It has occurred to me that Republicans are getting somewhat more like Democrats, and perhaps Democrats more like Republicans. Post Reagan, we became a party of ideas rather than simple identities, with it being very important that our candidates had the proper beliefs for nomination. In recent years, we see a continual downhill slide in this way of thinking, with people voting for those who they "identify with" rather than actually agree with. I spoke with a radio talk show host today in my home town, and he continues to say that it is meaningless how Liberal McCain is, dispelling any damage that his beliefs might cause.
Are we jettisoning our intellectual basis for the heart of our Party? Perhaps.
And as for the Dems, it seems that Ted Kennedy IS actually voting for who he thinks is the best Liberal choice, which apparently is Obama, rather than go with the "identity" of the Clintons.
How interesting, don't you agree?
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
In recent years, we see a continual downhill slide in this way of thinking, with people voting for those who they "identify with" rather than actually agree with. I spoke with a radio talk show host today in my home town, and he continues to say that it is meaningless how Liberal McCain is, dispelling any damage that his beliefs might cause.
Identity politics is the curse of post modernism. You have probably heard the line: "words have meaning." Well it comes from a now famous speech Judge Janice Rogers Brown gave to the Federalist Society at the University of Chicago in 2000. Judge Brown speaks of the evocative yet meaningless lyrics of the song "Whiter Shade of Pale" by Procol Harum and suggests that words lack meaning with meaning being replaced by how the words make us feel. Then she moves from these symptoms to their cause.
Brown blames the "collectivist impulse" or the modern impulse to seek equal outcomes for all peoples which is misinterprets the U.S. Constitution's framer's understanding that self-interest in the private sphere contributes to welfare of society. To this end, the New Deal and Great Society stripped Americans of their property rights by actions of the judiciary. In order for this collectivism to be enacted, Americans had to be stripped of their property rights. To achieve this end, the words of Constitution had to be rendered meaningless.
I quote Judge Brown because I lack the skills to adequately paraphrase:
One response might be that we are living in a world where words have lost their meaning. This is certainly not a new phenomenon. It seems to be an inevitable artifact of cultural disintegration. Thucydides lamented the great changes in language and life that succeeded the Pelopennesian War; Clarendon and Burke expressed similar concerns about the political transformations of their own time. It is always a disorienting experience for a member of the old guard when the entire understanding of the old world is uprooted. As James Boyd White expresses it: "[I]n this world no one would see what he sees, respond as he responds, speak as he speaks,"1 and living in that world means surrender to the near certainty of central and fundamental changes within the self. "One cannot maintain forever one's language and judgment against the pressures of a world that works in different ways," for we are shaped by the world in which we live.2
This is a fascinating subject which we do not have time to explore more thoroughly. Suffice it to say that this phenomenon accounts for much of the near hysterical tone of current political discourse. Our problems, however, seem to go even deeper. It is not simply that the same words don't have the same meanings; in our lifetime, words are ceasing to have any meaning. The culture of the word is being extinguished by the culture of the camera. Politicians no longer have positions they have photo-ops. To be or not to be is no longer the question. The question is: how do you feel.
Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."3 He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.
It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse — whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism — has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meaning of the Constitution, and the character of our people.
Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. Aaron Wildavsky gives a credible account of this dynamic. Wildavsky notes that the Madisonian world has gone "topsy turvy" as factions, defined as groups "activated by some common interest adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community,"4 have been transformed into sectors of public policy. "Indeed," says Wildavsky, "government now pays citizens to organize, lawyers to sue, and politicians to run for office. Soon enough, if current trends continue, government will become self-contained, generating (apparently spontaneously) the forces to which it responds."5 That explains how, but not why. And certainly not why we are so comfortable with that result.
After reading this, you will understand why Chuck Schumer is so afraid of the Federalist Society.
Interesting. I agree.
Take care, Harleycon5
MarkT
· 1 year ago
Something doesn't seem right here - is Obama really more liberal than Russ Feingold? The report will be useful to the Republican candidate if Obama wins the nomination, but I really doubt it is accurate.
Take a look at their methodology (e.g. someone like Obama who misses a lot of votes but takes the mainstream Dem position on most issues ends up being judged very liberal in this analysis).
SKI
· 1 year ago
On 18/S1, "Establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints against senators," Obama voted for, and Clinton voted against. On HR6, "Create a national action plan for reducing oil consumption by 35 percent by 2030," Clinton voted "yes," Obama didn't vote. On S1348, "Allow certain immigrants to stay in the United States while renewing their visas," Clinton voted no, Obama voted yes"
In 2 of those differentiating votes, Obama was joined by leading republicans - like Tom Coburn.
