Why the right is losing ground

The article below by Andrew Sullivan in the London Sunday Times explains clearly why the right is losing ground in American politics.
The problem is that history and demographics are against them, and their solutions are only appealing to a shrinking segment of the population.
They can't hope to win a plurality of votes when they keep basing their appeals on a reactionary world view of society.
So far, they have been incapable of articulating a vision that is not worrying to many voters, and they compound their strategic mistakes by blaming the voters for not being smart enough or white enough to appreciate where they are coming from.
The themes that inspire the right today- suspicion of foreigners, attacks on minority ethics, not to mention crackpot distractions like birthers, or the latest cultural attacks on basketball as some sort of liberal or minority pastime, fail to resonate with the vast majority of voters, and it will only get worse for them as America's demographics shift away from the sort of people they pander to.
Meanwhile, Obama is forging a new approach that is much more in tune with who Americans are today- and tomorrow.
He is upturning the race-based Southern strategy that Nixon and Reagan milked so successfully following the Civil Rights movements.

 

I see. Some obscure columnist in London writes something you agree with and suddenly he is an expert on U.S. politics.

Ok. whatever.

I'd wager that one could dig up another obscure columnist in London who disagrees with him...

Here's one for instance.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article5733858.ece

..and another...
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/03/london-riots-il.html

London Riots Illustrate the Decline and Fall of Britain

Posted by Van Helsing at March 26, 2011 10:54 AM

Liberalism is a disease that attacks the moral backbone of a civilization, rotting it into a putrescent jelly that cannot hold society erect. At that point it collapses. This is happening now in Britain, which was one of the greatest nations in history within the memory of many still living today.

Anarchists today broke away from one of the largest protests Britain has ever seen to bring chaos to the streets of London.

The Ritz hotel and Fortnum & Mason were among the buildings targeted in the capital after groups of rampaging youths intent on spreading havoc left the mass anti-cuts demonstration.

Around 500,000 activists and campaigners descended on London this morning to protest at the Government's drastic cuts programme.

The cuts were as inevitable as the riots. As the last great British leader Margaret Thatcher observed, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. "

Here's what liberalism looks like when it reaches full flower:








The white stuff is paint. The cockroaches with the masks are the result of generations that were never expected to take any responsibility for their own parasitical existences. They are Britain's post-civilization future, bred by the Dole.

Next comes authoritarian collectivism, a totalitarian form of serfdom.

If this could happen to Britain, it could happen to America — and it will, if the disease is not cured quickly.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
We appreciate the Brit point of view but it seems they have issues in their own country to address.

 

Obscure London columnist, eh?
The comical ignorance of your remark is only overshadowed by your fear of addressing the topic.

 

Those anarchists never seem to realize that without those greedy bankers and greedy businessmen and greedy CEO's going about their greedy capitalist lives, the dole couldn't even exist. The NHS couldn't exist. None of the Welfare State could exist. It's those greedy bastards who pay the vast vast majority of the taxes that support the (*)(*)(*)(*) welfare state in the first place.

Do they honestly think the working classes alone, without greedy capitalists, could afford to pay for the burgeoning welfare state?

Also this dumbass brit keeps playing the race card. Why is it that the left AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMES RACE PLAYS A PART IN ANYTHING? Seriously? I keep hearing of this "southern takeover of the GOP" Really? Southern takeover?

Then why is my part of the nation(suburban Cincinnati) the largest per capita donation region for the RNC??

Racists and bigots and libertarian loons who wish to return the government to the 19th century do not own the Republican Party. Pro-business, low tax, low-government overhead people run the the Republican Party. At LEAST a plurality of today's republicans are socially progressive. Don't put much stock in "family values" other than what is necessary for domestic tranquility in the home.

Most Republicans are not religious bible thumping quasi-racists, which is the stereotype this stupid OP clings to like guns and religion.

The vast majority of REpublicans feel alienated from minority America because those people are not pro-business people. They(and their Democrat handlers) want to EXPLOIT American businesses for their own social greed.

 

I think he/she addressed the topic quite nicely. Just because you say its so. Does not make it so.

 

That's it? That's all you have?
The topic was addressed and I gave a opposing opinion which I said I could...your response; ad hom attacks and ducking reasonable conversation with an opposing view.

We get it.Your true motive has been exposed.

