The Reagan cult and the GOP

"Arguments may not be bulletproof..."

Well that one certainly wasn't.

You went from the assertion that 'Many in the gay community believe that monogamy in marriage is optional,' directly to the claim that an open marriage would not be a valid reason to deny adoption placement for a couple.

Seems like you skipped a few steps there.

I believe the most obvious winning issue for the GOP is illegal immigration, but they are all over the place on it so there is no coherent argument articulated. And they are easily cowed by the media.

If the GOP were to insist that only legal immigrants are allowed in this country, and were to crackdown on illegal immigration despite the howls of protest, I think most Americans would stand with them. Especially in the current economic climate, where illegal immigrants are holding jobs they should not have, and sending the money home rather than contributing to this country's economy.

If John McCain had said, "My first act as President will be to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border that is high, deep, and impenetrable," he would have won the election.

One way I think the GOP could do better is by loosening its identity-based social dynamics. Where I live in the northeast, and wherever I've visited, the young active members of the Democratic party are a broad mix of social types, from New Age wannabe revolutionaries to good Catholic girls and boys, with all races and classes and temperaments represented. The young GOP that I've seen is dominated by upper-middle-class white boys whose personalities run from the smarmy to the vicious, and whose only real religious commitment is to the culture war. I don't see how the GOP changes this - I think its principles have become glued to a worldview that fears diversity and values homogeneity and authoritarianism. But if it could make itself atmospherically more ideas-based and less identity-based, it would have a better chance. This might require a regional uprising against the dominance of the middle-class south.

Witness, for instance, the party's hostility to gay marriage.

This rather annoys me about Massie's posts. He puts forward Britain as having solved the problem by adopting "gay marriage", but they haven't. They've adopted "Civil Partnership", which gives you everything in marriage but name.

From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnerships_in_the_United_Kingdom

"Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage."

Well, that was the position taken by the GOP frontrunners. The implications may not have gotten to everyone in the base, but the idea of civil unions is generally gaining acceptance. It was already the law in California when the supreme court there intervened.

If Massie wants to say this is a good thing, fine, but he's sort of pushing on an already opening door.

Empedocles, you're describing your nightmares, not reality. Go to any statewide Democratic gathering, and you'll find it dominated by people who live quite traditional lives and who get along quite nicely with each other. And as people active in their community, they're also very likely to be active in churches and synagogues. But to the extent that you're describing a big tent with a broad tolerance of difference, you're right, and this is what gives the party its demographic advantage.

When I try to picture the future of the GOP, I see something similar to Mickey Kaus's general outlook, and that's really not such a bad thing. How long it will take to get there is another matter.

If your choice is to abandon your principles to win elections, or to keep your principles and lose elections, then you have to decide what's more important. Personally I don't see why anybody should want one party in office rather than the other party, if both are hostile to your principles.

Daniel is dead on about illegal immigration and corporate support for same. The ideal situation from a corporatist cynic's point of view would be what we have now: a functionally open border allowing for the inflow of cheap labor along with the ability to whip up the proles into frothing rage whenever necessary to distract the proles from the hotfoot Mammon Inc, is currently administering. It's a beautiful thing. That's why it won't be changing any time soon.

I find it interesting to look at both conservative and liberal movements as responses to the big changes that affected America in the 20th century.

First, the New Deal and rise of the welfare state. Second, the emergence of the Soviet Union and its ideology as a legitimate competitor to the U.S. Third, the whole group of cultural changes we lump together as "The Sixties."

Broadly speaking, conservatives are focused on containing or rolling back the negative aspects of these changes, and liberals are interested in advancing and consolidating the positive aspects.

When Bill Buckley and others formed the original modern conservative coalition, it was dedicated to rolling back the New Deal and staunch opposition to the Soviets. This coalition was not very electorally successful, as shown by Goldwater's defeat.

By the 1970's, both movements began to reorient themselves around responses to The Sixties, with conservatives broadly negative and liberals broadly positive. At the same time, we reached a broad consensus on the New Deal, with conservatives focusing more on using the welfare state for their own ends, rather than dismantling it outright. This was the conservative coalition that powered Reagan and the 1994 Republicans to victory.