This is not to say Obama isn't a progressive, he clearly is. but more than Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer? Simply not reality.
dhunter
· 1 year ago
gaffo, your argument is barely worth responding to it is on its face so wrong. How can the strongest of the pro war candidates of all running be leading in most all polls if what you say is true? Polls showing McCain beating either dem worse than any candidate.
jharp, three things 1.) early primary states where dems and independents can cross over and pick the repub. candidate for us. 2.) Along with the media fawning over,promoting, the candidate they know can be beaten like a rug. Beaten into irrelevence once he gets the nomination. 3.) Conservatives splitting the vote and allowing a liberal to walk away with the votes and delegates. If McCain is to be stopped Huck needs to drop out. Mitt will pick up some Rudy supporters but probably not enough without some of Hucks too.
The party has become a bunch of Dem-lites lead by dem-lites like Mel Martinez. No wonder the contributions are not forthcoming no-one is speaking for us. It will take an outsider not an inside the beltway crowd to get us back on track. I see McCain as another Bob Dole propped up by the party and shoved upon us only to be soundly defeated.
essucht
· 1 year ago
There is an interesting pattern here in that Kerry was also one of the nation's most liberal senators.
I think in the short term nominating extremists hurts - has the dems saw in the 80s, and as they saw in 2004, but in the long term in helps.
Essentially, you send up a candidate to push the envelope, and sure the American people reject him, but then it becomes much harder to use the same campaign again four years later. Add to that the media, when at its least biased, tries to enforce consensus, even if said consensus is between moonbat land and center right, and you have a Hegelian nightmare for we conservatives.
And to cap the scenario we find ourselves in, Democrat voters seem to have a better sense that to move government and/or society in the direction you want, sometime you have to vote for someone much further to the extreme then you. Conservatives keep going for center/right candidates that closely match the mainstream of the Republican party while Democrats keep voting in lunatics like Kucinich and Kennedy.
It will take quite a shock to the body politic to change this dynamic...that is for sure...
Sgt_H
· 1 year ago
Nobody show that to Michael Medved or his head might explode. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position when there were at least a couple good conservative candidates in the race. It turns out that most people care more about packaging than substance. How else do you explain Romney and McCain as the last two standing?
Romney "looks the part", while McCain is "electable". Nobody really seems to care about much else.
essucht
· 1 year ago
It turns out that most people care more about packaging than substance. How else do you explain Romney and McCain as the last two standing
Or Obama.
At least the Dems have a reason for wanting Hillary. She'll use the government to go after the domestic opposition...
Sgt_H
· 1 year ago
Good point.
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
I prefer my liberals to be democrats. As such, I echo the sentiments of Miss Ann:
The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton. (I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility.
Well, her last time in office she closed down the leading news magazine opposing her, used the FBI as her private investigators, and had the IRS harrass leading conservatives.
There is a greater difference between Hillary and McCain then just their stance on the war. Whether it is enough is a question really of how far you think the American people would let Hillary go (especially if she gets a subservient congress).
dhunter
· 1 year ago
McCains average over the last three years he managed to show up for work is 55.86.
Factoring in the conservative votes on the war on terror I suspect he is just as liberal as they come on anything else but.
This is the man the Republicans want for president ? Hes' the problem not the solution!
We need a Washington outsider not an inside the beltway, lifelong feeding at the public trough politician. PLEASE America wake up before its' too late.
DayTrader
· 1 year ago
According to the left side blogs right now MoveOn is polling their users and if they get a 66% response back for a candidate, they will be endorsing that one based on the poll.
Andrew
· 1 year ago
" The endorsement revealed the direction of Obama's practical politics rather than his high-minded (and apparently sincere) efforts to debate them in a friendly, collegial manner."
Err, just because he holds different views from you doesn't mean he's not debating them in a friendly, collegeial manner. If the right actually tries to paint a picture of Barack as a liberal demagogue you will all go down in flames for sure.
In fact, you're probably going to have to match his political tone, believe it or not. I'd be amazed if the Republicans were capable.
MarkJ
· 1 year ago
You don't get it, do you? The Republicans don't necessarily have to paint him as a liberal demagogue" (which he most certainly is)--they can just point to his Senate record and ask, "Can you please tell us exactly what you've accomplished?"
