No, No, No. What we are seeing in the Democrat Party headed for a crack-up. The idea that the hard left can take over the party and then take over the country is not even close to reality.

The "right" which took over the Republicans bears very little resemblance to the "right" of generations gone by. What we have now on the "right" is a sort of Richard Weaver conservatism: the paradigm of essences toward which the phenomennology of the world is in constant approximation.

None of the demographics favor a long-term turn to the left,least of all, the hope of our folk-enemies for a "minority-majority." The enthnological history of the United States is one of sucessive ethnic groups "becoming White." Is there any reason to believe that this will not continue? It might be painful to listen to one's "mutha'" tongue disappear from the face of the earth, but the pain felt by one hit with a falling rock does not repeal the law of gravity.

Lou:

They can't take over the country but it would be helpful for them to regain control of the Party and offer a genuine alternative, however unpopular.

Yes. But they'll come out into the open only to be resoundingly crushed like a scorpion smacked with a brick. And that's a Good Thing.

The country is still suffering from a hangover after the big economic party we had last decade. People are pulling it in a bit and not spending as much except maybe on their houses and they have turned in some of their hedonistic ways for a little church going is all. I really wouldn't get so excited about the possibility of 70 years of evangelism coming our way.

When the government starts to get smaller, and I mean really smaller, you may be on to something. But until that begins to happen, you guys are just smoking the good stuff.

None of the entitlement programs are getting any smaller and in fact Social Security is now just old fashioned welfare program repackaged. The game is to pretend to be hurt either mentally or physically rather than pretending to get a job.

Water doesn't flow uphill unless pumped, entropy doesn't increase it decreases, and people won't give up power once they have it. Someone speaks of demographics being in conservatives favor? Visit an American city or large metropolitan area. Some precincts in my city have illegitimacy rates of 95%. These people are not going to vote conservative. Don't be fooled into complacency thinking that they don't vote either. They will always hold power as a large and rapidly growing block of people who have no vested interest in seeing the size of government reduced.

Perry:

It' not going to get smaller--it'll get much larger, but we'll all own it. Owners are conservative.

People from areas with illegitimacy rates of 95% might vote, but not in high numbers.
Further, although such blocs might have local political power, they're a distict minority nationwide.

It's not the poor or minorities who prevent the Federal government from shrinking, although they're most dependent upon it; it's America's largely white middle class that won't allow the Federal government to be downsized.

"the paradigm of essences toward which the phenomennology of the world is in constant approximation."

Well, that's easy for you to say.

If things work out as I think they will on 11/2 Red and Over. The left will be one of the forces contending for the carcass of the democrat party.

In some places, the uper left side of Manhattan and the foggier reaches of San francisoco they will win. In other places they don't stand a chance. Chicago, Michigan, the midwest in general.

My prediction is that the Democrats will become the home of the libertarian tendencies, a natural place for a party founded by Jefferson.

Small Government is a good slogan for an opposition party. A blanced budget will be a popular platform item.

Opposing governmental intrusion into private lives, will be a resting place for abortion rights and drug reform. Gay marriage -- get government out of the marriage business.

An isolationist foreign policy would seem to fit this pattern very well.

Robert,

I agree with your assumptions but not your conclusion. The party that combines libertarian social policy with economic conservativism and most importantly small government will be the dominant party. We could get there quickly if the Barry Goldwater Republicans or the Newt Gingrich clan were not being obscured by the war or we could get there after a few more cycles of socialism with a Hillary presidency or we could get there after the religious right (small group after you take abortion issue out) gets thrown back with Jerry Falwell and ridiculed again. Or we could get there staight away if Bush gets rid of SS system, IRS, public schools and the rest of about 28 million government employees not counting military.

OJ,
We own the governemnt now, have you ever heard of T-bills?, and pay for it with taxes. Owning it is not the advantage, it is being able to get rid of government workers and other forms of socialism

- Perry

Perry:

What % of Americans own T-bills? What % are owned by foreigners?

When Social Security is a $10 Trillion dollar program but is divvied up into individual accounts it will create a far different dynamic than a bunch of bogus bonds and IOUs sitting in a vault.

Oj,

So under your logic the growth upwards of the SS system would be good just like a owning a growing business would be good. If this represents true individual savings accounts reflecting what each indiviual has put in and always availbe to each indiviual then great, but the growth of SS is due to welfare type payouts and payouts to those that didn't fund it to the level of benefits they get. Still socialism - Perry

Yes, individualized SS will be vastly larger than the public version.

Ok, we have had this discussion before as the new ownership SS system wouldn't actually be big goverment anymore than the SEC "owns" the stock market. The goverment would just have a regulatory function over many private accounts just like it does IRA's. I fail to see what the revolution is here. You still dodge the question whether you would remove welfare component of current SS system - Perry

We are headed for a re-alignment of some kind.

The economic concerns of working class Americans are being ignored by both parties. The social conflict between the Religious Right and the Metrosexual Left leaves most Americans cold.

