Amid all the election blather last year, pundits missed the larger, even historical story of 2012 — that America’s political tectonic plates seem to have shifted, which they do only every few decades. Conservative intransigence notwithstanding, we now live in a fundamentally different political environment than the one we had lived in since the 1980s. The America that has routinely been called “conservative” is conservative no longer.
To realize how significant a transformation this is, just think back about nine months ago. Despite a bruising primary campaign, Mitt Romney was not only a viable candidate for the presidency, he had at least a 50-50 shot to win. The Tea Party flexed its political muscles. Democrats were stymied. President Obama’s favorability ratings hovered in the mid-40s.
Comments
Dream on, Neal. The party ain't over yet.
Yep, they are going the way of the Whig Party. Their only hope is to go honest libertarian, because that does appeal to some young people, but the big corporations that really control the GOP won't allow that. Look what they did to Ron Paul during the last election! He was robbed. And now Rand Paul has won the CPAC straw poll.
cordgrass, I think we are about to see a real and interesting battle within the Republican Party between the two elements you note, and I think the libertarians are going to win; because as Gabler says, "we live in a newly invigorated country", though other than that he is clueless.
The extremists won't like the column but Neil raises a lot of valid points. He does however conflate "conservatism" with "libertarianism" which is at the heart of the Republican problem. This "libertarian" tendency is bitter, miserly more self-indulgent than the radicalism of the 60's. It is why I always conflate it with communism - both have this infantile approach to govt. Neither can be discussed without bitterness or anger, neither are really political, they are simply absolutist in their tendencies.
Day after day we see these folks blame "illegals", blame "moochers" (when in fact may of themselves receive benefits), but their benefits are earned their neighbors not so much. Watching the CPAC was like watching a group of adolescents scream and stamp their feet at how unfair life is. They shouldn't have to do their chores. They shouldn't have to contribute to the household. Just like with our children people grow weary of the constant complaining, the constant holding your breath until your face turns blue.
I don't agree the country has become "liberal" nor was it ever "conservative". We are by nature moderates and when the Republican Party invites those of us of a moderate persuasion back into the party it will once again become successful. I know all about the Gov. elected, legislators elected, blah, blah, but those are low turnout elections. Any good pol looks at national elections to see the health of the Party and right now the "kid" is sick and has a temperture.
Libertarians, Conservatives, Neo-Cons, all hate the Social Safety Net. All that use it are Moochers and E.B.T Scammers, Lazy and Shiftless. But I know many of the these self righteous, "I got mine" ilk personally, and when they went belly-up and assed-out, they were shoving their way to the front of the Welfare/E.B.T. Line. They didn't sniff distainfully at Romney Care either. Hypocrites. The Far Right. Most went to College using Pell Grants, Low Interest Federal Loans, and other "Loony Lefty, Bleeding Heart Giveaways". Now, they're all set and hate the thought of being taxed to provide these opportunities for others. Greed & Hypocricy, pure and simple. I'd LOVE to see the looks on the faces of Herald cluthching, Howie "I get Comped" Carr fawning, "Christian", blue collar neo-cons if someone like Ryan made it to the White House......they would be well and truly screwed by their own "Leaders". It'd be worth living that nightmare just to see the stunned looks on their slack-jawed phyisiognomies. Peace..
I think it's correct that Americans have become tolerant on the so-called social issues, and that's a good thing that can help libertarian Republicans win. But most Americans want to see SS and Medicare go bankrupt and support fraud and waste in government spending? I suspect the questions weren't asked correctly. Too bad Gabler won't acknowledge that his preferred socialism just makes everyone equally miserable.
What piffle. The post election party and analysis were completed months ago.
I wonder what public opinion would be if all these social issues were presented in a clear, unbiased format.
Does that exist? One man's prejudice is another's preference.
It exists and is at absurd levels
Hmmm. "snarling, pusilanimous", etc., are the comments of a more "tolerant" society? I guess then that Mr. Gabler needs to exclude himself from that description. Self righteous and uncompromising belong to him, too. Mr. Gabler, look to the meanings inherent in your choice of words--you have described yourself.
We need to supresede the "tolerant" society which is the best you can hope for, with the "welcoming" society that we all should hope for.
"be" I think the social issues are presented fairly clearly. Do you want SS to continue. No one with a modicum of sophistication as it relates to this program believes it will go bankrugpt. It only goes bankrupt if we refuse to fund it. Period. End of story. That being said folks want SS. The same is true of Medicare. It is simply a question do you want to fund it or not. That is the baseline question. Everything else is political trash talk.
It is real easy to make the argument, "do you want to pay less in taxes? Everyone including me will say yes. If you add the caveat do you want to pay less in taxes and lose "x" program the people start sayin, no. The reality is when folks like Ryan and Rand start being honest and say this program has got to go and this program has got to go. Folks start saying, No, you've got to go. I'm not even sure it's a political issues any longer except for the diehard "libertarians" and they'll never grow up. Eventually the 60's radicals bought in or sold out, but these Ayn Rand folks are like Peter Pan. They'll never grow up.