Yup, I guess people can't pin you to mat on an issue if you just vote "Present"...or not at all. To wit: the WaPo seems to know something you don't know (or are conveniently ignoring):
Obama has missed 168 (37.7%) of the votes held in the current congress alone. Damn, what a great hustle--I wish I could blow off nearly 40% of my workload and get paid he gets every month. Hell, the Barackster has basically been MIA in Washington from the day he got there. The Senate was obviously just a place to hang his hat until he could become "Savior of the Republic , Defender of the Faith, and Redeemer of the Democratic Party."
Yeah pal, Barack has got a "nice tone"...for a guy who's often "too busy" to vote on some of the most important issues of the day.
docjim505
· 1 year ago
MarkJ: Obama has missed 168 (37.7%) of the votes held in the current congress alone. Damn, what a great hustle--I wish I could blow off nearly 40% of my workload and get paid he gets every month.
Look, let's not complain too much about this. Indeed, I think we should ENCOURAGE members of Congress to miss more votes. It seems to me that less is more when it comes to that bunch of thieves and wardheelers doing their jobs.
RBMN
· 1 year ago
Ed,
If McCain wins the nomination--a 50/50 likelihood at this point--I think you've just created the outline for an ad he'll use in October. :-)
jharp
· 1 year ago
It appears Americans are rejecting conservatism and embracing the liberals.
I had asked before but no responses.
What in the heck happened to the conservative candidates? They got blistered. Wasn't even close.
We're down to four and all of them liberals.
Is this what the board calls BDS?
gaffo
· 1 year ago
Iraqnam is what happened.
Iraq FATIGUE - even those that still support it are sick and tired of us sitting over their babysitting folks who can't seem to walk yat.
and the rest of us - both those who never supported this fiasco, and those who did but no longer do now - have moved to the Liberals.
Conservatives OWN Iraq.
Liberals never took the BS bait and never support the Neocon policy. Now all who have turned away from Iraq have only one direction to go - to the Libs.
jharp
· 1 year ago
Really is a shame that it took a national catastrophe for the cons to see the light.
Interesting watching McCain and Romney debate on which one is going to kill the most Muslims.
It's a losing position and they're fighting to see who gets to claim it.
I haven't felt so optimistic about our great country since 2001-02.
rtaycber1987
· 1 year ago
This is quite clearly a big mistake by National Journal'. Not only that it's a repeat mistake(they made this same mistake with Kerry in 04). While Obama is more liberal then Clinton and as a Liberal supporter of him I would sort of like him to be the most liberal senator that's just not the case. Obama has been on the campaign trail missing a lot of votes. Just like in 04 with Kerry this has greatly skewed his standing. Obama is not more liberal then Kennedy or Sanders or Boxer or Feingold. He is on the left of the democratic party but not that far left.
sanssoucy
· 1 year ago
It strikes me that a lot of conservatives are making exactly the mistake Hugh Hewitt warned us against in IF IT'S NOT CLOSE, THEY CAN'T CHEAT; wanting their party's nominee to be a purist conservative ... or they'll take their ball and go home.
Indeed, Hewitt, himself is making exactly the mistake he warned us against. Folks, if our choice is between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, then I'm going to vote against Clinton.
It's just that simple, kids. If you'd like to see Hillary and Bubba sharking around the White House for *eight frakking years*, then you go right ahead and sit out the election. Maybe you can vote for the ghost of Goldwater or Reagan next time out ... ya think?
SS
AngryDumbo
· 1 year ago
wanting their party's nominee to be a purist conservative ...
Nope. McCain being "better than the alternative" is a straw man argument. By that reasoning, ANY Republican is better than ANY Democrat, regardless of their views on the issues.
You freaking McCainiacs never talk issues (other than "the SURGE"), because YOU WOULD LOSE.
Issues matter to me. Lets talk about all the times he has stabbed our party in the back in issue after issue. If you don't recall the backstabbing, you don't follow politics. Of course you have a vote, but it sure isn't educated.
Just want to have an alternative to big government liberals. That is not McCain. I'm going to vote for the Democrat, because I prefer my class envy, big government liberals to be democrats. No regrets.
All Comments
Are we jettisoning our intellectual basis for the heart of our Party? Perhaps.
And as for the Dems, it seems that Ted Kennedy IS actually voting for who he thinks is the best Liberal choice, which apparently is Obama, rather than go with the "identity" of the Clintons.