Most Americans even those who oppose the Iraq war do not believe that the US is the fount of all evil, as the McGovernite left believes. However, most Americans have zero interest in solving all the world's problems and intuitively understand the essential impossibility of that task.

Bart:

That's nonsense--the Religious Right has majorities around 70% on social issues. It leaves both you libertarians cold.

Yes Bart, I fear we will squander a very big opportunity to re-align the pieces in a way that will beneift us all, not just some of us. After all, is that what government should be about? - Perry

Perry:

Your IRA is government mandated?

OJ,

Of course, it is not currently taxed and has goverment rules and regulations attached. In practice very little differnce to a mandate as there is no alternative if one wants to save

Oj,

70% on some social issues, not all and abortion being the only meaningful one, past that, the right has only the suburbs holding it toghtger

Perry:

70% on every abortion restriction that the GOP has proposed, just not a complete ban.

Perry:

So it's your belief that 100% of the American people have IRAs?

Yes oj, but the 70% support has many strings attached, go to far and support would fall way off.

On this topic I have a question if anyone wouldn't mind.

Let us say supreme court got stacked right, (common reason/fear for voting against President Bush), what would be the mechanism or - in what way would/could Roe v Wade be overturned? How realistic is this possiblity? Some say would never be challaged as supreme court would be taking away a right. (I don't agree, they have done it with patiot act) - Perry

OJ, you keep making that claim about social issues yet in referendum after referendum the less restrictive position always wins. Do you have an explanation of that or do you believe that polling data is a more reliable indicator of voter sentiment than actual votes are?

Most Americans are quite capable of making a distinction between tolerance and approval. Why aren't you?

Oj,

100% of American people would not pay into a new style SS system as many donot currently pay taxes anyway. I agree it would be higher though than percentage that have IRA's, but again were is the revolution, and why won't you address welfare componet of current SS system, would you leave it in place?

Perry,

The method of challenging Roe would be a state legislature passing a law directly in opposition to its pernicious requirements. Planned Parenthood or someone would challenge it, and the case would rise through the circuits until it hit the Supremes.

Perry:

Everyone with a job certainly would and we'd eventually have to create a system that starts at birth and is universal.

Bart/Perry:

Restrictions routinely pass but are then overturned by courts. Planned Parenthood estimates that abortion would return to being illegal in 30 states, which seems about right. That's 60% right off the bat.

OJ,

30 states is not 60 percent of the US.

California and New York will not pass an abortion restriction in our lifetimes and those 2 states alone are like 20% of America. It is unlikely that any state west of the Rockies or east of the Delaware will pass an abortion restriction.

They'll have partial birth, parental notification, etc. restrictions and as CA and NY become more Hispanic they'll adopt even more restrictions.

Does the SF Chronicle think that Gavin Newsom has a national political future? They better think again.

Perry: The Republicans have discovered that it is more fun to spend money than to be ideologically pure. Only an opposition party can be a small government/balanced budget party. Read Anne Applebaum's insightful column on Newt Gingrich; Small Government Is So 1990s.

Thanks Robert, maybe I am late to the party but I think I see how the current GOP conservatives have decided buying abortion restriction (and other conservative social issues) is the most expedient way to get that job done. Why fight over small government and the non-statist ideal, when after all liberalism is really quite palatable when social issues are served as the main course.

Bart, et al,

Would Roe v Wade literally get overturned or just not apply. I guess I don't see how surpreme court would be able to say it no longer applies. (I am not arguing here, just asking)

My best guess is that the decision would be overturned in the sense of permitting states to regulate abortion as they see fit, in other words, the status quo before Roe.

Robert,

Here is similar sentiment expressed by Bob Barr. The last line is the gotcha OJ.

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/news_flankingaction.html

Perry:

The Democrats are the libertarian party.

OJ,

Bob Barr never reminded me much of a libertarian

Perry:

He is. He's working for the ACLU to repeal the PATRIOT Act.

OJ, now that he IS, is the point. He WAS one of the most conservative congressman I can remember.

Perry:

Not really:

http://reason.com/0312/cr.jw.bob.shtml

Bob Barr's concern about the Patriot Act is that the increased level of surveillance might result in his record of alimony payments to his multitude of ex-wives being put under scrutiny.

The article details his strong conservatism and in no way contradicts his life long political philosphy.

"I realized -- and I think they realized the same thing -- that the size of government and the expansiveness of government power were creating a smaller sphere of personal liberty and personal privacy, and that we needed to find allies in this fight, and work together on those issues in which we agree and agree to disagree on the other issues."

He thinks the PATRIOT act had/has problems, so do I.

The point here still stands, there are many ways for the Right to lose support and let liberalism off the ropes, I hope it doesn't happen, after all, wouldn't that be immoral?

P.s Chris Reeves dying is bad timing for Pres. Bush.

What do you know, the website doesn't like Kerry's civil liberties record either!

http://www.reason.com/0410/fe.jb.john.shtml

Perry:

They're libertarians, every libertarian is a party of one.

"The Democrats are the libertarian party."

Posted by oj at October 11, 2004 07:31 PM

Yes, they're the party of atomization and libertinism and thus of libertarians.