Why the right is losing ground

Other than that it's a very objective and intelligent post. /sarcasm

 

You've spent multiple posts attacking the writer of the article and the OP but have yet to address the major points.

That makes your posts nothing more than trolling.

 

You purposely mis characterize.


Trolling?

I'll have to defer to your advanced level of experience on that subject.
I addressed the topic and the OP long ago..way back in post #2.

 

Well, I've addressed the major points, and I have heard nothing from its defenders aside from the usual "they must be racists because that's what makes the most sense to me" tripe.

Again, if you have something to substantiate the claim, preferably something utilizing deductive reasoning, then please present it. I'm not asking for absolute proof, but even a qualitative guess as to why racism is the only reasonable explanation would be nice.

 

IOW, because he said so.

 

if they had a job they would not have the time to act like the spoilied children that they are.

 

The assumption of the article is that Democrats can always count on the votes of Hispanics, but that is not true. George W. Bush got a big chunk of the Hispanic vote.

 

Don't mis-characterize what Sullivan said or I added.
Nobody said that race was the most likely driver of right-wing rhetoric.

I think that the main driver is the eternal suspicion of the reactionary mind and the inability to deal with change.
It invariably leads the right astray and alienates them from life, which is overwhelmingly about diversity and change.

That is why the right is losing ground.
The success that they saw in the 2010 election was based largely on fear-mongering and exploiting people's ignorance about what is going on.
It is not possible to run a viable society on such themes.

A vibrant society has to be adaptable and progressive and appreciate diversity and accept change.

Until the right can come up with a reason for governing that resonates with the positive aspects of human nature, rather than preying on the negative aspects of human nature, it will never be a viable philosophy with a future.
It will only be a temporary refuge for fearful and ignorant people.

 

This "change"....define it.

Does it have anything to do with continuing the "bloodless revolution" of incrementally "interpreting"/ bastardizing the Constitution to reflect/install a centrally planned, collectivist "utopia" called "social democracy"... that's failing...miserably... all over Europe?

If so, few...save the 20 some odd percent of radical activists who reside on the extreme far left fringe...want the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) your selling.

 

I guess you didn't read the article, because if you had you'd realize that race is by far the most prominent driver mentioned (hint: it's part of the title).

But fine. If you don't want to discuss the article we'll talk about your silly belief that the rightwing mind is unable to deal with change and is eternally suspicious.

What are your grounds for believing this? I certainly hope you aren't basing it on the fact that the right is relying heavily on fearmongering. I only mention that because you can find fearmongering in Presidential politics as far back as the Adams and Jefferson race in 1800. And let's not forget that little mid-19th century scuffle among the states. Even more recently, I remember hearing leftwing types prattle on incessantly about how George W. Bush and his ilk were destroying our freedoms. (Those people don't seem any less free today, though, do they?)

If the history of politics in America has taught us anything, it's that the two party system is cyclical. The sides trade control back and forth. Despite this inevitability, every time one party slips and the other rushes to snag the reigns of power, the victors begin crowing about how the people have finally wised up and made the right choice.

Of course, this doesn't even address the fact that you are wrong about the rightwing mind being unable to change. It's changed considerably over the years. As late as the 1960s, conservatives were very much in favor of smaller government. This shifted as the neo-conservative faction gained traction. The rightwingers moved more toward big government. Aside from the mid-90s detour back towards some semblance of fiscal responsibility, the Republican Party has made steady strides toward a federal government more involved in our daily lives.

Frankly, I'm not quite sure why the rightwing movement toward bigger government is such a bone of contention with you. The wrangling between the Left and the Right can be largely boiled down to a competition to see who can spend federal money. Even with the advent of the tea party, the Right continues to remain firmly in the big government camp. You may not like where they choose to spend money, but surely you cannot be opposed to their spending it. I mean, isn't this the adaptable progress you're clamoring for?

Have no fear. The Left will screw up in a few years. It's not that they are inherently worse than the Right. It's the system of governance. It encourages the ascension of ambitious people to positions of power. This ambition always leads to a corruption of ideology and the application of selfishness to magnanimous objectives. When that happens, and it will, they will turn back to the Right. And the Right will fall prey to the same foibles. It's cyclical. You aren't going to rationalize that away no matter how desperate you are to believe in it.

 

"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."
-Per Akula


Hmmmmm....

