Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20727
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:29 pm
 


Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Four more years (click to view)
Date: November 9, 2012
I guess the fundamental question is whether this was a normal defeat or something else.

If it was the former, there's not much for the Republicans to fret about. Mitt Romney very nearly won the popular vote, after all, he had a better electoral college showing than John McCain, and only lost the most important swing states by thin percentiles well within the margin of error of most pre-election polls. America has seen truly hopeless elections in the recent past — Mondale vs. Reagan in 1984, for instance, or McGovern vs. Nixon in 1972 — and this wasn't one of them. Dreams of a Romney White House may look implausible in retrospect, but the goal was never impossible.

On the other hand, maybe narrow losses are the best the GOP can hope for going forward. America's demographic math seems stubbornly determined to prevent a Republican future, and 2012 may very well represent a point of no return. In the days since November 6, what was once a quiet point of pride among liberals and secret dread amongst conservatives is now being shouted from every newspaper headline: Republicans are too white to win.

Since 1980, the white share of the American "voting populace" (ie; adults) has shrunk 15%, while the black and Hispanic share rose two percentage points each since 2008. This means that even though Obama, like most Democrats, lost the white vote quite decisively — 39% to 59% — his share of the country's two biggest minority groups' was so overwhelming — 93% and 71% respectively — it was basically a non-issue.

The entire premise underlying the optimistic 2012 predictions of so many conservatives— from Dick Morris to the"unskewed polls" movement to the Romney campaign itself — was entirely based on the naive assumption that 2008 was some sort of giddy minority-vote outlier. Surely blacks and Hispanics wouldn't turn out in nearly such ample droves this time, they hoped. Surely some naturally conservative minority constituency would drift back to the GOP after the initial thrill of the first minority president wore off.

Wrong and wrong, it seems. If future elections are to be entirely decided by nothing more than sheer mobilization of the base, it's hard to see a Republican path back to 1600 Pennsylvania, especially since we all know who's winning the baby wars these days.

There's a lot of different ways conservatives can respond to this data. To many Republicans, the incentive is simply to continue an initiative begun with some success during the George W. Bush years (but largely ignored since), and pander to Latinos, those honest, hard-working, God-fearing, "natural conservatives," openly and aggressively. Already several leading right-wing pundits, Charles Krauthammer and Sean Hannity amongst them, have suggested that it's time for the GOP to just bite the bullet and endorse amnesty for illegals, convinced as they are that nothing short of an outright explosion of the two-party dialogue on immigration will come close to winning conservative trust from this most critical community.

The only question is, how to do you then ensue the white backlash doesn't cancel out the Hispanic gains?

You can't, say those on the harder right side of the spectrum, particularly the so-called "alt-right" blogosphere. There, the consensus view is that the Republicans' demographic reality as the party of "white America" is nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed of, and in fact dictates a far more logical path to the presidency than the uncertain fruits of some theoretical minority outreach. After all, what victory scenario sounds more plausible, asks Jared Taylor, head of the unapologetically (to put it gently) pro-white American Renaissance – the idea that a future Republican could win an 8% larger share of the minority vote in 2016, or merely increase his share of the white vote by 3%? Over at RealClearPolitics, Sean Trende basically agrees. Almost seven million fewer whites voted in 2012 than 2008 he notes, adding that demographic decline or not, "the reason this electorate looked so different from the 2008 electorate is almost entirely attributable to white voters staying home."

From this perspective, we tend to get the traditional "not conservative enough" refrain that will no doubt come to dominate the Tea Party's post-November worldview. Though they'd shy away from phrasing it this way, the basic gist is that if conservatives are disproportionately white, then the most effective Republican pandering will be disproportionately conservative. The famed alt-right blogger Steve Sailer has called this the "Sailer Strategy," and its most extreme manifestation encourages a Republican Party promising a harsh crackdown on all forms of immigration — illegal or otherwise — and an unapologetic war against multiculturalism, affirmative action, welfare programs that largely favor minorities, and other stuff white voters (which is to say conservatives) will supposedly appreciate for both ideological and racial-cultural reasons.

Such an attitude will always be popular in some circles because it appeals to some deep-seeded sense of demographic justice. If the minorities can have their party, a party so self-righteous and proud and showy in its minority-ness, then why not let the whites have a party of similar tone?

The answer, of course, is because whites don't actually want this.