So, Turk, your idea is that all the programs the Feds have instituted have to remain funded because someone, somewhere is going to "No, you have got to go"?
Who is going to say that when someone says "Eric Holder, we are selling your corporate luxury jet, you will have to use one of the AF fleet jets, like everyone else." If Eric says it, he is only one vote.
Who is going to say that when the people say "Nope, no more money to Egypt". Someone in Egypt has a vote I do not know about?
Which one of the Morrocans is going to say "You've got to go" when we cut off the $30M for classes in how to design pottery?
You keep talking as if ALL programs are sarcred, as if all the money the gov spends must be spent. It just isn't so, Turk.
Do we really need to pay some 24 year old $800 a month because he is traumitized from having been ripped from the cozy warm womb of his family when he went off to college?
Will the worms vote against someone when we quit funding the study of their sex lives? Which is pretty boring, considering their situation.
The fact is, Turk, some of the programs DO have to go, and someone has to put on their big boy pants to do it. But the problem is it will, as you say, cost a few of our Lords some votes in some cases. Tough, it is OUR money they are spending.
This taxpayer is tired of seeing his money being sent over to Egyptians, they can send yours though, since you seem to think that it is all good.
"history" In re-reading my comment I noted I didn't say a word about all programs. I listed two. Two that "libertarians' and Ryan and Rand on the current crowd on the hill keep sayng it is going to get rid of. They may word it differently but the public sees through that.
Let me ask you. What does government do that doesn't benefit you that you approve of. Anything? You always come back with the extreme, ALL programs are sacred. I never said that. I could list a lot of deductions and programs that I think should go and that I think should be handled differently. But the "libertarians" want ALL programs to go. They want all federal programs gutted including those that work. You say Turk "You keep talking as if ALL programs are sarcred," Again I never said that.
Come up with programs that should end and I might well support them. Is the "earthworm study" worth the money. I don't know haven't looked it up and don't know what it's purpose is. Do you? Is it relevant to something else?
Nah, why ask relevant questions? Why speak to the comment I made when you can list things I never mentioned.
And to prove my point http://www.bizzyblog.com/2013/03/17/not-news-biden-staffer-demands-press-credentialed-student-delete-photos-taken-at-open-press-event/
"Be" I just can't get into this left right nonsense. There have been offers on the floor for reform. I've seen chained -CPI, there's what 750 bil in cuts to Medicare that the Repubs. ran against. There were more Medicare cuts put on the table. For the Republicans' they've agreed to what 850 bil in tax increases. Give them credit. In fact since 2011 there's been 2 triillion in cuts and taxes passed. Now most economists say we need to come up with somewhere between another 1 and t trillion over ten years. Now both sides know how to put that together instead we get political bs.
Actually I don't have a problem with folks playing politics that's how you get what you want. But these "libertarian" clowns don't want reform. They want destruction. They don't want conversation they want confrontation. Look at "History" did he address my comment? No. It's off to somewhere I never went.
I don't get my information from "blogs" right or left. I don't get it from FOX or MSNBC. I talk to people I have known over the years. I go directly to the congressional websites or to the writings of economists. I'm not an ideologue and as far as I'm concerned too many people don't care about the country, they care about their pet ideology.
I, personally supported Planned Parenthood against Komen, withdrew my support from Komen. Perhaps you dislike PP and that's fine and we can debate these things. But you can't debate people who will not face facts, will not accept another opinion or simply label the other person. Personally I think Obama wants a big deal. I hear differently from some folks in the Dem. Senate but I think they'd go along. The problem right now is a "libertarian" group of children and until these are controlled it will be very difficult for the grown ups to accomplish anything. Sorry that's long, but I think you're a reasonable person and I find it difficult to believe when you come up with Obama lied. Heck I could say that about Boehner but I don't, becasuse pols shade the truth, most grownups know that.
The GOP, the once great 'Party of Lincoln', the bastion of personal freedom and fiscal responsibility, in a spasm of post-Watergate desperation, under the control of men like Ailes and Rove made a pact with the extremes of thier party and for a time had great success. Alas what was once a belief in personal rights degenerated in a self-righteous drive to control the private lives of other Americans, and their once noble pursuit of economic common sense became a license for the top 1% to wage a 30 year war on the middle class. In the end, the GOP fell victim to the classical flaw of hubris, believing their success was inevitable, their god-given right, and eventually they lost touch with the electorate. Until they can learn to listen to the American people again, and to their own better angels, going so far as to reach out for compromise with those whose views on how to solve our common problems may be a little different from theirs, they will continue to be the party on the outside looking in.