I beg to differ grass hopper. The astute observers/protestors who have expressed the anger are the pressure valve to wich government would be greatly behoofed to pay close attention; for it is greatly out numbered by it's populous.


If anything I would note that some of us the glutenous aristocratic elite are consuming without cease. Therefore are infact metaphorically speaking A,

VIRUS defined by Wikipedia as follow's:



"A virus is a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms. Most viruses are too small to be seen directly with a light microscope. Viruses infect all types of organisms, from animals and plants to bacteria and archaea.[1] Since the initial discovery of the tobacco mosaic virus by Martinus Beijerinck in 1898,[2] about 5,000 viruses have been described in detail,[3] although there are millions of different types.[4] Viruses are found in almost every ecosystem on Earth and are the most abundant type of biological entity.[5][6] The study of viruses is known as virology, a sub-speciality of microbiology."

Those protestors are the CURE

 

I think that people get bogged down in labels, but themes remain.
There are opposing tendencies in life, regardless of who you attach them to at any one time.

For example, in the 19th century, racism was cutting-edge progressive philosophy.
The west was intellectually certain that blacks were an inferior race, and they sought to scientifically define it with theories like eugenics.
In the 20th century, racism became contentious and moved toward where it is headed today in the 21st century- a reactionary, backward idea that is rejected by civilized people.

Of course change happens to everything. To think otherwise is either ignorant or intransigent, and when people get sidetracked by details they often fail to grasp the larger picture.

Still, there are always sets of opposing tendencies that define life at any moment.
The struggle between progressive versus reactionary ideas.
The conflict between inclusive versus exclusive ideas about society.
The players may change but the themes remain.

The theme of the article that I posted is that the US right today is losing ground because the themes it holds dear are incompatible with the way the country is headed demographically and at odds with the reality that the world is a very diverse place.
By fighting against these two inescapable facts of life today in the US, the right is unable to connect with the aspirations of the majority of Americans today.
When the country was more homogenous, it was easier to find support for the sort of exclusive ideas that the right proposes today.
In other more homogenous cultures, those same ideas could seem more palatable. In fact, some homogenous countries can be quite xenophobic and adopt policies that Americans today would find incompatible with US society.

I find your comments about the size of government or the historical differences among political philosophies irrelevant, because the point that Sullivan was making is that in today's multicultural, diverse society, any political philosophy that rails against diversity and multiculturalism is swimming against the current.

Obama not only knows this, he embodies this, and Americans sense this and are drawn to it as strongly as they are repelled by the reactionary ideology of the right.

Right now, today, the US right holds the distinction of being on the wrong side of the way things are going, and no amount of Chicken Little scenarios about how certain segments of the population are destroying the country, or how we need to go backward to some mythical time instead of forging new ways of dealing with the messiness that comes naturally from a free and diverse society, are going to provide a viable model for people in the society to rally around.

If you want to lose sight of that central theme, and get lost in arguing minutia, or distract from what is going on now with references to how things used to be, or rationalize the errors of the right today with the excuse that other groups were culpable in the past, or simply dismiss it all with the claim that in the future others will also screw up, that is your choice, but it doesn't diminish the fact that the right is losing ground today because it can't deal with the way things are changing and it clings to an unworkable model of society.

 

That you find my comments irrelevant does not make them so. Frankly, I find your extrapolations (which are based on short term trends and conveniently ignore greater historical precedent) to be almost as laughable as your belief that the two political sides are polar opposites of each other.

As I pointed out, the Right is capable of change. That you don't particularly care for the direction does not alter this fact, and your refusal to admit this doesn't exactly help your credibility. The nation as a whole has moved away from an emphasis on the individual and toward a more populist philosophy. As a result, the two parties have shifted accordingly. There is far more in common with the two of them than is different. But they like to focus on the differences because, well, you don't win elections by stating how similar you are to the incumbents. You've fallen into the common trap of believing these differences are monumental.

The reason the two parties are as powerful now as ever is precisely because they have learned to adapt to cultural changes. When one side gets too far away from the middle, they lose big. This prompts a change toward a more centrist philosophy.