On Tuesday night Romney lost literally a dozen states with white populations in the 70%-and-up range; indeed, as BuzzFeed noted, Obama would have still won five states even if all minorities were legally unable to vote. This is because unlike blacks and Hispanics, whites remain a fairly polarized group with opinions and loyalties all over the place, right and left, dogmatic and moderate. Any Republican Party that honestly seeks to be the party of white America thus has to make some peace with the very strong and real phenomenon of white liberalism, though white liberals are probably the portion of the electorate the GOP is most hostile towards. And white liberals are more than happy to return the favor —just ask a white liberal state like Vermont or Massachusetts, which Romney lost by margins of more than 20 points.

Whites, it should be remembered, largely created open-borders immigration, affirmative action, multiculturalism, and the welfare state. Increased hostility to these kinds of things seems just as likely to continue to drive down the white vote as much as raise it, particularly as more whites migrate to those urban blue islands in the center of their states where a certain style of politically-correct tolerance on these issues (to say nothing of issues involving gays, women, and secularists) is a basically a mandatory criteria of citizenship.

It's white America's (particularly young white America's) growing aversion to anything that smacks of racism, bigotry, ignorance, or paranoia that probably represents the GOP's single biggest strategic obstacle to overcome in the post-Obama era. It's not a problem that can be fixed by doubling-down in a more fearlessly intolerant direction, nor by taking a blind leap into minority-pander world. What it does require is a fundamental repackaging of how Republicanism presents itself to the nation, a re-imagining that results in a fresh party that while still identifiably conservative, nevertheless signals a clean break with the vibe of weirdness and intolerance that is scaring off the very sorts of voters the party most needs to woo.

I've got my theories on how they should do this, but what are yours?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11496
PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:55 pm
 


Blacks and Latinos are not by default anti-conservative. It's more that they are not going to support these jack-off rightwingers who keep endlessly insulting them. Why in the hell should any black woman, for example, vote GOP when Republicans have been playing this completely bogus and mythical "welfare queen" nonsense for the last thirty years? Why should a Latino-American citizen who's family has been in America for generations and who pays his taxes, goes to work, and even serves in the armed forces, vote GOP when it's Republicans in place like Arizona who say that he shouldn't bitch if he gets racially profiled when he's driving and unjustifiably gets pulled over by cops looking for illegals?

The angry white male phenomenon, another demographic BTW that shouldn't be voting GOP either considering that it's most been the Republican lackeys for Wall Street that have made life so damn difficult in the US for white males (through the ongoing destruction of middle-class jobs) as much as they have for any other group, is just more garbage that has to end. No one is going to listen to Republicans as long as they're projecting themselves as the public face of unhinged rage. White women have abandoned the GOP too, thanks to all the rape-talk idiots, and sent an unprecedented number of female Democrats to Congress as a result. White males will figure all of this out too someday. It's not that the Democrats are good, because most of the time they're not, it's just that right now the Republicans are so goddamn awful in all respects that more and more Americans are finding it impossible to support them anymore. Bring back real conservatism, and get rid of this deplorable batshit hate-radio/FOX News/internet whackjob monstrosity that's stolen the conservative name.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10132
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:23 am
 


Thanos wrote:
Blacks and Latinos are not by default anti-conservative. It's more that they are not going to support these jack-off rightwingers who keep endlessly insulting them. Why in the hell should any black woman, for example, vote GOP when Republicans have been playing this completely bogus and mythical "welfare queen" nonsense for the last thirty years? Why should a Latino-American citizen who's family has been in America for generations and who pays his taxes, goes to work, and even serves in the armed forces, vote GOP when it's Republicans in place like Arizona who say that he shouldn't bitch if he gets racially profiled when he's driving and unjustifiably gets pulled over by cops looking for illegals?

The angry white male phenomenon, another demographic BTW that shouldn't be voting GOP either considering that it's most been the Republican lackeys for Wall Street that have made life so damn difficult in the US for white males (through the ongoing destruction of middle-class jobs) as much as they have for any other group, is just more garbage that has to end. No one is going to listen to Republicans as long as they're projecting themselves as the public face of unhinged rage. White women have abandoned the GOP too, thanks to all the rape-talk idiots, and sent an unprecedented number of female Democrats to Congress as a result. White males will figure all of this out too someday. It's not that the Democrats are good, because most of the time they're not, it's just that right now the Republicans are so goddamn awful in all respects that more and more Americans are finding it impossible to support them anymore. Bring back real conservatism, and get rid of this deplorable batshit hate-radio/FOX News/internet whackjob monstrosity that's stolen the conservative name.