When the Cold War ended, both ideologies were left to battle over the legacy of The Sixties -- the last big change. At the same time, a new big change started: globalization. Both conservatives and liberals are still working out how they feel about it.

Our politics is still dominated by The Sixties, but that's starting to fade. It may take some more time, but we'll eventually reach a consensus on culture the same way we reached a general consensus on the welfare state.

I think the conservative movement will eventually shift to a broadly anti-globalization focus: populist on economics, anti-immigration, in some ways more isolationist, but with an interest on keeping the U.S. as the world's only economic and military superpower. The broad liberal side will be pro-immigration, pro-corporate on economics, and focused on the U.S. being a first nation among equals.

I don't see how the Reagan coalition can survive this change. Ultimately, the pro-globalization, pro-Sixties block will merge with the broader liberal movement. At the same time, some elements of the current liberal coalition will fall out and switch to the conservative side.

I have no idea which of these groups will be more electorally successful.

By all means, please keep screeching about gay marriage and how scary the gays are.

I will keep voting for the other side in the meantime.

When the GOP comes back to being serious about real problems and not trying to police my bedroom, I will come back to voting for their candidates. This is why I scoff at "crunchy conservatism"

There is nothing conservative about coercive government power being used to police religious cultural mores. It is yet another liberal application of the government to "fix" a cultural issue. In this case it is Christian traditionalism. Rod can hide behind the "conservative" appellation, but the very word has ceased to have any meaning at this point.

"So I think that rather than concern ourselves with Republicans' losing votes, we need address the marriage issue from its first principles."

Why is defining somebody else's marriage any of your business? Tend to your own affairs, and I will tend to mine. If you want marriage to be a utilitarian affair limited to people who can procreate, then that is how you should arrange your relationship. In the meantime, butt out of my marriage.

"The only thing that all of the constituencies of the Democratic party have in common is alienation. And they're as alienated from one another as from what is left of "mainstream" American culture--environmentalists and African-Americans, or gay rights activists and African-Americans, or lawyers from urban hipsters."

Hate to break it to you, Empedocles, but all those groups are the mainstream in contemporary American culture. You're the one that's out of step, and I suspect you'd rank a lot higher on an alienation score than most Democrats, including members of the groups you cite. And citing an odd duck like Robert Putnam doesn't help your case.

Regarding the deification of Reagan, the Democrats went through this for decades after JFK was assassinated. They spent years looking for the new JFK (including by looking at Teddy K as a possible Presidential contender), and they weren't able to win again until they finally got past that and retooled for a new era. The GOP is in that wilderness right now.

Mark - I think you're generally correct in regards to Empedocles' point, but calling Putnam an "odd duck" doesn't refute the man's (Putnam's) research or argument. Name calling does not equal a counter argument.

For celticdragon: I would not wish the government to regulate your bedroom, nor would I wish the government to control how you view your own relationships. If you wish to consider yourself married, fine. I do not want the government to give legal sanction to my personal relationships, but merely to stay out of them.

"I do not want the government to give legal sanction to my personal relationships, but merely to stay out of them."

I would rather that everybody had a "civil partnership" for legal and tax purposes, and marriage be strictly between you, your spouse and the church of your choice.

celticdragon: Take the edge off, will ya? Most of us pay taxes, and we certainly have many relationships on which society doesn't confer a designated status. I'm not married and don't have children. I still pay my taxes (believe me!!!). I don't know that my tax dollars finance marriage in particular, but they certainly help finance other people's children. Maybe I should ask the government that your tax dollars help finance my dogs.

It would help immensely if people really understood Reagan. He was not some unprepared, uninformed average Joe. He spent years reading and writing, giving speeches on domestic and international issues. He had principles, but was not dogmatic. Lebanon wasnt working. he got out.

The party needs to have viable policies on major domestic issues. It has become all concentrated on social issues, the area where government is least effective. They have dropped the ball on economics. Tax cuts were key when marginal rates were 70%. They now support tax cuts as the answer to all problems and say they are for smaller government. Yet, when you look at the numbers, they are spending just as much. National debt has climbed under Republican presidents when the economy was strong, the right time to pay things down.

