Republican Conservatism as a Social Movement

[welsh]

4too wrote the following in another thread, and I thought it worth repeating here to get us started.

Single Party Democracy

Along with 2004's statistical majority, the Republican party can claim a 'mandate' because of their control of the House, the Senate, and the Executive. It's interesting that the stated agenda is tax system reform, and making social security 'safe for future generations".

Many are holding their breathes about the understated agenda of Supreme Court appointments. It's silly to profile Bush as the AntiChrist, but not so silly to see the impending cultural "reforms' as anti-New Deal.

In our grand human comedy we may see stuff get 'fixed' till they break, maybe this may happen to the public school system. More unfunded Federal mandates hardly conforms to the once upon a time Republican moral value of "less government". Quite a draconian effort just to break the back of the teachers unions and force feed the nation 'creationist theory' and the cross your legs, and count your beads, method of birth control (abstinence). Maybe this sounds like fantastic conspiracy theory to some, but there are some spectacular paranoid-christian ones about fascist, legislative judges too.

Franklin Roosevelt lost momentum for the "New Deal' in his second term and tried to pack the Supreme Court to end run the road blocks.
He failed like all those that tried in the past. We can only trust that the national political consensus will resist, and reject, ANY activist, legislative judge candidates. Mr. Bush's strict interpretationists may carry on the tradition of independence and bipartisanship once they win appointment.

Will two or more Bush appointees to the Supreme Court give his party
a perpetual lock on governing America? I don't know.

Other stated reforms appear to have multiple lines of sight.

Tax reform: weaning the businesses and citizens from begging for tax loop holes may fuel the economy, and negate any politicians promise of targeted tax breaks. One less issue in the election snake oil show. And a ready stick to beat any tax and spend types.

Social Security reform: may stabilize this New Deal 'vampire', fuel the investment industry (thus it still qualifies as redistribution of wealth, investment capital going to Wall Street before mere dollars trickle down to individuals), and thus "de-fang" SS, preventing it from being used as a Democratic issue every election.

Are we witnessing a Republican crusade to establish a single party republic? Will 'state socialism' prevail when the Republican ""Cultural Revolution"" busts my union and sends me off to re-education, 20 to life at minimum wage, box shifting at Walmart? All this dramatic paranoia aside, I did "vote for my job" this 2004. and perhaps as long as every one gets to vote and have that vote counted my fever dream can sleep peacefully in the Orwellian waste basket.

One must remember that the Republican party is a coalition of many interests and at times can be just as fragmented as the Democrats.
Witness that the next Ohio governor race (2006) has started: the back biting has begun in Ohio Republican ranks. ''Pity the Fool'' that voted for the temporary 1% sales tax increase.

4too

One reason that cannot be argued, is that the Republicans did a better job of getting out the vote. Sure they are a divided coalition, but they shared enough common interests.

More importantly they had an agenda- massive change to the way American exists today. This goes beyond advocating moral values, but significant changes to the way things are done in the US. A roll-back on the New Deal, something that has been happening since the 1980s response to the Great Society, is part of that change.

But its' more. Some here have suggested that it's corporativism- the linking of state to society and to business in one broad coalition similar to that which used to be found in many Latin American states, and which some of said smells a bit like Facism. But at the grassroots popular level its also a social movement that actively gets people organized and committed.

Political parties have generally played within the "rules of the game." Two parties campaign and pitch their ideas to buy votes from constitutuents. But the move for the Republicans to campaign in the church, suggests that the "rules of the game" want to be overthrown. THere are other common variables- the use of myths of popular leaders (veneration of Reagan) or the claim for specific turning points (like the pitch that "9/11 changed everthing"). THere are also elites and the use of ideological vehicles to pitch their ideas, such as the concentration of control over the media in a few hands. But at the grassroots level it also means changing what is taught in schools- such as the inclusion of more religion.

Have the Republicans become a social movement and more than a party? Is that what the Democrats have to do to "catch up?"

 

[welsh]

Here is a democrat take on what needs to be done- to create its own social movement.

Winning Back the Heartland
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 5 November 2004

Let's face it, the Republicans won this election in middle America. They won this election in churches and diners in rural America. The Democrats have to work very hard over the next four years to make in roads in small towns in the Midwest and the South.

What people in rural America said was that they liked George Bush's morals.

The Challenge over the next four years will be to paint many Republican policies as immoral and against the interests of rural America. It is not time as some suggest to move to the right, that has been tried and has been a failure. What is needed is a concerted effort to communicate to people that liberal policies are in their interest. Democrats must stop running away from the word liberal and instead make it a good word again.