Indeed.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18194
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:02 am
 


Thanos wrote:
Blacks and Latinos are not by default anti-conservative. It's more that they are not going to support these jack-off rightwingers who keep endlessly insulting them. Why in the hell should any black woman, for example, vote GOP when Republicans have been playing this completely bogus and mythical "welfare queen" nonsense for the last thirty years? Why should a Latino-American citizen who's family has been in America for generations and who pays his taxes, goes to work, and even serves in the armed forces, vote GOP when it's Republicans in place like Arizona who say that he shouldn't bitch if he gets racially profiled when he's driving and unjustifiably gets pulled over by cops looking for illegals?

The angry white male phenomenon, another demographic BTW that shouldn't be voting GOP either considering that it's most been the Republican lackeys for Wall Street that have made life so damn difficult in the US for white males (through the ongoing destruction of middle-class jobs) as much as they have for any other group, is just more garbage that has to end. No one is going to listen to Republicans as long as they're projecting themselves as the public face of unhinged rage. White women have abandoned the GOP too, thanks to all the rape-talk idiots, and sent an unprecedented number of female Democrats to Congress as a result. White males will figure all of this out too someday. It's not that the Democrats are good, because most of the time they're not, it's just that right now the Republicans are so goddamn awful in all respects that more and more Americans are finding it impossible to support them anymore. Bring back real conservatism, and get rid of this deplorable batshit hate-radio/FOX News/internet whackjob monstrosity that's stolen the conservative name.


^ This!


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3532
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:21 am
 


Thanos: Describe to me the "real conservatism" you want brought back.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 34
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:29 am
 


Psudo wrote:
Thanos: Describe to me the "real conservatism" you want brought back.


This video can help explain it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNPki57w6sI


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22897

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:33 am
 


Some teabagger had an "I like Ike" sign. Well so do I. Ike wouldn't even be allowed membership in the Republicon party these days, never mind being nominated for president.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11496
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:51 am
 


Psudo wrote:
Thanos: Describe to me the "real conservatism" you want brought back.


Answer a question with a question time:

How do the following people/groups qualify as conservative?

Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the hate-radio creatures
FOX News
Glenn Beck
Todd Akin
Operation Rescue
Donald Trump
Sarah Palin/Sharron Angle/Christine O'Donnell
CEO's that don't pay taxes
CEO's that threaten to fire their workers if they vote the wrong way
Breitbart's orcs
TeaBirchers
Ted Nugent
Richard Mourdock (who defeated Dick Lugar, a lifelong conservative, in the primaries and then lost himself in the general election)
The Birthers
The Randroid Libertarians
etc
etc
etc.

What specifically makes these examples, who are now the defining public face of American conservatism, conservative? And why are the values that these examples purportedly have considered to be conservative values?


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3532
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:22 am
 


Technically, I didn't ask a question. I declared instructions.

I'm not alleging that the people operating under the name "conservatives" are doing things right. There's plenty of idiocy holding that banner. I'm asking you what your views are as to how they ought to act and what policies they ought to champion. The implied question is: "What is the ideal form of conservatism?" I seek to discuss ideas and values and policy, not people.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23759
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:41 am
 


Psudo wrote:
I'm not alleging that the people operating under the name "conservatives" are doing things right. There's plenty of idiocy holding that banner. I'm asking you what your views are as to how they ought to act and what policies they ought to champion. What is the ideal form of conservatism? I seek to discuss ideas and values and policy, not people.


I should wonder that the GOP does not take a hard look at what they need to be conservative about versus what they want to be conservative about.

Frankly, I'm a bit of a fiscal conservative myself, and that's a focus for them that obviously resonates with many Americans even if there are fundamental disagreements on the hows and whys. There is a mutual national need there that the obvious benefits of a fiscally conservative policy needs to address with respect to economic growth, social policies, and debt reduction.

The socially conservative policies are focusing on a small and smaller group of people, or more often not divisive, and can often be tainted by paternalism and bigotry. As often as not, they are out of lock step with many Americans and their more liberal allies.