Another analysis of the real numbers shows that while productivity went up, the huge majority of workers had stagnant wages. When your tax/economic policies benefit only the top 0.1% of people, you have a problem.

Foreign policy. Reagan was up against a tottering empire and just helped push it over the edge. Afghanistan was a big mistake for the USSR. We took advantage. The Republican party needs to regain a coherent policy recognizing our limits and and advantages. Using the military to win wars, defend the country and make safe our waterways makes sense. Nation building and spreading democracy, social activities, are not tasks for which the military has been prepared.

Stteve

"Dragon - "Misogynistic" means to hate or dislike women. I don't think assuming you were a man qualifies as hatred or dislike."

Point taken. I should have said "chauvinistic".

"Nobody, anywhere, deifies Reagan"

You haven't been paying attention for the last couple of decades, have you?

Whatever you personally think of gay marriage, Rod is right, the culture has moved on. Talk to just about anyone in their 20's about this issue, and what you'll get mostly is a blank look. They can't figure out what the problem is.

But moving right along, gay people are, what? 2%? 5%? 10% of the population, depending on who you believe? And not all of them want to get married.

I don't see why the doings of this small minority should attract as much attention as they do when we have much larger and more important problems to address. If we just let the tiny fraction of the population who (a) are gay and (b) want to marry, to marry, it's not going to have a huge impact on the larger society. Places like the San Francisco Bay Area, where there are quite a lot of gays, relatively, are actually much less worried about this issue than places like Inner Nowhere Nebraska, where all the native gays have left long ago for the coasts. This is possibly because when you actually get to know these people, they really don't seem much of a threat to anything.

I think the Republicans, if they expect to recover from their current downturn, need to address issues of much wider importance. It just isn't enough to tell mostly fictional horror stories about "socialized medicine," for example. The Repubs need to come up with something a lot more positive, like, alternatives to deal with the problem (as opposed to pretending that the fact that one out of five or six Americans has no practical access to health care is somehow OK).

But the fortunes of the parties ebb and flow, and the R's are now in the stage of being out of ideas. They need a sojourn in the wilderness, and they need to have the Demos run out of ideas, which they will in due course.

I like the fact that those who are not conservative believe I should change my belief in order to fit into their idea of what the GPO should represent. To hell with them. I have developed my beliefs over the course of my life. Yes I am a Christian. No I am not a bible thumper. I have very basic morals and beliefs. Why should I change because you say I should. Why should I respect your belief and positions when you don’t respect mine. Why should I change when you refuse. Reagan was and is such an influence because we saw a person not bow to the pressures of the media or the party. He stood as many conservatives stand today. On Principle. The GOP has failed to hold to any principle whether fiscal or social. That was their downfall. I just as soon let the GOP Fail. Let the Liberals run the country. Let them make the Government bigger and bigger. Let them try to turn this country into a Liberal utopia. What is the difference between the GOP and the DNC if both sides are pushing the same agenda.

The reason for the deification of Reagan largely arises from the lack of a conspicuously "great" Republican president over the last hundred years. By contrast the Democrats have the indisputably great FDR and Truman, and the near great Wilson. Even their relative failures like Johnson have left a lasting mark on the country with civil rights and Medicare. Against this the Republican party has TR definitely a near great but he's really seen ancient history and Eisenhower who had much superior record to Reagan but doesn't excite the same enthusiasm and even more important doesn't have a claque devoted to turning him into a legend. The problem with all this is that you do have to have a substantial record to make it into the great category and Reagan really doesn't have one. Truman never had a claque, he was a very modest man and would have thought it ridiculous, but gradually as the years have rolled by his reputation has just got bigger and bigger so that now whenever any president is in trouble he always says he's another Truman. There's an effort afoot to try and tear down FDR but it's going to be about as succesful as the attempts to tear down Churchill. The fact that it involves elevating Calvin Coolidge is an indication of how much success it's likely to have. Turning to today's issues like gay marriage. This is as much of a loser as opposing stem cell research, trying to control women rights in the area of equal pay or what they do with their own bodies, or universal healthcare. Take Prop 8 for example. It was defeated with about 52% of the vote but the last time it was tested which was in 2000 it was defeated with 60% of the vote. So which way is that tide running. Abortion rights: three states including two very red ones had abortion restriction referendums on their ballots. Al went down to defeat. Some folks may have noticed the house passed bills to over-turn the Supreme Court decisions on equal pay. How anyone can imagine voting against equal pay for women is a vote getter is beyond me but apparently some do. Of course it all has to be wrapped up as an attack on tort lawyers but that doesn't fool many women.