Democrats must stand up and say that universal health care, a living wage, protecting the environment, and protecting social security are liberal values and they are in the interest of rural America.

Democrats can not wait until the next round of elections to make the case - a massive rural outreach campaign must start now. Congressional elections are only two years away. An effort must be made to recruit candidates who will make the case that Democratic Party values are American values and the Republican party does not have rural America's best interests at heart.

Those who argue that a move to the right is needed should look at the results of the Senate elections this time. Brad Carson, Erskin Bowles, and others ran on conservative platforms against weak candidates and still lost. When Democrats try to run as conservatives, the voters choose the real Republican not the Democrat trying to act like one.

It is time to look at people like Senator Tom Harkin and realize that he is a populist liberal and is able to win in Iowa. It is time to stop trying to mold candidates for the electorate they are facing and run candidates that will move the electorate.

Instead of running from the liberal label, it is time to make the electorate liberal again. There is nothing wrong with being liberal, the problem is that liberals, instead of making the case for liberalism being right, have instead tried to make the case that they are not as liberal as their opponent claims. This is a formula for disaster, since the voter is going to choose the real conservative in a race where both candidates are trying to run as conservatives.

America is a liberal country. The Republican Party has done a great job of marketing conservatism, while the Democrats have not defended liberalism.

The time has come to make conservative a bad word.

 

[Tannhauser]

Yes, Welsh, you have allowed me to see the light!

Inside the next twenty years, the American way of life as we know it will cease to exist! History books will mark this time as a great change, for the worse! Something that will take generations to fully reverse!

Woe to be alive during this dreadful time, if only people could see the full implications of voting Republican!

 

[welsh]

Indeed Kotario, indeed.

But are you doubting that the repubican party has become a social movement, championed at the grass-roots by the Christian Coalition?

Really, think about this- it used to be that two parties campaigned to get the vote and then submit their agenda. But the Republican party has gone past that. The goal of the Republicans is to create a hegemonic party and that might explain why democrats are losing so much. Do you agree or not?

So, while I am glad you have "seen the light," but it might be better if you actually said something substantive.

(and yes Kotario, I really hate Bush).

 

[Tannhauser]

Right, you know the purpose behind my post as well as anyone else. I wasn't trying to be subtle.

As for your hating Bush. so I've noticed. I'm not a supporter of Bush, but the constant insulting and one-sidedness at every turn is rather grating on the nerves.

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

The goal of the Republicans is to create a hegemonic party and that might explain why democrats are losing so much. Do you agree or not?

No one likes to accept responsibility for losing. I see the last election as proof that America has hope. That we are moving in the right direction (pun definitely intended). More Americans than ever turned out and voted for Bush and I'm willing to bet that it had a lot to do with Bush's moral standing. There were plenty of reasons for people to find to vote against him but they didn't, because morals are important. Look at the gay marriage thing. The morals that Bush subscribes to are the same morals that the majority of America subscribes to.

The Democrats are losing because they have lost their platform. This last election was about hate. Hate Bush, vote Kerry. Kerry did not define himself as anything other than 'he wasn't Bush'. Why? I believe had he defined himself in line with the Democratic party he would have lost by an even larger margin. Liberalism is no longer mainstream.

 

[4too]

Carrot Or Stick in The Post Truth Era

Carrot Or Stick in The Post Truth Era


Media babble phrase of the day: ''The Post Truth Era'', forgive my nuance dilettante's frenzy, of rushing to whip it out here, before I research it's origin.

From S.G.'s quoted article, (above):

...The time has come to make conservative a bad word.

Sounds like a page from "the end justifies the means" playbook.
In my Cold War Era education that was the forte of those evil Commies.
Might this imply that our only common interests and values are making other Americans wrong.

If the 'liberals' accept the typecasting as being the corrupt status quo, then perhaps they 'need' the cutting, divisive words justified above to face down this 'Conservative Revolution'. Clockwise or counterclockwise it's all circular imagery, another quest for utopia, another "Cultural Revolution" with grass roots mobilizations waving high the King James Bible on 'the long march' to painting all the united states 'red' . So why not ride the wave, and proclaim the one true revolution is ... telling the truth.

...The time has come to make conservative a bad word.

How comforting, a plea for social darwinism.

...The time has come to make conservative a bad word.

Perhaps the old Big Tent Ideal is too populist for this pissed off liberal.

Well, maybe being pissed off is as good a place to start as any.

