Ross responds

Rod,

Here's what I like about Thompson: he's a true believer in federalism. If I understand correctly, subsidiarity is a crunchy con principle, and federalism is an application of subsidiarity. So why do you have zero enthusiam for Fred?

For your sake, and the sake of my Party, I hope Huckabee will be the running mate. He's a good guy, and I don't mind his raising taxes, because hey. It's better than hitting up the federal government for cash.

Dominionism is really going to be the downfall for you guys.

The 2006 election was a huge change. It marked the downfall of Movement Conservatism. But not all the elements were rejected equally. I would say the militarism is still viable. The anarcho-capitalist "small government" talk took a big hit when bodies started floating down the streets of New Orleans, and anarcho-libertarianism has started to take on an anti-capitalist bent. But it's still viable. Globalization and the primacy of the market are popular, but no longer really associated with Republicans because of Movement Conservativism - big loss.

But what's really offensive to Americans is Dominionism. If Huckabee and especially Brownback make a spectacle of themselves, Conservatives are going to take an enormous hit. While almost all public intellectuals of any note - from pundits to the think-tank-ocracy - are theists, or speak in the terms of theism, and there is no real coherent post-religious theory that is widely accepted, Americans are secular on a casual basis. Dominionists, in my view, represent ideas so out of step with the culture that they offer secular and atheist humanism a way forward simply in reaction to them.

The "Chicago School", market-revering, anarcho-capitalist ideas reinvigorated Conservatism. The intellectual energy was on the Conservative side, plain and simple. The Conservative message was a vibrant, rational, marketplace of ideas logical, practical and virtuous. But when virtue went from being the icing on the cake to the battle cry of a culture war, the Conservatives lost their message.

Liberals have no message, but that's better than having a message people hate.

If a Left-Right fusion of some sort comes about it will be created by those on the Right who acknowledge that most Americans actually want government to be responsible for health care, the environment, equity in pay, recovery from catestrophic disaster, and so forth and those on the Left who acknowledge that most Americans don't want government to tell them where and how to live, what is and is not permissible speech, and a myriad of other nanny state regulations.

It is more likely that the members of such a coalition coming from the Right will be Crunchy than fiscally conservative because, well, it's all about the money for some. And it's more likely that the members of such a coalition coming from the Left will not come from academia because, well, if you can't control the language, you can't control the argument.

What is a Dominionist? Is this an actual philosophy or is it a term with negative conotations used to describe "people I don't like" similar to "neocon," "Christianist" or "fundamentalist?"

All this ideology ... not to be condemning ... if people would start banding together to put the brakes on this out of control, fast lane lifestyle that most of the people in power seem to be intent on perpetuating (because it is an electible, mainstream position that has the most promise of "success") and make this a third party that engages not only politics but also culture and lifestyle, starting small, patient concerning growth("oak tree" style), a real transformation might begin to happen in our society.
Sadly the Green party would own this approach but they are not culturally conservative. I think a culturally conservative effort like this would be convincing to people in our heartland.
But you can't slow down if economic performance is your priority (the Holy Scriptures call this the love of mammon). Can the Republican Party make this shift? I don't think so. I would be happy if they proved me wrong. I would be happy if the Democrats would do it, but that's even less likely.
A focus on the local- shifting power to the local government- would be part of this.

Is this an actual philosophy or is it a term with negative conotations used to describe "people I don't like" similar to "neocon," "Christianist" or "fundamentalist?"

Based on the wikipedia article - the latter, apparently.

Per Zak: "Cleveland, what exactly are the 'Islamofacists' going to do to me or my children that Giuliani will prevent better than a 'homosocialist' like Clinton or Obama?"

He or any Republican would, more forcefully than any homosocialist, try to bring stability to the Mideast, thereby denying Islamofascists the use of Iraq as a base for breeding, training and financing (with oil money) more generations of terrorists, in league with a nuclear-armed Iran, and other Islamofascists

. But you knew that, Zak.

