economist.com/news/leaders/2 … epublicans
Conservatives ought take heed as they are making their collective bed. i think this primary is a good example of why conservative parties end up being really bad at the actual business of governing the nation.
UPF,
As a thumb rule, right wing parties do well in elections in bad times and left wing parties well in good times.
It is not a rocket science. The human nature is the reason behind it.
When things go well, people demand more and more rights, liberties and facilities, and leftists continue to pamper those until the situation goes out of and. And, when the things start to affect the daily life and the basic and essential needs of the people, the very same people, who were supporters of left initially, vote them out and prefer conservatives. This continues till the situation becomes normal. Then,once again, people vote conservatives out and leftists in.
Wise leaders undrstand this and change their approach according to the situation.
People prefer safety and basics first. But, when they get it, their lust for more increases and they demand more and more, untill they make a mess of it.
Thus the cycle goes (though in democracy only). Most of the history supports this.
US is at the verge of when things will go out of hand. My gusses is that the next US election would be won by consevatives, though it depends how exactly the situation will be at the time of the elections.
with love,
sanjay
By the way, as a thumb rule, consevatives are better rulers though liberals are more pupular.
with love,
sanjay
I believe there is a lot of ‘buyer’s regret’ out there for those who voted for Obama.
Zinnati, while I agree with in principle with the thing you’re saying about people doing better or worse in elections based on the things you point out, I have to also say that the article linked at the OP of this thread is not some kind of fringe author just taking a stab for political reasons. The right wing in America have seriously disenfranchised a lot of their normal voters. They’ve made no secret of their disdain for the minorities, homosexuals, women and equality. As more and more people become poor, and as the minority population increases, and as more and more people become educated about how different economic theories can change their daily lives, I believe that the general pattern here will erode to some extent. The 1% have made themselves famous for taking bad ethics that have bad consequences for the masses to a whole new level. Most Americans realize that we got the opposite of the new deal here in the last 10 years. The old racists and sexists and traditionalists are dying off as we speak and I think that overall, the US will shift left. I mean…half the country thinks Obama is doing too much for banks and rich people as it is, and most of the country thinks that the far right is as radical as they’ve been in our lifetimes. So that being the case, I expect Hillary, or whoever gets nominated on the left, to be a bit further left than Obama, and I expect the right wing candidate to either move toward the center or suffer a devastating loss. The trend lately has been for the right wing people to go further right. They could’ve taken an inch in the last election, but the insisted on a mile and lost miserably because when social media makes it easier for everyone in the democracy to get involved, and when voter turnout is higher, more of those poor, downtrodden masses show up at the ballot boxes, and more of their interests get served.
Why because he said what you already believe? Just because you want to believe you are in the middle, doesn’t mean you are. Last election the republican president hopeful nominated was the left wing choice, a man with a history of socialism (the medical policies that were the “source material” for Obamacare), a man that backed down from the repeated cries of racism from the racist left. Maybe, this time around, the Republicans will do what actually allows them to win and vote for a Conservative canidate. Don’t agree with me, name one freaking time where the middle of the road won for the republicans? Though, I might be willing to call George Bush middle of the road, unlike President Obama, he actually attempted to “reach across the aisle,” stupid man.
Yes, that is why a lot of the old guard is scared, Cantor was an example of the people that had disenfranchised the normal voters.
BS and a ad hominem… But you really believe it… Though “equality” is a bunch of useless nonsense made up for a talking point. I do agree that the right will never be for “equality” it is essentially, anything that is not “right wing,” once one becomes for “equality” you can’t be on the right… I’m starting to think the progressives might change their name again, Progressive failed, because people figured out how full of shit the policies are. Liberal failed, because people figured out how full of shit the policies are. Soon they will be the Equalists, being against them is being against equality. And they will fail, because eventually people will see how full of shit their policies are.
Agreed, you do believe that.
The "1% is a fictional enemy. Those in it float in and then immediatly out every year. Few that start in it a year, end in it in that same year. This is the exact same shit that Germany used, demonize a group (in their case it was the Jews, fyi), and you can get away with taking away rights from anyone in the name of it. I guess the left should finally be proud about it though, with the 1% being essentially a fictional group, they can deamonize them for all of history, demanding more privileges for those more than equal.