Kind'a shows one gives a sh't, don't it?

Poop and pee, scat imagery,
as valid an image now as it was when we were kids.

Whine too loud,
and the old play ground rule of "two more for flinching" may apply.
So stand tall young liberals!

Defense, security, infrastructure, transportation, economy, education, environment, individual rights and responsibilities, whatever the 'laundry list',
Democrats or 'Liberals' need to define their issues, clearly conveying their essential value to Americans. Not as "liberal" but as necessary, AND AMERICAN. And ..., that the party can deliver without continually resorting to the 'poison pill' template of Big Government Inside The Beltway. This implies sharing the load, and the money, with the state and local levels of government. Leave the unfunded Federal mandates to "No Child Left Behind".

When the 'others' seek to build Big Government so as to enforce moral values that are libido or uterine obsessed, demand if it's necessary, and call it a red herring when it's a dodge or a distortion of our nations' fundamental vision.

The fighting, the struggle, in this Post Truth Era, is to turn the misinformation back on the propagandists, especially the media marketers that unilaterally distort all parties' messages. Focus the "being wrong" there. Call the opposition, and the media, on over simplifying or distorting, any message, any issue in an attempt to blur the truth.

Blanket condemnations and ad hominem attacks are too shallow
and double edged to base a campaign or a party's image on. Flame them for mouth stuffing, not for how their mom dressed them funny. Your own fly might be open.

Both partys need to contemplate:

If the two parties are equally narcissistic and rude, why should Americans see the any difference.

Consider seizing the moral high ground when establishing a party's moral values. Leave the swamp to the mud slingers, so all can see their reptilian prehistoric mindset.


4too

 

[Bradylama]

There were plenty of reasons for people to find to vote against him but they didn't, because morals are important.

Bullshit.

People have been electing Republicans for years, simply because their moral values are in line with their own. Same for Democrats.

Politicians aren't going to change anything socially. You think we're going to get rid of abortion in the future? (something upheld by the Supreme fucking Court) Or that anybody has the balls to actually support gay marriage?

No. Politicians never change anything socially because it pisses off their constituents. When the issue becomes too critical (like gay marriage) they simply let the people decide to alleviate any personal responsibilities.

Midwestern Populists have been electing Republicans for years. Why? Becuase abortion is wrong? Well I guess they don't mind getting shafted economically for 0 change.

 

[welsh]

I disagree Brady- Politicians change issues socially all the time.

Again, Johnson's Great Society, the Voting Rights Act- parts of the democratic agenda of the 1960s that sought progress even while we were at war.

Tone thinks that we are moving in the right direction with Bush, who has given massive tax breaks to the rich, who has loosened environmental standards, who may or may not be trying to destroy our schools, and who has passed a "faith based initiative" scheme.

Its a a different kind of revolution.

Clearly Kerry either didn't get his message out or he didn't get people to buy it. ANd maybe part of that is the fact that the Democrats didn't go out to the country and sell their values.

Their values did sell once- the notions of equality, justice, fairness, ending racial disharmony, empowering the disenfranchised, and reducing poverty.

The Republicans will sell an agenda on their own notions- some of them couched in language that the democrats have used- but the republicans are selling a different vision of america.

What is different about the republicans is that they have succeeded in building a movement, which seems to be in ascendence. Tone thinks its better, I don't- but I doubt anyone can really argue that it's not real.

Does that mean that the Democrats are out. I don't think so. Democrats have their values as well that clash with those of the Republicans. But they are not building the connection to the people that the Republicans have.

SO the Republicans are campaigning through the churches, and the churches have an interest in supporting the Republicans because of the money they get through Faith Based Initiatives. But that's part of the mechanism of building a supportive social movement from the state.

This happens all over the world. The state is up for a vote, it builds a coalition to support it through grassroots movements supported by financial and political pay-offs, and doing so wins the election.

We see it as a campaign about morals- but whether it was about gay marriage or the right to health care- both are moral values. It's just the republicans were better at getting people to support theirs.

Tone might be right that liberalism is on the way out and conservativism is on the way in. I also agree with 4too- both parties are narcisitic in the way they approach their groups.

But I disagree with Tone that this overwhelming states the people agree with Bush's values. I don't- his disapproval ratings are still high. I also don't think Democrats should become a lot more like democrats.

WHether the country is moving to the right in a big way, I'm not sure. But Tone is right, the election does suggest it.

A lot of democrats who think that this vote was just a vote that said, "We're not liking what you're doing but we'll give you another four years." I don't. I think this is a sign that the Republicans are changing the rules of the game to win the next few elections. And if the democrats don't see that, than they are sunk.