How interesting, don't you agree?
Identity politics is the curse of post modernism. You have probably heard the line: "words have meaning." Well it comes from a now famous speech Judge Janice Rogers Brown gave to the Federalist Society at the University of Chicago in 2000. Judge Brown speaks of the evocative yet meaningless lyrics of the song "Whiter Shade of Pale" by Procol Harum and suggests that words lack meaning with meaning being replaced by how the words make us feel. Then she moves from these symptoms to their cause.
Brown blames the "collectivist impulse" or the modern impulse to seek equal outcomes for all peoples which is misinterprets the U.S. Constitution's framer's understanding that self-interest in the private sphere contributes to welfare of society. To this end, the New Deal and Great Society stripped Americans of their property rights by actions of the judiciary. In order for this collectivism to be enacted, Americans had to be stripped of their property rights. To achieve this end, the words of Constitution had to be rendered meaningless.
I quote Judge Brown because I lack the skills to adequately paraphrase:
One response might be that we are living in a world where words have lost their meaning. This is certainly not a new phenomenon. It seems to be an inevitable artifact of cultural disintegration. Thucydides lamented the great changes in language and life that succeeded the Pelopennesian War; Clarendon and Burke expressed similar concerns about the political transformations of their own time. It is always a disorienting experience for a member of the old guard when the entire understanding of the old world is uprooted. As James Boyd White expresses it: "[I]n this world no one would see what he sees, respond as he responds, speak as he speaks,"1 and living in that world means surrender to the near certainty of central and fundamental changes within the self. "One cannot maintain forever one's language and judgment against the pressures of a world that works in different ways," for we are shaped by the world in which we live.2
This is a fascinating subject which we do not have time to explore more thoroughly. Suffice it to say that this phenomenon accounts for much of the near hysterical tone of current political discourse. Our problems, however, seem to go even deeper. It is not simply that the same words don't have the same meanings; in our lifetime, words are ceasing to have any meaning. The culture of the word is being extinguished by the culture of the camera. Politicians no longer have positions they have photo-ops. To be or not to be is no longer the question. The question is: how do you feel.
Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."3 He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.
It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse — whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism — has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meaning of the Constitution, and the character of our people.
Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. Aaron Wildavsky gives a credible account of this dynamic. Wildavsky notes that the Madisonian world has gone "topsy turvy" as factions, defined as groups "activated by some common interest adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community,"4 have been transformed into sectors of public policy. "Indeed," says Wildavsky, "government now pays citizens to organize, lawyers to sue, and politicians to run for office. Soon enough, if current trends continue, government will become self-contained, generating (apparently spontaneously) the forces to which it responds."5 That explains how, but not why. And certainly not why we are so comfortable with that result.
Read the whole thing.
http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/00420_jrb_f...
After reading this, you will understand why Chuck Schumer is so afraid of the Federalist Society.
Interesting. I agree.
Take care, Harleycon5
Take a look at their methodology (e.g. someone like Obama who misses a lot of votes but takes the mainstream Dem position on most issues ends up being judged very liberal in this analysis).
In 2 of those differentiating votes, Obama was joined by leading republicans - like Tom Coburn.
This is not to say Obama isn't a progressive, he clearly is. but more than Russ Feingold or Barbara Boxer? Simply not reality.
your argument is barely worth responding to it is on its face so wrong. How can the strongest of the pro war candidates of all running be leading in most all polls if what you say is true?
Polls showing McCain beating either dem worse than any candidate.
jharp,
three things 1.) early primary states where dems and independents can cross over and pick the repub. candidate for us.
2.) Along with the media fawning over,promoting, the candidate they know can be beaten like a rug. Beaten into irrelevence once he gets the nomination.
3.) Conservatives splitting the vote and allowing a liberal to walk away with the votes and delegates. If McCain is to be stopped Huck needs to drop out. Mitt will pick up some Rudy supporters but probably not enough without some of Hucks too.
The party has become a bunch of Dem-lites lead by dem-lites like Mel Martinez. No wonder the contributions are not forthcoming no-one is speaking for us. It will take an outsider not an inside the beltway crowd to get us back on track. I see McCain as another Bob Dole propped up by the party and shoved upon us only to be soundly defeated.
I think in the short term nominating extremists hurts - has the dems saw in the 80s, and as they saw in 2004, but in the long term in helps.