The fact that gay marriage and legal pot are making decent inroads in the US, a country widely viewed as being more centre right than many other western democracies, suggests the GOP is missing the mark (as do the two failed election bids)

The fact that Romney came way as the most electable of the bunch of unelectable candidates should speak a lot to the work the GOP needs to do here.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11496
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:43 am
 


Rejection of all radicalism, as William F. Buckley did when he condemned the antics of the John Birch Society and the others that were fixated on a communist take-over of the United States. A conservatism that also has nothing to do anymore with the atavistic impulses of the Jim Crow-era Southern states would be incredibly refreshing


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3532
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:53 am
 


Thanos: I agree with those two principles, but they are principles of exclusion. I recognize that there are plenty of pitfalls conservatives should avoid. But what should they champion? What is it that makes conservatism valuable at all?

Gunnair touches on fiscal conservatism as a virtue. Are there others? Is there a legitimate side to social conservatism or foreign policy conservatism?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23759
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:08 am
 


Psudo wrote:
Thanos: I agree with those two principles, but they are principles of exclusion. I recognize that there are plenty of pitfalls conservatives should avoid. But what should they champion? What is it that makes conservatism valuable at all?

Gunnair touches on fiscal conservatism as a virtue. Are there others? Is there a legitimate side to social conservatism or foreign policy conservatism?


Foreign policy conservatism is a tricky one as it needs to be highly flexible even in the face of being hypocritical. Support for Libya and not Syria seem at odds and hopelessly hypocritical on the surface, yet they are nuanced responses to political realities both in Syria and in the US (in the UN as well)

Social conservatism is much harder because they seem to move easily into the limitations of freedom - a concept that appears to be utterly unappetizing to people.

Abortion, gay marriage, pot - these are all on the surface, matters of individual freedom that are curtailed mostly by religious and moral convictions, not because of a preponderance of opinion that they create social harm. This is where the GOP often suffers, when they choose a policy that effectively restricts freedom and liberty not because of valid concerns for social harm, but because of moral judgments based on religious dogma.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3532
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:21 am
 


JJ advocates same-sex marriage as a socially conservative policy in that it allows and encourages gays to join the social tradition of the nuclear family rather than the vacuous stereotype of drugs-and-anonymous-sex hedonism. I advocate increasing immigration on the premise that more minds seeking employment in the private sector will find more ways to provide employment to the private sector. These are certainly social issues. Are they conservative positions? Are they good ideas? If they are all three, then they are examples of worthwhile conservative positions on social issues.

It is important to me to hear definitions of good conservatism in order to take criticisms of bad conservatism under advisement. Without them, I can't help but take the criticisms as generalized rejections of conservatism on principle.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 744
PostPosted: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:50 am
 


Psudo I will take a stab at defining conservative values that may resonate with the American people from the questionable view of an outsider. Consider a first stab and see where the discussion may go.

1. Fiscal policy that concentrates on reducing national debt. I do not mean a slashing of all expenses although to make appreciably headway it may seem that way. Spending should be prioritized based on public need and return to the treasury. For example if a dollar spent on infrastructure generates more than a dollar in tax revenue then that would be a good thing. If military spending generates more than a dollar return then fine, but if it is a 50 cent on the dollar item then look for cutbacks.
2. Stay out of the nations bedrooms. Legislation targeted to discriminate against homosexuals, same sex marriage, etc is blind dogma trying to deny something that has existed for millenia. There is no need to create frivolous laws that just clutter up the books. Individuals that promote discriminatory legislation have hurt their party in both Canada and the US.
3. While streamlining trade relations and eliminating redundant legisltaion and beauracies would reduce government costs and improve revenue it would not resonate with a US that feels it is under economic hardship. Protectionism is what will win votes, but in the long run is harmful to the US's well being.
4. Reduce legislation where ever possible. Reduce agency duplication where ever possible.
5. The US is not the world's policeman. The US should not turn it's back on the world, but should only engage in action promoted by the UN, NATO or other international agreements. This would aid in returning the US to the perceived 'good guy' role instead of the interfering bully. Policies of the past that supported abusive dictators did not enhance the US's world stature.
6. At this time affordable healthcare is an issue with the American public. Depending on who is quoting stats the numbers range from 15 to 20% of Americans do not have health insurance. Of the remaining 80+% the coverage of the health insurance does vary. A more inclusive plan would not only gain votes form the poorer sectors, but could be modeled in a way that appeals to the majority of Americans. Take the pieces from the world's best systems that make sense then build them into a semi private model that Americans can support.
7. Invest in education and reasearch as that will enhance the US's future ability to compete on the world stage.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 175 posts ]  1  2  3  4  5 ... 12  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.