 

[John Uskglass]

As for your hating Bush. so I've noticed. I'm not a supporter of Bush, but the constant insulting and one-sidedness at every turn is rather grating on the nerves.

Fo shizzle, yo.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Horse not dead: continue flogging.

There's a wide gap between what is right and what is popular. Politicians are far too concerned with keeping their jobs than doing what's good for the country, and I hate to say it, but most of my fellow countrymen are idiots. They're far too shortsighted and worry more about the here and now than the future. Why else would gay marriage be such a large issue? Seriously, gay marriage has little to anything to do with the country, yet it's a topic that nearly everyone has an opinion on. So all you have to do is align yourself with the side that's larger (or at least louder), and you're home free. Then do it a few dozen times more for other trivial-yet-persistent issues and the election's in the bag. It seems that the Democrats this time around have a little more concern for the welfare of the country than the Republicans, but ultimately, it's nothing but "If you vote for the other guy, terrorists will blow you up", and "The other guy will ruin America; vote for me, the lesser of two evils!" from BOTH sides. What America needs is leaders who can stand up to pressure and do what's right for the country, even if it makes them hated, because history will vindicate them.

Oh yeah, on abortion: the truth is, if abortions are made illegal, then you'll just have more pregnant mothers dying from visiting unsafe back-alley abortionists. If someone's going to get an abortion, then the legality of it won't stop them; at least, this way, you're protecting the people by offering them a legal, safer route.

 

[welsh]

ON abortions- or, if you're rich, fly to Europe and get it done properly, and if you're poor take your chances with a coat hanger.

Devil- I think any candidate can say that he's willing to do what he thinks is best for the country. Bush can say that he thought Iraq was best for the country and took a political risk in doing it.

No politician will say that they are doing what they are doing for pure political gain.

The thing is, perhaps the republicans are doing it with grander ambitions than staying in power. Even if Bush is thinking about the next four years, the party might be thinking about the long term. This is their chance to dominate for a long time if they claim the territory and fortify it. Maybe that's what they are doing.

 

[calculon000]

If you want an abortion just go to Canada and get one.

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

I disagree Brady- Politicians change issues socially all the time.

Again, Johnson's Great Society, the Voting Rights Act- parts of the democratic agenda of the 1960s that sought progress even while we were at war.

Tone thinks that we are moving in the right direction with Bush, who has given massive tax breaks to the rich, who has loosened environmental standards, who may or may not be trying to destroy our schools, and who has passed a "faith based initiative" scheme.

That's because the rich are massively taxed. Who else should get the tax breaks? Not me. I get plenty, last year I got all of my taxes back plus about 3 times that in Earned Income Credit. I don't see how he is trying to destroy our schools in any way. The fact is, they need to change. I fully support his faith based initiative agenda.

Its a a different kind of revolution.

Clearly Kerry either didn't get his message out or he didn't get people to buy it. ANd maybe part of that is the fact that the Democrats didn't go out to the country and sell their values.

Their values did sell once- the notions of equality, justice, fairness, ending racial disharmony, empowering the disenfranchised, and reducing poverty.

The Republicans will sell an agenda on their own notions- some of them couched in language that the democrats have used- but the republicans are selling a different vision of america.

What is different about the republicans is that they have succeeded in building a movement, which seems to be in ascendence. Tone thinks its better, I don't- but I doubt anyone can really argue that it's not real.

Does that mean that the Democrats are out. I don't think so. Democrats have their values as well that clash with those of the Republicans. But they are not building the connection to the people that the Republicans have.

SO the Republicans are campaigning through the churches, and the churches have an interest in supporting the Republicans because of the money they get through Faith Based Initiatives. But that's part of the mechanism of building a supportive social movement from the state.

Considering the amount of charity most churches do, I think it is great the government is reimbursing them for their work. Churches have been doing a lot without the governments aid.

This happens all over the world. The state is up for a vote, it builds a coalition to support it through grassroots movements supported by financial and political pay-offs, and doing so wins the election.

We see it as a campaign about morals- but whether it was about gay marriage or the right to health care- both are moral values. It's just the republicans were better at getting people to support theirs.

Tone might be right that liberalism is on the way out and conservativism is on the way in. I also agree with 4too- both parties are narcisitic in the way they approach their groups.

But I disagree with Tone that this overwhelming states the people agree with Bush's values. I don't- his disapproval ratings are still high. I also don't think Democrats should become a lot more like democrats.