Essentially, you send up a candidate to push the envelope, and sure the American people reject him, but then it becomes much harder to use the same campaign again four years later. Add to that the media, when at its least biased, tries to enforce consensus, even if said consensus is between moonbat land and center right, and you have a Hegelian nightmare for we conservatives.
And to cap the scenario we find ourselves in, Democrat voters seem to have a better sense that to move government and/or society in the direction you want, sometime you have to vote for someone much further to the extreme then you. Conservatives keep going for center/right candidates that closely match the mainstream of the Republican party while Democrats keep voting in lunatics like Kucinich and Kennedy.
It will take quite a shock to the body politic to change this dynamic...that is for sure...
Romney "looks the part", while McCain is "electable". Nobody really seems to care about much else.
Or Obama.
At least the Dems have a reason for wanting Hillary. She'll use the government to go after the domestic opposition...
The bright side of the Florida debacle is that I no longer fear Hillary Clinton.
(I mean in terms of her becoming president -- on a personal level, she's still a
little creepy.) I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President
McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of
the responsibility.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24752
There is a greater difference between Hillary and McCain then just their stance on the war. Whether it is enough is a question really of how far you think the American people would let Hillary go (especially if she gets a subservient congress).
Factoring in the conservative votes on the war on terror I suspect he is just as liberal as they come on anything else but.
This is the man the Republicans want for president ? Hes' the problem not the solution!
We need a Washington outsider not an inside the beltway, lifelong feeding at the public trough politician. PLEASE America wake up before its' too late.
Err, just because he holds different views from you doesn't mean he's not debating them in a friendly, collegeial manner. If the right actually tries to paint a picture of Barack as a liberal demagogue you will all go down in flames for sure.
In fact, you're probably going to have to match his political tone, believe it or not. I'd be amazed if the Republicans were capable.
Yup, I guess people can't pin you to mat on an issue if you just vote "Present"...or not at all. To wit: the WaPo seems to know something you don't know (or are conveniently ignoring):
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/mem...
Obama has missed 168 (37.7%) of the votes held in the current congress alone. Damn, what a great hustle--I wish I could blow off nearly 40% of my workload and get paid he gets every month. Hell, the Barackster has basically been MIA in Washington from the day he got there. The Senate was obviously just a place to hang his hat until he could become "Savior of the Republic , Defender of the Faith, and Redeemer of the Democratic Party."
Yeah pal, Barack has got a "nice tone"...for a guy who's often "too busy" to vote on some of the most important issues of the day.
Look, let's not complain too much about this. Indeed, I think we should ENCOURAGE members of Congress to miss more votes. It seems to me that less is more when it comes to that bunch of thieves and wardheelers doing their jobs.
If McCain wins the nomination--a 50/50 likelihood at this point--I think you've just created the outline for an ad he'll use in October. :-)
I had asked before but no responses.
What in the heck happened to the conservative candidates? They got blistered. Wasn't even close.
We're down to four and all of them liberals.
Is this what the board calls BDS?
Iraq FATIGUE - even those that still support it are sick and tired of us sitting over their babysitting folks who can't seem to walk yat.
and the rest of us - both those who never supported this fiasco, and those who did but no longer do now - have moved to the Liberals.
Conservatives OWN Iraq.
Liberals never took the BS bait and never support the Neocon policy. Now all who have turned away from Iraq have only one direction to go - to the Libs.
Interesting watching McCain and Romney debate on which one is going to kill the most Muslims.
It's a losing position and they're fighting to see who gets to claim it.
I haven't felt so optimistic about our great country since 2001-02.
Indeed, Hewitt, himself is making exactly the mistake he warned us against. Folks, if our choice is between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, then I'm going to vote against Clinton.
It's just that simple, kids. If you'd like to see Hillary and Bubba sharking around the White House for *eight frakking years*, then you go right ahead and sit out the election. Maybe you can vote for the ghost of Goldwater or Reagan next time out ... ya think?
SS
Nope. McCain being "better than the alternative" is a straw man argument. By that reasoning, ANY Republican is better than ANY Democrat, regardless of their views on the issues.
You freaking McCainiacs never talk issues (other than "the SURGE"), because YOU WOULD LOSE.
Issues matter to me. Lets talk about all the times he has stabbed our party in the back in issue after issue. If you don't recall the backstabbing, you don't follow politics. Of course you have a vote, but it sure isn't educated.
Just want to have an alternative to big government liberals. That is not McCain. I'm going to vote for the Democrat, because I prefer my class envy, big government liberals to be democrats. No regrets.