Sorting all this out is going to be a messy process but it will have to be done.

As possibly the only participant on beliefnet who uses "Reagan" in his screen name or moniker, I've found this thread and the many comments fascinating.

Reagan's success in politics had as much to do with his temperament as with his ideas. His background in radio, film and as a professional speaker made him a perfect fit for the times. And, yes, he was a pragmatist -- as was the political hero of his youth and ideological mirror-opposite, FDR.

Were Reagan alive (and aware) today, I'm not sure he'd be very impressed with the current GOP and its top leaders, including the 43rd President. However, he'd admire a lot of the younger backbenchers in Congress and a lot of the Governors (including Jindal and Palin) ... and I bet he'd be fascinated by the newer breed of conservative intellectuals (Dreher, Douthat, et al.) and pundits (Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, etc.).

One aspect of the "crunchy con" worldview that I think Reagan would particularly favor is the emphasis on localism and the principle of subsidiarity. If you study his 1964 address on behalf of Goldwater, "Rendevous with Destiny," one thread that tied so many elements together was his fear of Leviathan. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" had the biggest intellectual impact on him. Time and again as President, he emphasized that private initiative and local activity (and not collectivism and the federal government) were the key to economic growth and human development. What a contrast with the speech by Obama on Thursday ("only government can get us out of this mess") !@#&! The nomination acceptance speech which Peggy Noonan wrote for George HW Bush in 1988 ("A Thousand Points of Light") should really have been delivered by Reagan because its core ideas were more sincerely embraced (and intuitively understood) by Reagan than by Bush.

Anyone over 45 (with a good sense of history and honest recall) can testify as to how improbable Reagan's 1980 victory seemed at the time. That's why it was a lot more exciting to be a conservative back then than it is today !!

As gloomy as conditions are today, cultural conservatives should take heart for one reason. In the late 1970s, the conservative movement was just as defiantly "counter-cultural" as it is today. At the same time, the ability of the conservative movement in the late 1970s to address real-time problems and conditions AND to attract newcomers (Michael Novak, Norman Podhoretz, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, et.al. --- all former Democrats) is equally instructive.

Just as a point of context, I believe the fact that Reagan opposed California's Prop. 6 in 1978 derserves mentioning here. That ballot measure called for the dismissal of teachers in California who advocated homosexuality, even outside of school.

Reagan campaigned against the initiative...

["Whatever else it is," Reagan wrote, "homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this." He also argued: "Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teacher's personal life could presumably come under suspicion. What constitutes 'advocacy' of homosexuality? Would public opposition to Proposition 6 by a teacher — should it pass — be considered advocacy?"

That November 7, Proposition 6 lost, 41.6 percent in favor to 58.4 percent against. Reagan's opposition is considered instrumental to its defeat.]

https://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312030913.asp

Your Name – I think it’s a stretch to call FDR a great president. Obviously “great” is the mind of beholder, not an absolute, but I think people have a tendency to dismiss or overlook his failures and outright abuses of power.

I’ll grant that FDR was an inspiring character and a powerful political force. His “greatness” however, is mostly due to that fact that most people who lived through his presidency remember him fondly and their memories influence our history books and those who right history. He has mystique because of the tough times the country went through during the 30s and 40s. But when you drill down to his actual actions as president, he doesn’t come off as well.