 

Leftists live in a world of utter make believe....the foundation of which, rests entirely on "data" obtained from manipulating polling questions, and "interpreting" (read: spinning) reality to deflect from their most ardent foe...truth.

The political "shellacking" dished out to leftists a mere 5 months ago is now now being defined by the left as "the right losing ground"

I believe it was James Carville who stated:

The author of the piece...and the OP...are merely continuing Mr. Carvilles delusional wishful thinking.

 

Akula, If you do a search of Joe's last 50ish post you will notice a disturbing trend. He's either spouting off WORSE than average liberal BS with no validity or he's insulting the people that disagree with him. He is a troll and isn't worthy a response TBH.

 

Lol...Only among right-wingers does attacking actions in another country constitute addressing the topic of this thread.
I can understand why you want to distract from the topic, since you can't refute the facts and opinions presented.

 

So why are you still here?

 

What is it you want? Lets say teh right just magically all died tomorrow. And you finally have your progressive minded society?

You do realize taht with leftist politics, there is never such a thing as "enough" right?

Once you make promises to a large group of people, come hell or high water you better meet them. This of course, after a generation or two, leads to higher demands. More wages, more benefits, more collectivism, higher taxes, less quality, more government control.

Where does it end? Look at Venezuela for the answer.

Let me break it down to you in a way you will obviously understand: We can't build Sweden in America.

Got it?

We as a nation are not homogenous enough, either racially, politically, or culturally, to ever make a large social democratic state work in this country. It's politically and culturally impossible for the society that you envision to ever successfully rise in America. I guarantee it.

This country would have to totally collapse and have it's form of government completely rewritten adn become EXTREMELY authoritarian in nature to ever make a successful Social Democratic Welfare State like we see in Sweden. It's impossible culturally for us to do that.

Given this, there will always be a large "conservative" or "right wing" movement, because there will always be Americans who want as complete and total economic and social freedom as they can possibly have and they will fight the Government and Social Democrats forever if need be.

 

I didn't "attack" anything. You're dodging now.
I directly addressed the topic.
I highlighted current events and cited a local (London) source. Same thing you did in your OP....


You're desperately backpedaling now and not helping your case at all.

 

Do all right-wingers have reading comprehension issues?

Here is the topic:
The right is losing ground in America because it continues to propose reactionary ideas that appeal to a shrinking segment of the population.
If it can't get past its racism and bigotry, it will lose even more support as the demographics of the country change away from their traditional base.

What do you propose to do about that?
Tell us that democracy can't work in a multicultural society so we need to balkanize the country or become a dictatorship?
Scream even louder about immigrant freeloaders or Kenyan usurpers?
Alienate even more voters with your thinly veiled hysterics about race or religion?

If so, you are woefully unprepared to deal with the reality of a changing US demographic- and you are proving the thesis of the thread perfectly.
Thanks for playing.

Meanwhile, Obama does know how to deal with the changing demographics and is making progress in demonstrating how to govern a democratic, multicultural society.

I realize that this must drive the cons crazy, but hey, adapt or become irrelevant.

 

The author makes the mistake of assuming that race is either the only variable or far more important than any others.

Any cogent analysis of the American political landscape will find that war and the economy are the major drivers for Presidential elections, as well as the charisma of the individuals running. Race is a minor issue, as the people most likely to cast a vote based on race are firmly in the extreme wings of their respective parties and wouldn't vote for the other party anyway.

Obama is going to win reelection in 2012 not for the reasons the author assumes. He will win because the economy will most likely be much improved relative to the rock bottom position it was in when he took over and because the Republicans don't have anyone nearly as charismatic. The war issue is a wash because both sides seem hell bent on perpetuating war. Of course, if the economy tanks sometime in mid-2012, Obama would be in big trouble.

 

Um... I think you need a lesson on what a libertarian is.


As far as the article goes. Its insecurity of the liberals in the UK. THey know that their plans are doomed to fail. They know that their position of collectivism fails, and when it doesn't results in totalarianism.

As such, they are lashing out at the US capitalism as a last sake effort to prove that this system is a failure in an effort to justify their own failure.

THat is how progressive liberalism works. THey demand change, and as such must point out how the current system fails. Since the current failed system in Europe is failing, they must point to our capitalistic approach and prove it a failure in order to push their own agenda.

Americans are wising up.

