay taxes.

But folks have seen two times now the "voodoo economic" promise of tax cuts have failed to happen, and instead have left the nation trillions in debt.

Furthermore, the article does not note the phenonemon that millions of boomers will be changing from earners to SS beneficiaries, and with that their focus will change from tax cut to maintaining their benefits, which cannot happen now without massive tax increases.

These factors make it less likely that the tax cut pandering that worked for Reagan and Bush, will have less impact, though it will still have appeal.
 
Once again, you are making all kinds of sweeping conclusions based on one lost election, but that's a staple of the lib media. They cranked out a lot of this same stuff when jimmy carter elected, and he lost in a landslide four years later. Your characterization of who supported the republicans in the last 50 years as just being "Wall Street money-men and a Southern, primarily Christian cultural base" is historically silly - eg Reagan won two landslide elections - in the one against mondale, he won every state except mondale's home state, and the district of columbia, 95%+ black.

The charge that the GOP is the "old white guy party" is silly as well - eg Bush II was a supporter of anti-white male racist discrimination. Republican conservatism at it's best is a ship that lifts all boats - but it has been almost 30 years, all the way back to jimmy carter, since people have gotten a clear demonstration of what ultra liberalism means: abortion, "affirmative action", anti-trade, bureaucracy, regulation, anti-Us sovereignty, retreat and appeasement in foreign policy, socialized medicine, high taxes, "gun control", suppression of free speech and religion.

There's no such thing as conservatism "adapting" - conservatism is conservatism. We live in a democracy, and if the people want leftwing statism and everything that it implies - they'll get it. And the irreducible virtue of a democracy is that the people get what they deserve.
 

The meaning of conservativism changes over time.

When I was younger, conservativism in fiscal policy meant first and foremost that your budet was more or less balanced. Today it means slash taxes and borrow trillions if necessary.

It's one reason I've changed my hat to a liberal one.
 

No. The recent republican RINO congresses and their huge spending doesn't at all represent conservatism - that was the >>GOP<<. To confuse conservatism with the GOP is a fundamental error. And you really think libs will balance the budget??? :lol:
 
No. The recent republican RINO congresses and their huge spending doesn't at all represent conservatism - that was the >>GOP<<. To confuse conservatism with the GOP is a fundamental error. And you really think libs will balance the budget??? :lol:

Could of fooled me that it wasn't conservatives. It sure wasn't liberals who enthusiastically supported Bush in 2000 and 2004.

I admit I don't hold very high optimism of the budget being balanced again. Hopefully they will at least reduce the deficits. Having a surplus budget was a rare situation and opportunity that was squandered as soon as the "conservatives" got the WH.
 
Could of fooled me that it wasn't conservatives. It sure wasn't liberals who enthusiastically supported Bush in 2000 and 2004.

The issue is not who supported Bush, undoubtedly many did as the lesser of two evils, but rather what the proper ideological designation of Bush is:

- Did nothing to oppose abortion
- Supported the illegal alien invasion
- Supported anti-white discrimination
- Spent huge amounts of tax money
- Greatly increased federal control of education

Yaaaaaaaaaa a true red meat conservative - ANYONE can see that. :2funny:
 

Did you vote for him in 2004?
 

I can fully understand why conservatives would want to disown Bush, after he implemented conservative policies that have been utter failure.

But sorry, try hard as you might, we liberals aren't taking him. Nice try tho.

And if I might correct one of your point, Bush spent huge amounts of borrowed money, just like the two conservative presidents who preceded him.
 
Last edited:
I can fully understand why conservatives would want to disown Bush, after he implemented conservative policies that have been utter failure.

"conservative policies"???? :lol:

Talking to you is like talking to a robot. See why the obama supporters are called obamabots? They won't debate - take no account of what yoiu say - make preposterous easily squashed claims like "Bush is a conservative" But no matter what you say to them, they just stolidly repeat their programmed mantras .... :rofl
 

You keep trying to imply that Bush was elected by liberals to effect liberal policies. And those tax cuts that ran up trillions of debt and misleading us into war in Iraq weren't liberals' doing.

Sorry. Ain't gonna sell. You can call me obamabots all day long, we libs are taking your tar baby. Conservatives nominated Bush and elected him twice. Not liberals.

I can see why you'd what to paint him a liberal, nut sorry.

Maybe you can get the libertarians to take him.
 
Last edited:
- invaded Iraq.
 