Per Zak: "(I have to admit, I haven't seen that one [homosocialist] before, and it took me by surprise a little bit. It really kills debate, doesn't it?)"

It didn't kill this debate, did it? In my experience, it's been a debate starter, because it's a good description of the current party's bedrock supporters. Sex without restrictions and money--the two liberal gods.

Per Zak: "Good Homeland Security/intelligence work protects us from actual terrorist attacks within the United States more than attacking Muslim countries does, so I'm not sure how much I have to fear from a "homosocialist" administration that properly funds homeland security for ports and mass transit systems, makes to reduce the available resources for creating radiological weapons, and cooperates more on intelligence with allies in Europe (from whose countries our attackers are most likely to come)."

There never will be such a strong, effective, patriotic homosocialist administration; we both know that.

Per Zak: "Sure, the Dems may make the FBI take an hour of court time for a warrant before they wiretap whomever they want, but somehow I don't think that will be the tipping point in favor of the 'Islamofascists.'"

See what I mean? Besides, that's a strawman.

My point stands--Rod's interests will be much better served by a Republican winner in 2008. We will be far more secure, AND we will have lower taxes (and thus a better, stronger economy), and be a more moral society rather than a Hollywood/Euro-filth society.

Cleveland,

What single thing has Bush done to make us a more moral society? The growing consensus in favor of torture (including its portrayal in the media and its popularity among Republican presidential candidates belies your point). By ignoring the plight of those who are not prosperous, or by only paying lipservice to them, has this administration improved our nation's morality?

To millions of Americans, the economy certainly doesn't seem strong, and given the fact that it is based on massive borrowing from foreign lenders (like China and the Gulf states) in order to finance our budget and current account deficits, I could see there point.

As for security, the things I listed are all part of the Dems' current positions on homeland security. As for bringing stability to the middle east, well, the Republican candidate may also try to bring the Pacific Ocean to the moon, but he'll have about as much success. And if you think treating any Muslim who dislikes America or practices a form of Islamism as a member of an "Islamofascist" alliance is going to make things more stable, than I recommend going to Baghdad and seeing if insulting Muhammad is another useful means to that end.

Am I worried that an abandoned Iraq could turn into another terrorist haven like Afghanistan was pre-invasion? Yes, although I think a credible case could be made the al Qaeda will end up being a casualty in the civil war that will probably take place after we leave. Especially now that we're arming Sunni militias that don't like them.

As for the main things most Democrats want, I think the chief issues for them right now are leaving Iraq, because they think we can't win and we're doing more harm than good by staying, and improving the economic security of lower middle class families. It's not gay orgies after getting home from not working at the state-owned factories. There is a certain component of the Democratic party that does care disproportionately about sexual liberation, but they are relatively few and concentrated among the party elite or a couple vocal subgroups. For the rest, issues like gay marriage (which around 50% of Dems still oppose, I believe) are, at most, a case of live-and-let-live.

There's a possibility I will vote for the Republican in 2008, but if I do so it will be because I think they will protect unborn life and continue not to fund embryonic stem cell research from destroyed embryos, not because I think they are will keep us safer, more economically secure, or more moral than the "homosocialists" will.

The big problem of your commentary is that you have stereotyped and demonised your enemies, "Islamofascists" and "homosocialists" so much that you don't understand them and can't defeat them in the first case or debate them in the latter. Both labels obscure more than they clarify.

Cleveland,

Thank you for your concern for me. :-) In every election I have trouble finding a politician I actually believe in or agree with. I think you tend to ignore or by into Republican propaganda about the problems of the Bush administration (its incompetence, its policies that make Americans less economically secure, and its willingness to engage in twisted casuistry to justify what is in fact reasonably considered torture), but I agree that we can stop arguing about such things. I just don't accept the argument that because many Democrats are bad, somehow the Republicans are good. I accept that you use what I consider intemperate language out of a desire to call things as they are.

Sorry for the 3:31 post, please delete it. It didn't look like it went through, so I wrote another one.