He did a good job as commander in chief during World War II and Social Security is a lasting legacy to which we are still indebted. But beyond that, what is there? His internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII was arguably the grossest civil rights violation of our country’s history outside of slavery. His attempts to rig the Supreme Court in his favor, had it been attempted by Bush today, would have been rightly denounced as an attempt at tyranny. Among other examples of executive power grabs are forcing all Americans to sell their gold to the government and suspension of habeas corpus rights. The positive effects of his economic policies are debatable, at best. Far smarter people than me disagree on this issue. But the negatives of his abuse of power far outweigh any possible benefits of the TVA or CCC in my mind. To call him “great” is to rely mostly on the impression he made on the people of the time rather than actually look at what he did. But during the Depression he said the right things and his heart was in the right place so he’s achieved this unwarranted “great” status.

Don’t get me started on Wilson’s abuses of power.

I agree that gay marriage is a lost cause but I think that was lost not with the increased acceptance of homosexuality but the rise of divorce. In a society with a 50% divorce rate, how can one make an argument about the sanctity of marriage? If culture conservatives want to win this battle, it would be better for us to focus on reducing our own divorce rates. It’s ironic that we argue that gay marriage cheapens marriage which is the essential element of our society while we get divorced at the same rates as everyone else.

"Reagan was not a bigot, despite routine accusations of that sort against him. Heck, for that matter neither are Bush and Cheney."

They may not be (or have been) bigots, but they certainly pandered to them. Reagan built a coalition around race politics and Bush and Cheney --while being closet tolerants--spent a lot of time pandering to the extremists and bigots in the movement.

"The answer on gay marriage is not to "give up" because it loses votes, but to better articulate why marriage is an institution unique to a husband and wife."

For the public to accept that, the GOP is going to need to get a lot more vocal about divorce, even to the point of chastising some of its own leading lights for their marital indiscretions.

It is difficult to take seriously the argument that marriage is sacred when it is made my serial monogamists like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. When we start to hear the GOP leadership taking on divorce as seriously as they take on gay marriage, perhaps people might start listening again.

Barack The Magic Negro is sure winner! Stick with that one.

Eric K January 10, 2009 7:50 PM Your Name – I think it’s a stretch to call FDR a great president. Obviously “great” is the mind of beholder, not an absolute,

The fact is FDR is regularly voted 2 or 3 in every respectable poll of presidential rankings. Even the WSJ conservative historians poll has him at 3. Of course FDR made some mistakes, the guy who never made a mistake never did anything. It's no accident he was re-elected four times and would have been a fifth if he'd lived. All these pontificators from hindsight have no conception of the dire straits the country was in when he took office in March 1933. Literally every bank in the country had closed its doors either because it was bankrupt or had suspended operations to avoid a run. Can you imagine if that was the situation today. I also think you can't ignore his personal achievement. This is a guy who was completely paralysed below his third rib. Imagine the effort required to just get up in the morning or take a pee. One would have to be singularly lacking in imagination not to recognize what it took to contend with this, rally the country, stay upbeat, and get elected four times. I'm afraid Reagan isn't remotely in the same league despite the efforts to promote him by a claque. He was only average which all the presidential rankings put him at apart from the one the WSJ ran which is rigged and even the whole Reagan governing philosophy is now being questioned, notably supply side and de-regulation.

I really don't think the GOP has any idea of just how bad a situation it's in. Basically they've lost the entire North east and mid Atlantic from Maine to VA, most of the upper midwest, and the entire west coast. Since these are the financial, political, artistic, cultural technological and manufacturing centers of the country it's not good news. Furthermore demographic changes, specifically the hispanic vote, is moving the rocky mountain and south western states into the Democratic column. Even Florida which has only been Republican because of Cuban hispanics is seeing a dramatic shift as the old guard die off and younger hispanics want the Cuban situation resolved. Of course this could change if Obama turns into a disaster. This seem to be the main Republican desire at the moment but quite apart from being deeply anti patriotic it seems a questionable electoral platform. Neither does he show signs of being an incompetent so we shouldn't be holding our breath.