The new deal was a pile of shit that held down America for years, some of the effects of which still hold us back to this day. The keynesian models failed, they have failed every time they’ve been tried.
Yes, sadly though, thanks to shitty educational institutions we have more racists coming along. And though they don’t think that “blacks” are less than human, they still treat them like they do.
Talk to a right winger sometime, an intelligent one, and we’ll tell you how happy we are at the bank bailout. That was a leftist/progressive move, everything within the state, nothing outside. President Bush should be ashamed for allowing it to happen.
That is really far left.
Again, everytime they move to the center they lose, however, every time the leftist candidate moves to the right, they do better, IE Bill Clinton.
Only way they win.
“A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” - Alexander Fraser Tytler
I guess it wouldn’t be so apt, but that is what you are talking about, people voting “themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.”
Obama isn’t even all that liberal, except relative to an ever-increasingly conservative Republican party.
Staunch conservatives don’t govern well because they are purists, and take compromise to be a sign of weakness.
Who?
Ah yes. THOSE normally right wing voters.
Erik is right.
Also, The Economist article is a classic example of a liberal who doesn’t actually want Republicans to win telling Republicans what they need to do, which is essentially “Support everything we leftists support, but be better than we are at coming up with ways to pay for it.” The left apparently thinks fiscal responsibility means knowing secret ways to pay for whatever new baloney comes into a progressive’s head.
Cantor got ejected by the purist block of the conservative party because they didn’t like the fact that he was actually trying to run a nation rather than just oppose everything the president does. Oh wait, he DID oppose everything the President did, but that STILL isn’t good enough, because he wanted to maybe work with the White House on immigration reform. Fucking Virginia rednecks. What they did was vote for someone who will go to Washington and make sure it continues NOT to work - THAT’S what i’m talking about when i say that conservatives are really bad at running nations - left to their own devices they will elect leaders (like Brat) who are ideologically dedicated to the notion that Government is bad and can’t work.
mr reasonable: Zinnati, while I agree with in principle with the thing you’re saying about people doing better or worse in elections based on the things you point out, I have to also say that the article linked at the OP of this thread is not some kind of fringe author just taking a stab for political reasons."
E: Why because he said what you already believe? Just because you want to believe you are in the middle, doesn’t mean you are. Last election the republican president hopeful nominated was the left wing choice, a man with a history of socialism (the medical policies that were the “source material” for Obamacare), a man that backed down from the repeated cries of racism from the racist left. Maybe, this time around, the Republicans will do what actually allows them to win and vote for a Conservative canidate. Don’t agree with me, name one freaking time where the middle of the road won for the republicans? Though, I might be willing to call George Bush middle of the road, unlike President Obama, he actually attempted to “reach across the aisle,” stupid man.
K: bush “reached across the aisle” really? It never happened. bush was my way or the highway politics.
mr reasonable: The right wing in America have seriously disenfranchised a lot of their normal voters."
E: Yes, that is why a lot of the old guard is scared, Cantor was an example of the people that had disenfranchised the normal voters.
mr reasonable: They’ve made no secret of their disdain for the minorities, homosexuals, women and equality.
E: BS and a ad hominem… But you really believe it… Though “equality” is a bunch of useless nonsense made up for a talking point. I do agree that the right will never be for “equality” it is essentially, anything that is not “right wing,” once one becomes for “equality” you can’t be on the right… I’m starting to think the progressives might change their name again, Progressive failed, because people figured out how full of shit the policies are. Liberal failed, because people figured out how full of shit the policies are. Soon they will be the Equalists, being against them is being against equality. And they will fail, because eventually people will see how full of shit their policies are.
K: So many points here. OK, umm, the right has a major disdain for minorities, homosexuals, women and equality and
they don’t even hide it. If you are not wealthy, white middle age man, they are pretty much against you.
I think you mistaking their rhetoric with their actions and their actions say, we hate everyone who is not wealthy,
white, middle age, male. (which by the way is me, I am their target group)
mr reasonable: As more and more people become poor, and as the minority population increases, and as more and more people become educated about how different economic theories can change their daily lives, I believe that the general pattern here will erode to some extent.
E: Agreed, you do believe that.
mr reasonable: The 1% have made themselves famous for taking bad ethics that have bad consequences for the masses to a whole new level.
