Posted on 02/25/2008 5:34:34 PM PST by ovrtaxt
“Nice to see it written down so eloquently.”
Bump....
LOL! Just imagine what millions and millions of "nothing opinions" will do come November. Expect a crater of epic proportions.
>>I voted for McClain early here in Texas and I will support him in the fall.<<
I voted for Hunter (his name is still on the ballot in Texas).
I agree that there is more than one political dynamic in play.
The first is left vs right. Today, you can characterize this dynamic as 3 groups. The first two groups are those that have drifted to the left and right and are not interested in compromising. The third group is those that have drifted to the center, the third wayers on the left and the compassionate conservatives on the right. They are seeking a compromise on many issues that boil down to the basic, underlying compromise between "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome".
The second dynamic is populists vs elitists. This is the most enduring political division thru-out civilization. It is complicated by events in the 2nd half of the 20th century America, in which both the populists and the elitists split into two groups. The cultural elitists(cultural marxists) split off from the economic elitists and took over the democratic party. This caused the cultural populists to split from the democratic party and Nixon brought them into the GOP. The GOP rode this coalition between the economic elitists and cultural populists to power. Unfortunately, for the GOP, this coalition is dissolving.
Populism always rises during times of change. When the US shifted from an ag economy to and industrial economy there was a rise in populism. Today the economy is shifting from industrial to information/service and populism has risen. The earlier prairie & southern populists were opposed to US Expansionism, today they are opposed to US Globalism.
The dems were able to harness the earlier populist movement and that gave us Roosevelt and the New Deal. Today, many dems think that they can harness today's populist movement into a new New Deal. They think that they can re-unite the cultural and economic populists as "moral populists".
The third political dynamic is paleos versus neos. The paleos want to return to America's "Golden Age" which began at the end of WW 2 and lasted until the late 70s when America began losing her competative edge. They prefer the Cold War to the WOT.
If you look at the campaign between Hillary and Obama, there is not much difference between them on the left vs right spectrum. But Obama is winning on the populist vs elitist spectrum. Hillary is an elitist because she takes corporate and PAC money while Obama doesn't. To counter this, last week, Hillary released her "Populist Manifesto".
If you think come November that millions and millions of you disgruntled conservatives are going to stay home I believe you are going to be very disappointed. I believe you will stay home and many others will, but millions?
No way.
OK. How to get started?
National security: John Bolton
Economy: Newt Gingrich
Values: Dr. James Dobson
Obviously, we need more names in each area.
Reach out to potential candidates. Romney, Santorum, and not just doctrinaire conservatives but people with a background in fighting the left. We need people who will fight every issue and in every district. The Republicans depend on people like Limbaugh to go to the schoolyard and do the actual fighting. Why isn’t Limbaugh or someone like him the candidate? I’m amazed at all this crapola about poor John McCain having to ward off the NY Times for a few days. What do people think Giuliani’s mayoral administration in NYC was for 8 years. It was an everyday WAR with the NY Times. We need people who FIGHT, not wait around for Rush to fight for them.
You know, someday we’re gonna be fighting as partisans in the foothills and living off canned food if we don’t start fighting NOW at the political level.
I gotta think on all this more. Obviously, you’re asking an amazingly important and amazingly large question. It makes me feel too small for my own ideas.
That sounds good. But we, on the right, have become fractious. I think that, in this climate, the bar may be set too high. Reagan, with his arms for hostages and amnesty plan, would be excoriated on FR in 2008. Undoubtedly, this is because of the massive frustration that we all feel.
It is worth a try, however. I would certainly support such an idea.
>>Populism always rises during times of change. When the US shifted from an ag economy to and industrial economy there was a rise in populism. Today the economy is shifting from industrial to information/service and populism has risen.<<
There is some unjustified resentment of information technology. But people who are concerned about losing key industries to China are not necessarily Luddites opposed to all progress. For example, Huawei Technologies (with close ties to the Chinese military) wanted to buy a big chunk of 3Com (which provides security equipment/services to the Pentagon) but did not get US government approval of the deal, and rightly so.
But your post does provide some good insight into the complexities of ideological and political factions today.
I think what really made Hillary so angry at Obama was that he pointed out in Ohio that Bill Clinton was a strong supporter of NAFTA. Clearly, NAFTA took some jobs and created others, but at least among Dem voters in Ohio, it looks like an albatross for Hillary.
If Obama is the Dem nominee, NAFTA and other global trade issues will come back when Obama fights McCain for Ohio. Obama (Hillary would do the same, despite her husband’s history) will remind Ohio and Michigan that McCain said “Some of those jobs aren’t coming back.” The fact that Romney beat McCain in Michigan could be because he was the favorite son, not necessarily because of jobs. Cause and effect are sometimes difficult to pin down, and independents might not vote the same as voters from either party.
I did that for a while, except I would write CLOSE THE BORDERS in Sharpie all over the donation request. They stopped mailing me after a while.
I can tell you this- Jim has posted several articles by Viguerie, so I think he wouldn’t be opposed.
You’re forgetting the globalist vs nationalist dynamic. Hill, Obama and McCain are all united on this.
This is a huge problem. Yes, there are differences on certain issues, but in the big picture long term path, they’re all headed to the same place.
They did in 06. Things havent gotten any better, quite the contrary.
>>Youre forgetting the globalist vs nationalist dynamic. Hill, Obama and McCain are all united on this.<<
McCain has said he would be “tough on China.” I have tried to understand what he means by that. My guess is that he would be tough on human rights and global warming, and would try to defend Taiwan. But would he continue the same Bush trade policies that allow China to amass profits to develop technologies and build hardware to sink our ships?
Its a fact. A world market economy produces more winners and fewer losers than any other system. No one wants to live under the deprivations brought on by the system you advocate.
Additionally, the inter dependability of a world market makes for much more co-operation between the nations.
The most important of those reasons is the widely accepted(among democrats) conspiracy theory that Reagan, Bushes, the VRWC, and the Federalist Society are using NAFTA, CAFTA, and FTAA to undo all the regulatory law that the dems put in place(Roll back the New Deal)
I agree that Dems attack trade agreements in dishonest ways, although I believe that the Bush/Clinton trade deals leave a lot of room for improvement. Voters who believe that NAFTA etc. has taken their jobs may vote against McCain for that reason. In fact many non-WSJ-type Republicans (strong on defense, for low taxes, pro-life etc.) believe that trade agreements have given away too much to China, for example.
So sovereignty is no big deal, just an archaic inconvenience. Grat.
Yup
Yes I know this post was for ovrtxt. Depends on what "globalist" means. If it means that I realize that a global economy is reality, then you could call me a "globalist,"
BUT If it means that as long as some people make money, US sovereignty and hiring US citizens be damned, then, no. Hell no!
Definitions of globalism:
1) A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state’s influence.
2) The idea that events in one country cannot be separated from those in another and that a government should therefore consider the effects of its actions in other countries as well as its own
3) An ideology based on the belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered.
4) The attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.
5) The tendency of investment funds and businesses to move beyond domestic and national markets to other markets around the globe, thereby increasing the interconnectedness of different markets.
Definition 5) is what I think of as “globalism.” It could have good or bad results (or both) depending on policies and people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.