"If gay marriage should be normative and gays insist that non-monogamous marriage should be a normative option then challenging an adoption based on the sexual promiscuity of the couple would be off-limits."

Why? Heterosexual promiscuity and non-monogamous marriage are pretty "normative" too.

"you have to present reasons and examples like the above of why gay marriage should not be made normative"

Sorry, SteveM, but it seems it is you that needs a "better argument".

"Gay people are not discriminated against by tax laws. They can take advantage of marriage tax benefits like any other taxpayer - but to do so they must marry. Granted, they can't marry the person who they love, but someone who loves their cousin or their mother can't either. Are our tax laws discriminatory against someone who loves his mother? Is that an argument to allow people to marry their mother?"

Apart from the neverending, odious incest comparison, your 'argument' ignores the fact that cousins, offspring and mothers already have kinship established. Marriage establishes it for non-related persons. Try again, but do better.

"Also, when I listen to politicians who oppose redefining marriage, their opposition is rarely couched in religious terms. They use worldly arguments for the most part. The main one is that if we redefine marriage once, it can be redefined again and again and again to the point it's redefined out of existence. This isn't a religious argument. It may not be a winning argument as far as politics go, but it's not religiously based. Religious belief may be what's motivating them at heart, but their public argument is based on reason and logic."

Not hardly, Eric K. W. was proud of parroting the "We must protect the sanctity of marriage" line. 'Splain to me what business the "sanctity" (a religious term if ever I heard one) of one's relationships is the business of the government. 'Splain to me, if the arguments against gay marriage are largely comprised of accusations of "SIN!!! so often. 'Splain to me what the heck business it is of the "reverends" Robertson, Warren et al if it ain't "religious".

Etc.

The cult of Reagan has also hurt the Republican party's ability to shake its racist past. Reagan consciously appealed to White parents' fears that their kids would have to go to school with Black kids. He spoke of "States Rights" where "States Rights" meant the right to maintain a segregated society and murdering people who challenged segregation. He favored the White Apartheid thugs who ran South Africa, and labeled Mandela a "terrorist." Sanctions had to be passed over his veto.

Before his untimely death, Lee Atwater admitted to the conscious Republican effort to use racism to their electoral advantage, but the rest of the party seems in denial. "Barack the Magic Negro" anyone?

Eric K.
The GOP needs to get rid of it's reflexive opposition to any tax increases. As I see it, the most serious political problem we have in the country is the budget deficit/national debt. The GOP has proven that it has no real, deep desire to reduce the amount of money the government spends. If it wants to be taken seriously on fiscal matters the GOP must change it's principle from "no tax increases; who cares about our debt" to a principle of "balanced budgets" even it means an occasional tax increase.

As I've said repeatedly, 'Lower taxes' is not actually a political position. It cannot be one. By the 'laws of physics', or at least basic economics, by definition we must be taxed as much as we spend. (Unless we feel like defaulting on our loans and destroying the country, which is not actually an usable option.)

Taxes are not an independent variable that can be altered. We can alter who is taxed what amount, and where, and how, but not how much in total. The Republicans have pretended this isn't true.

public defender
"You are confusing a good position with a good position argued badly. The Republicans are not losing voters because of their positions. They are losing voters because they don’t make good arguments to support their positions."

This is funny because it's pretty much word-for-word the explanation many Democrats gave for why Reagan was kicking our ***. It's the argument that pretty much guarantees defeat.

Correct. Reagan ran on distrust of the government, but recently just as much distrust of the free market has shown up. People no longer want it managing their health care and retirement, because it has been shown to be amazingly bad at, well, everything. (And when I say 'just as much', please recall the size and length of the Reagan revolution.)

And if Republicans don't think there aren't going to be calls for regulations of various businesses after this, they're crazy. And as for toxic products, we've gotten to the overreaction point, as was pointed out here last week. People really don't like it when they unknowingly purchase lead-coated products for their kids.

People are extremely angry with businesses personally harming them, whether via companies lying about their financial status while making off with millions and leaving stockholders holding nothing, laying them off and outsourcing, raising energy costs illegally (Did we all forget Enron? Some people haven't.), causing their banks to fail, giving them mortgages it knows they can't pay, and finally causing some ineffable 'credit crunch' that they don't even understand. Oh, and then taking all our money to get bailed out.