E: The "1% is a fictional enemy. Those in it float in and then immediatly out every year. Few that start in it a year, end in it in that same year. This is the exact same shit that Germany used, demonize a group (in their case it was the Jews, fyi), and you can get away with taking away rights from anyone in the name of it. I guess the left should finally be proud about it though, with the 1% being essentially a fictional group, they can deamonize them for all of history, demanding more privileges for those more than equal.
K; the 1% is fictional? really, So the Kock brothers didn’t really try to buy entire state houses and senates?
that is a bold move of yours, deny that the 1% doesn’t exist. You are the first person to deny that the 1% exist.
Do you deny we landed on the moon or are you a holocaust denier or do you think we live on a flat earth because
your denial of the 1% pretty much puts you into tin hat terrain. Now as far as your comparision with Nazi Germany,
the first person in any argument who brings up Nazi’s automatically loses the argument, that a fact, jack.
mr reasonable: Most Americans realize that we got the opposite of the new deal here in the last 10 years.
E: The new deal was a pile of shit that held down America for years, some of the effects of which still hold us back to this day. The keynesian models failed, they have failed every time they’ve been tried.
K: You really have no idea of what you are talking about. Feel free to show me where Keynesian models failed.
mr reasonable: The old racists and sexists and traditionalists are dying off as we speak and I think that overall, the US will shift left.
Yes, sadly though, thanks to shitty educational institutions we have more racists coming along. And though they don’t think that “blacks” are less than human, they still treat them like they do.
mr reasonable: I mean…half the country thinks Obama is doing too much for banks and rich people as it is, and most of the country thinks that the far right is as radical as they’ve been in our lifetimes.
E: Talk to a right winger sometime, an intelligent one, and we’ll tell you how happy we are at the bank bailout. That was a leftist/progressive move, everything within the state, nothing outside. President Bush should be ashamed for allowing it to happen.
K: If I find a right winger who is intelligent, I will ask them :-"
mr reasonable: So that being the case, I expect Hillary, or whoever gets nominated on the left, to be a bit further left than Obama
E: That is really far left.
K: as she has mellowed in the years, I would say, she was slightly to the left of Obama (and I consider Obama
center/right president)
mr reasonable: and I expect the right wing candidate to either move toward the center or suffer a devastating loss.
E: Again, everytime they move to the center they lose, however, every time the leftist candidate moves to the right, they do better, IE Bill Clinton.
mr reasonable: The trend lately has been for the right wing people to go further right.
E: Only way they win.
K: in conservative states, anywhere that is more middle, they lose and lose big.
mr reasonable: They could’ve taken an inch in the last election, but the insisted on a mile and lost miserably because when social media makes it easier for everyone in the democracy to get involved, and when voter turnout is higher, more of those poor, downtrodden masses show up at the ballot boxes, and more of their interests get served.
E: Democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." - Alexander Fraser Tytler
K; the only ones getting generous gifts from the treasury is the wealthy in forms of tax cuts and subsidies.
recall that the massive and I mean massive shift in money from the taxes and other forms of public subsidies
has gone from the middle class and working poor to the wealthy, the imaginary 1% that doesn’t exist even though
everybody else on planet earth seems to know they exist. The entitlement generation is the wealthy feeding
at the public treasury trough. The facts speak for themselves except for those who deny even facts exist.
Kropotkin
You seem to be defining “bad at running a nation” as “bad at going along with whatever progressives want to do.” I can only assume that if you had a nation of all or almost-all conservative leaders, they would be doing other things besides opposing the non-existent progressive reform proposals, and Washington would work just fine. In a case like that, the few liberals would be either doing nothing at all, or else opposing the conservative agenda, and then your criticism would apply to them.
Peter I dunno how you do it. Erik denies common knowledge and asserts things no one’s ever heard of. But hey…being from Alabama I’ve grown accustomed to people from the far right becoming more and more delusional about the mentality of the majority in this country.
No child left behind, a liberal written policy that was instigated by President Bush so that he could reach across the isle. The entirety of his last few years he passed every stupid bill that was put before him by the liberal lead congress. The bank bailouts were done by congress, though he mistakenly agreed to them.
Any proof of hate? Or just bigotry on your part?