You keep trying to imply that Bush was elected by liberals to effect liberal policies.

More lunacy! I neither said nor implied anything of the kind. :shock:
 
I can fully understand why conservatives would want to disown Bush, after he implemented conservative policies that have been utter failure.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Bush's failed conservative policies. I'll give you that faith based programing, especially abstinence only is a huge failure, but much of Bush's fiscal policy is pretty liberal. Conservative fiscal policy would be reduce taxes and reduce spending. Bush reduces taxes but did nothing to stop spending. In fact he rammed through Congress one of the most socialist bills of the past decade, this drug bill. I really don't see much of what Bush did as Conservative aside from the social aspects. Fiscally he's a massive liberal. Remember that just because you're a social conservative (or at least use social conservatism to push your agenda) doesn't make you automatically not a liberal. Bush is a big government, big spending, big deficit guy. That's inherently not Conservative. Nor is pushing the federal government into the private matter of a family as he did with Terry Schiavo.

Bush is a neocon. Fiscal Liberal, Social Conservative with a love for force.
 

Bush ran as a conservative. He promised to slash taxes as a conservative. It wasn't the liberals promissing to cut taxes in 2000 or 2004. He attack Iraq as a conservative and won in 2004 as a tough on terrorism conservative. His work and environmental policies have been conservative. He has supported conservative social policies on science and abortion.

He was nominated by conservatives over the more moderate McCain and Gore because of his conservative ideology. He promised conservatives that he'd slash taxes. He was elected by conservatives. He instituted his conservative slash taxes that benefitted the richest policies. He followed a conservative foreign policy.

If he spent more money, the vast bulk of it was on the military and wars, conservative agendas.

It is only after these policies have been show to be utter failures that all of a sudden Bush is supposedly a liberal.

Actually, it's really pretty ****ing funny the way conservatives have so completely threw the candidate they supported for years under the bus and now try to pass him off as a liberal.

Funny, but not surprising. In the worldview of most conservatives I've see here, when things go bad, it's always somehow got to be the liberal's fault. Even when it was done by the government the conservatives put into office.
 
Last edited:
More lunacy! I neither said nor implied anything of the kind. :shock:

Thanks for acknowledging Bush and the Republicans are in no way shape or form liberal and that it wasn't the liberals who put Bush and the Republicans in office.

Maybe you can get the libertarians will take responsiblity for Bush. Good luck with that.
 

I called Bush a RINO in this very thread. Again, you sound like somepone who wants to get in a debate with people, but won't read what they say. :lol:
And the suggestion that Bush is a libertarian is a howler, even coming from YOU. :rofl
 

NOW you're talking to yourself! You set up all kinds of strawmen for what you claim other people think, and then you attack them. You're having your own little debate in only in your own head - nobody else even has to be here! :rofl
 
I called Bush a RINO in this very thread. Again, you sound like somepone who wants to get in a debate with people, but won't read what they say. :lol:
And the suggestion that Bush is a libertarian is a howler, even coming from YOU. :rofl

I know you called Bush a RINO. Good for you.
 
NOW you're talking to yourself! You set up all kinds of strawmen for what you claim other people think, and then you attack them. You're having your own little debate in only in your own head - nobody else even has to be here! :rofl

Disagree and stand by my post.

Bush and the Republicans were the conservative choice, not the liberals.
 
Disagree and stand by my post.

Bush and the Republicans were the conservative choice, not the liberals.

AS I ALREADY SAID, Bush was voted for by conservatives as the lesser of two evils - just like his father. The last CONSERVATIVE president was Ronald Reagan.
 
I know you called Bush a RINO. Good for you.

See? SEE? Someone clarifies a misconception that you are laboring under for a whole thread, and you just brush it off - you don't want to debate, you just want to have a "debate" in your own head.
 
AS I ALREADY SAID, Bush was voted for by conservatives as the lesser of two evils - just like his father. The last CONSERVATIVE president was Ronald Reagan.

Conservatives nominated Bush twice.
 
See? SEE? Someone clarifies a misconception that you are laboring under for a whole thread, and you just brush it off - you don't want to debate, you just want to have a "debate" in your own head.

So you think Bush is a RINO. Every other conservative today is throwing him under the bus too because the conservative policies they earlier supported and Bush implimented have put this nation into huge fiascos.

so what. It only supports my point. It's all the liberals' fault, right? Therefore Bush can't be a conservative.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…