You can argue against any of those points, but that doesn't matter. The American people people see a pattern, and at this point they are pissed, and they want businesses regulated.

And, like I said, they want safety nets. Economically, the Republican platform is extremely disliked.

As for social issues, that is a much slower, but with a much more pre-determined outcome, loss for the Republicans. Ground will continue to slowly be lost, but more importantly, people who grow up with, for example, gay friends will become Democrats almost without thinking, and will continue to be them without thinking, even if the Republicans completely reverse their stance by 2020. Do stupid stuff during political formative years, and you've lost people for their whole life.

And the less said about the nativist immigration stuff, the better. Most people see full well the hypocrisy of the Republican party pretending to rail against that taking away 'jobs', and meanwhile fully supporting 'free trade', which takes away actual middle class jobs. And they fully detect the racist undercurrent by the third-party people promoting that.

It's nothing to do with a 'bad explanation'. It has to do with actual policies that the actual American people don't like.

As usual, DavidTC managed to post one of the most illiterate and absurd piles of nonsense ever to smell up Rod's columns...

Correct. Reagan ran on distrust of the government, but recently just as much distrust of the free market has shown up. People no longer want it managing their health care and retirement, because it has been shown to be amazingly bad at, well, everything.

The "Free Market" does not "manage" health care. The solution for health care is for PEOPLE TO MANAGE THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE. Not some federal beaurocrat. Just more of the complete unreality in all of your comments.

The "Free Market" does not manage your retirement. YOU SHOULD.

The "Free Market" is what enables you to do all those things. Barack Obama is the person who believes you and everyone else is completely incompetent and incapable of doing so, and only the holy and annointed himself and those he deems enlightened in DC have such God-like Messianic powers.

Baldy,

You need to study history, so you can know what torture actually is.

Interestingly enough, I have. Then, to reinforce my understanding, I discussed the matter extensively and repeatedly with my friend the Army-trained interrogator. He is very clear on what is torture, and very coherent in his exposition.

In short: Waterboarding is torture. Stress positions are torture. Sleep deprivation is what my friend calls "the gateway drug" of torture. There is firm documentary evidence that our government officials have done this, with the enthusiastic support of the rump of the Republican party.

Just out of curiosity, what in what I said do you actually disagree with, rather than just pooh-poohing without the support of any content whatsoever?

The solution for health care is for PEOPLE TO MANAGE THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE.

What does that even mean, besides eating right, getting enough exercise, and doing your best to avoid toxic substances?

DavidTC's post was spot on.

Mrs. Toad

Re: As for social issues, that is a much slower, but with a much more pre-determined outcome, loss for the Republicans.

I agree that anti-gay politics are approaching their freshness date-- in regards to gays in the military, we're past the sell-by date; in regards to gay marriage that day is still a ways off. But on abortion the polling numbers have barely budged since Roe vs Wade, so I don't think pro-Life politics will help or hurt the GOP in the future any more than it does now. Which is to say, it both wins votes and loses votes. The public alas is very confused on the issue and seems to reject absolutes on both sides. As I've said on other blogs, we have a moderately pro-Life majority in this country, who will allow abortion in three circumstances: life of the mother, rape, and their own family's situation whatever it may be

From DavidTC:

As I've said repeatedly, 'Lower taxes' is not actually a political position. It cannot be one. By the 'laws of physics', or at least basic economics, by definition we must be taxed as much as we spend. (Unless we feel like defaulting on our loans and destroying the country, which is not actually an usable option.)

*****

Late to this thread, but, this is wrong.

Rather, Tax RECEIPTS must be as much as what the government spend.

The relationship of tax rates and tax reciepts is not linear. The Reagan years proved that.

The Reagan tax cuts sent RECIEPTS through the roof.

The problem was that spending was allowed to increase at a greater rate than the revenue from taxes.

But the money taken IN was far greater AFTER the cuts.