 

Um facts from November say this is bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

/thread

 

Are you talking about those same reactionary ideas that thumped President Obama and his party last Nov 2nd? Just wondering?

 

Indeed, it cannot be denied that "Americans" are increasingly degenerate, which is why creeps like Carter, Clinton and Obama found their way into the White House.

 

I think the notion that racism and bigotry are the impetus behind the actions of the Republican Party is misguided. None of what the author describes must defined as a racial issue. It's more like the author has identified the issues and then said, "Well, race can be a factor in all of these." As is often the case, it's very easy to fit the facts to a theory when you enter your investigation with a conclusion firmly in mind.

 

The group that you saw were antiauthoritarian, anarchists.

And what is failing is the conservadurism. The riots is for the conservadurism, are you so blind that you don't see that?

And I agree with to cure the disease...The conservative and neoconservative ideology and neoliberal, the rightist ideology; the ideology that brought us to this crisis.

 

I took neither side. See post # 1 and my response (which you quoted).

My point was that the OP using an obscure London opinion writer as an "authority" on U.S. politics in order to back up his own prejudice against "conservatives" or "the right" is flawed logic.

I also said that certainly another obscure London opinion writer could be found to take the opposite position...and I cited a couple to back up what I said.

I also pointed out, as you can see, that England has a few problems of their own re; right vs. left.

EDIT: I won't comment on "conservadurism". Whatever it is.

 

But unfortunately, not the major drivers of right-wing rhetoric.
The amount of effort they spend denigrating Obama as a Muslim, a Kenyan usurper, a communist, a terrorist sympathizer, and attacking immigrants and the undeserving poor, while also playing the race card whenever they can wedge it in, distracts from whatever cogent argument that they could make about war or the economy, and turns off huge swaths of the electorate, who sensibly see those attacks on Obama and their fellow countrymen as evidence of the right's general opinion toward hispanics, blacks, minorities and non-Christians.
Even on war, the right keeps shooting itself in the head with its unprincipled flip-flopping on Libya, since it becomes painfully obvious that their changing positions are only adopted to attack Obama and don't reflect any serious position about the best policies.
The economy is problematic because both parties share blame for its condition, but memories are still fresh that the meltdown happened during the Bush term, as well as the bailouts that were so unpopular.
Maybe the opposition's weakness on war and the economy makes them averse to discussing those topics and leads them to try to demonize the foreign-looking black guy with the funny name instead- which is one of the themes of the Sullivan article.

 

Good job Joe. You know you've done a good thing when the right-wingers flock to the thread to derail it.

That is an excellent and accurate summation of what is/has been occurring in American politics. The right deliberately and systemically attacks minorities and then complains that minorities just refuse to vote wholesale for their candidates. Meanwhile, the right-wing base continues to shrivel in on itself to the point where you pretty much have to have a pedigree to get into their tent. Sure they've got a big tent but that's not very useful if there's only a few people milling about inside because the entrance is zipped shut.

I've also read an interesting article which could be a corollary about how it is a myth that people move more conservative as they grow older. The author argues that people actually get more liberal as they get older it's just that they start out more conservative so a move towards liberal, even a giant one, still leaves them right of center.

Add to this the various campaigns that the Republicans and their spinoffs have to discourage and disenfranchise voters and you know that the higher ups on the right realize that they are in a losing game.

Make no bones about it. November 2012 will not be a redux of November 2010. Voters will show up in HUGE numbers as alot of politically heated events have taken place and the right continues its constant attack on the very social fabric of our country. They are cutting deeper and even members of their own party are starting to question their true intent.

This is the reason why only a few crazies on the right have declared their candidacy for President.

 

Yes. Look how long the honeymoon with the *********s lasted.
Walker faces a recall threat, democrats are newly energized by the over-reaching political thuggery that they see coming from the newly elected extremists, and the mainstream repubs are already complaining about the extremist right-wingers that got elected.

 

"Sensibly"? Well, that's certainly a matter of opinion. With mouthpieces so willing to feebly paint race across every issue, it's not surprising that people would see it as a prime motivator of the Right. If you see something enough times, regardless of its validity, you eventually will begin to believe it.

Nothing you or Mr. Sullivan has said suggests an explanation behind race being the most likely driver. You're both stating it as a conclusion, but as I said, it's very easy to fit the facts around a theory when the conclusion has already been decided.

If you have something more than "Well, what else could it be?", now would be the time to offer it.