But you are correct that there are opposing tendencies that define life. One of those balances is the conservation of existing culture versus improvements in existing culture. You've made the mistake – and you aren't the first or last – of believing that the Left stands for progress while the Right stands for stagnation. This banal polarized thinking aside, there is a balance to be found between the two. They each seek varying degrees of conservation and progress. It's as pointless to eliminate that which works in the name of progress as it is to never seek improvement in the name of conservation. A prudent approach would be a marriage of these two philosophies. And at any given time one side will be closer to the ideal combination than the other. But this balance shifts, as I've repeatedly stated. Fortunately, (and contrary to your rabidly partisan view), shifting from one side to the other is not the difference between moving forward or backward. We're always moving forward. It's simply that for half the people at any given time, their predilection for political petulance blinds them to this because their side isn't in control.

 

As soon as he pulled the race card I immediately stopped reading. The Republican party is a dead end road to nowhere. 95% of TEA party victors in Congress are neo-cons that are just as loyal to the Republican party as the non-TEA party candidates. It was a scam that most Republicans fell for, and they'd fall for it again because theyre all morons

 

The quote you are trying to attribute to me was from the article.
Grasshopper.

 

Good OP.

I can't get as involved in this forum as I used to because the pure hatred that exists in this forum is bad for my high blood pressure. So I read it a little bit at a time and this was a good OP.

One point that wasn't brought up is the shift Republicans have had in the past 10-20 years more and more right. If Reagan was alive today, his beliefs would peg him as a Liberal.

This new extreme Republicanism is why I stopped being a Republican around 2006, after having been one my whole life.

We can look at Obama and say good job for dealing with the problems left at your doorstep and all the new problems that came up in the past few years- to still be able to keep it together. And I think a degree of that is physically being the President... that you can campaign whatever you want but as the elected winner, the problem ends up in your lap regardless of party affiliation.

I expect the 2012 Presidential Election to be nothing short of a county fair of candidates all squaking their hawkish opinion about irrelevant things while ignoring the fact that Obama's done a pretty good job.

 

Goes both ways, chief....but you folks on the left are only programmed to perceive any shifts to the "right"....

If JFK were alive today, neo-liberal democrats would define him as a right wing nutter....

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" flies directly in the face of progressive leftist agenda forever seeking confiscatory wealth redistribution, centrally planned collectivism, and "social democracy" dictated by an unrestricted, authoritarian federal government.

 

This is the opinion that I believe has the most credibility (great post)-and I might add that other journalists here in the United States have written similar articles-(not to offend this British journalist-because it was very well written)
and hugely supported by the Cencus #'s that just came out.

 

Sullivan is a conservative journalist born in England who has lived in the US since 1984 and focuses on the American political primarily.
His articles during the Bush/Gore 2000 election were very pro-Bush, so he is neither an ignorant foreigner nor a partisan liberal when it comes to American politics.

 

And this also is a very good post---I hope all the responses don't get your blood pressure up again,I for one appreciate your opinions--KUDOS

 

I have noticed this type of correlation also. The pleasant places to live tend to lean more to the left politically (of course, so do the bad places in America's inner cities). But I think it is not merely a simple cause and effect relationship.

Race affects Politics
The ethnic/racial composition seems to play an important role in the USA. Wealthier whites that do not live near poor minorities tend to vote progressive, while wealthy whites that do live near poor minorities tend to vote conservative. But in the less populated rural areas, which do not have high levels of economic inequality, most of the people tend to vote conservative, even though there are few minorities. "Working class" whites typically vote conservative, but the poorest whites still vote progressive. Teachers and public employees almost all vote progressive, while small business owners usually vote conservative, regardless of their ethnicity/race.

California
Most of the reason for that the coastal areas in the southern part of California are progressive leaning is because there are so many Hispanics, that tend to be poorer. The northern coastal areas tend ot be progressive for different reasons. There have traditionally been fishing and lumber industries along the coast here, where worker's unions were influential in politics. There are also cultural reasons, as there was also a migration of idealistic "hippies" toward the northern part of the state along the coasts around 1960-1970. Those rebeling against the current social and economic system sought more land to found new communities, so moved north where it was less populated.

The population density and ethnic diversity is not evenly distributed throughout the State. Nearly 1 out of 5 people in California both live within Los Angeles County and are non-white.

The county of Riverside has been especially devestated by the housing collapse. Many people moved to Riverside, away from the coasts, to escape to overcrowding and unaffordable housing in the southern part of the state. But most of the local economy was just based on construction, it could not last. Now the people here are very desperate and angry, and the county has become politically polarised into extreme left and right: there is both a Communist and National Socialist political party, with plenty of obnoxious political stickers on peoples cars. The right is resentful of the high levels of immigration (many working class whites were displaced from jobs and housing away from the coast) and the left wants redistribution of wealth, presumably from all the wealthy that live in Orange county to the west.