Percentage income groups move and shift year to year. Yes, their are rich people, and yes, sometimes they are in the 1%, but the 1% is made up of people that have just sold a very expensive house, which does not happen every year for that person. Or just gained a profit for a 5-15 year venture. They made a lot of money that year, but next to none stay in it they year after, and even less last more than two years.
As to the Koch brothers rhetoric, proof of rich people is not proof of some master 1% group of people.
Just because you have not heard it does not mean I am the first. Read some Thomas Sowell.
Nope, don’t deny the holocaust, nor that the earth is flat. ← a joke, I know the earth is a polyhedron with 3.5 sides. ← another joke, it’s 6.75 sides.
But not a denial of what I said.
If you show me where they succeeded.
mmm, I do enjoy a good bigot, someone that lets their bias blind them to individuals. They amuse me. That is why I love you Peter.
No comment.
I disagree.
Like the poor, who get plenty of subsidies and tax cuts. I’m glad you agree. Though, I must say, letting people keep more of their money is not getting a gift. Anymore than not killing some one puts them into your dept.
When, where?
Yeah, baby boomers suck.
I deny that you have facts, not that facts do not exist.
Again, just because you’ve never heard of it, doesn’t mean its new. Read a book.
Ah…the old “assert something absurd then tell the guy to read a book”.
Nice move. Not really.
A very few of voters remain loyalist. Most of those change their stance according to their situation.
Anyone, who truly understands what right-wing politics is, never hates minorities, homosexuals and women. Yes, he may not promote them at the cost of other worthy ones. Rightists tend to see women differently, not inferiorly.
Rightists do not differenciate people on gender and religion.
Again, as a thumb rule, whenever the voter turnout is higher, it would be vote for change, irrespective of what type of the incunbent govenment is. 5% increase in the voting percentage is considered sufficient to cause the change.
with love,
sanjay
Let me clear the things more.
Rightist - Give the people what they deserve.
Leftist - Give the people what they want.
The fight between right and left politics is the struggle between eligibility and desire. More often than not, desire wins over eligibility, except very rare and adverse circumstances.
An ideal govenment shoud be slightly right to the center, not much. If it moves much right, the majority of people will annoy from it. Slight rightness is essential to enable right people to reach the right place. Otherwise, the system will become more intruded that it can handle. Slight leftness or even the center is troublesome because the situation would become out of the control, sooner or later.
There is no harm in helping the needy ones. It is the duty of the government. But, only if their need is genuine.
Employment to everyone is a genuine need but raising minimum wages to 10-12 dollars is not.
with love,
sanjay
umm, got carried away. I hate working on a new computer.
As I am in chicago visiting family and on my sister i-pad, I shall try to be brief.
No child left behind was a right wing plan all the way and a major failure. It forced
teachers to teaching to the test instead of having children learning the three Rs.
That was an move to help the banks from bad loans and should never have been done.
Let the banks fail. I said it then and I say it now. They should not have been bailed out.
As for the right hating minorities, women and homosexuals, they do. Every single action they have done for years, has been to marginalize women, minorities and homosexuals. The fight against gay marriage for example is by the right wing. The fight to end abortion clinics is by the right wing, the fight to prevent women from getting equal pay is by the right wing, the fight to
prevent immigrants to stay in this country is is led by the right wing. A simple look at their actions shows us how they have actively tried to stop women, homosexuals and minorities from
being able to advance their status.
As for the Keynesian economics part of our program, are you high? Keynesian economics
has been a far bigger part of government then tax cuts by a long shot. For example,
Keynesian economics was a keystone of FDR programs in the thirties and a major reason for
the recovery of the country. It was a major piece of the boom in the sixties, not the tax cut of
JFK and was a major reason for the reagan era advance which wasn’t as big as you think because
of the way it was done. Keynesian economics is the major reason this country has had the big
economic jumps that it has since the 1930’s.
and the last piece is voting. The right has failed going right because the country is
somewhere in the middle and why they lost the last election. Going extreme right or extreme
left fails and fails big, look at the democrats in 1972. With that said, the democrats are basically
center or in some cases right of center and they should do alright in this election maybe keep the senate and possible take the house although that is unclear right now which given that this is an
off year, that would be significant. but more on that point later in the years closer to the election.
Kropotkin