Sweden
In Sweden, the people in the cities tend to vote progressive, while the people in the rural areas tend to vote for conservatives. And it seems that females are much more likely to vote for progressives, while males are much more likely to vote conservative. The wealthiest people tend to be conservative, while the poor in the ethnic communities all vote for progressives, which is in one way ironic since most of the muslims would be considered socially ultra-conservative. Politics in Sweden, of course, is more complicated than the two-party politics in the USA.

Washington
Going beyond the simple connection between wealth/poverty and political affiliation, I think it is the pleasant environment itself that creates progressives, not the other way around. And unpleasant environments create conservatives. This can clearly be seen in the American state of Washington, where the west side is progressive and the east side is conservative. Both sides are becoming more ethnically diverse in recent years, but in different ways. The eastern region is seeing an influx of very poor mexican farm workers, while the western region has many asians (from eastern asia) that tend to be highly educated. Many of those asians are conservatives, while the mexicans will become progressives, but this will have just the opposite effect on the white population. The whites in the east will resent all the poverty and crime, and high fertility rates, while the whites in the west will embrace the minorities with similar wealth levels. So it is to be suspected that this increasing ethnic diversity will only perpetuate the political divide between the two regions of the state. (now back to California again...) This is also probably the same reason that San Bernadino, Kern, and Tulare counties in the southeast part of California are so conservative, because of all the agricultural workers who have come from mexico. The other people in these counties do not want to be taxed to pay for these poor mexican workers and their families. But I predict this will change as the mexican population increases and the newly arrived migrants establish themselves politically, as has already happened in Imperial county (to the far southeast of the state).

 

That is almost EXACTLY why concepts bolstering such a society will be successful. It seems that "conservatism" seeks to anchor things to the past, but those kinds of OLD ideas aren't sufficient to 'contain' or 'guide' momentum toward the future.

Mr. Obama realizes that (and so do many others). Those on the overly-extreme Right, are out of touch... for myriad reasons; nevertheless, the effect of that is what it is (upon themselves and others).

That is very important.

 

I saw this coming in the late 80's, when certain charlatans sought to align "Christianity" with "conservatism". As a very spiritual person, I found that to be horrifying.

I was very Conservative myself... then I realized that God wasn't hanging out with just Republicans and Conservatives. As a matter of conscience, I chose to separate myself from the abject hypocrisy proudly exhibited by many on the Right.

 

LOL. Your ignorance about anarchism is impressive. Anarchists don't want state.

And what do you expect as everyday the workers have less rights. Do you expect that workers will be quiet seeing how they are losing all the things for what they fought and died in the past. Seeing how the rich are gaining much more power, and the workers, the ones that produce. Like it or not, Silicon, but the workers without that rich ones can produce, but the rich without workers cannot do anything. That is the greatest difference between ones or others.

Only rich will be able to produce when machines could produce everything.

And about akula, liberals and anarchists is like compare lemons with apples. Anarchists don't have any kind of relation with liberals. And there are photos of anarchists, the real defenders of the worker class. And don't try to accuse of violence to one side, because the states are becoming everyday more fascist, starting the country from where I am, Spain. The conservative are reviving the fascism at impressive speed and everyday the country looks again how it was during the dictatorship of Franco.

What do you expect people will do when they are seeing that the high spheres are continually attacking them, criminalizing, creating political prisoners, attacking any dissidence. And what we are seeing in Spain, it is not only there, is in all the world as the crisis continues the states become more totalitarian, and don't expect stability. There will be more confrontantion, caused by the states trying to enworse the lifes of the people.

 

The only thing that is going on in many countries is that the political landscape is splitting up. More of the masses are heading towards the flanks. In e.g. France socialists vs far right growing. They'll keeping on pushing the masses in that direction (via propaganda and economical problems) Why this is happening is very simple, because in Germany the same happened. This is how they one day get absolute power, that is a majority of the voters, behind one party. When that point has arrived it's to late to do something. They can only reach that via propaganda, economics and chaos in the system/society.
German history is the only thing you have to look at every time you read this kind of news or a political story from a writer of a news paper of the msm.