Actually, I think you are making my point here. If his disapproval rating is so high, why did so many people vote for him? His moral standing, his values. They may not like the way he is handling his job but they appreciate his values.

WHether the country is moving to the right in a big way, I'm not sure. But Tone is right, the election does suggest it.

A lot of democrats who think that this vote was just a vote that said, "We're not liking what you're doing but we'll give you another four years." I don't. I think this is a sign that the Republicans are changing the rules of the game to win the next few elections. And if the democrats don't see that, than they are sunk.

The left needs to realize a lot. I went to Michael Moore's site (when it was just a black page with his whining) and here he is touting about 'more people voted for Kerry than Bush I, Clinton in both terms and Bush or Gore in 2000.' He is missing the point that 59.5M Americans voted for Bush (the most ever to vote for one candidate if I recall correctly) compared to 56M who voted for Kerry. He is missing the point that Bush won the majority of voters, something Clinton never did.

When is the Left going to stop making excuses and get a grip on reality? Their twist of perception is not going to change reality.

 

[4too]

Tough Love

Tough Love

t.c.:

When is the Left going to stop making excuses and get a grip on reality? Their twist of perception is not going to change reality.

Republican Majority in Election 2004. True or False.
Beware: Denial of the situation will color the truth in other contexts.
Black and white morphs to shades of grey.
Shades of truth fade beyond their shadows.
How can lies support a "higher truth"?


4too

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Re: Tough Love

Tough Love

t.c.:

When is the Left going to stop making excuses and get a grip on reality? Their twist of perception is not going to change reality.

Republican Majority in Election 2004. True or False.
Beware: Denial of the situation will color the truth in other contexts.
Black and white morphs to shades of grey.
Shades of truth fade beyond their shadows.
How can lies support a "higher truth"?


4too

Not sure if I'm reading you correctly but...
Republican Majority: Yes, the Republicans picked up seats in the Senate, House and I believe they picked up a seat or two as far as governors go. Still, they don't have an operational majority.

Not sure where you're going with the lies part...did I miss the bus on this or something?

 

[The Vault Dweller]

I dont understand how the religious can advocate this?!

I know I brought this up in another thread, but it was ignored...

How do these people read the Bible, with the lights off!?! War is murder and "Thou shalt not kill." is written so anyone can link the two. I hate to disapprove the war on terror for personal religious reason's, but if people are gonna support it for religious reason's I think they should get their facts straight.

If your for the war to stop terrorism, protect US interests, etc. I understand...but...religion just doesnt belong there. Can someone PLEASE tell me how they justify it in the eyes of God?!

Either that or stop bringing politics into the Church and vice versa. This really makes me sick...

,
The Vault Dweller

 

[4too]

Post Truth Era

Post Truth Era

Sorry, lost in my own context.

Talk radio interview of author of "Post Truth Era" was on in the background today. So my brain is over full of ethical situations in our daily lives and the degrees of social deception we all practice to get by.

Example:


Walking down hall, sinuses enflamed and nose running from allergy.

Asked, ""How are you doing?""

Answer, ""Fine.""

And walk on unconscious of the deception, the "little social lie".



In accessing the change in the political situation, faulty assessments, and self deceptions; bad data and 'denial', our 'little social lies', can be as negative a cul de sac, as languishing in lethargic lethargy. That's "fine" for the tragedy queens, I'd rather see what will be happening next.

... How can lies support a "higher truth"?

This is a paraphrase of the author's view of the third party advocates for
the candidates. The "independent" groups were the most aggressive "enhancers of the truth", and he questioned their ultimate effectiveness in supporting the "greater truth" of their side.


Adapt this to t.c.'s admonitions of 'seeing' the - realities - of the 2004 election, need to cast off silly circular arguments that whine around, 'the majority wasn't a majority' and begin seeing what has changed and what hasn't.

One constructive activity would be to follow how accurate the voting counts were this election. Ohio was still 'rebuilding' it's system.
The "negative" counts for one of the 'newer' systems introduced in Florida (programed by the clueless) would push any partisan to 'bitch slap' the venders, "" call yourself a programmer, ehhh, SWWAPP!""

Consider that an EARNED trust in our voting system would be the best foundation for accessing the reality of the majority.



4too

 

[bob_the_rambler]

vault dweller, you mention "tho shalt not kill", while many different religious people will give you different answers as to the exact meaning of this, many will tell you that this simply means tho "shalt not shed innocent blood". i wont tell you that bush has god grace with this war in iraq because i believe that "god" wants peace for the world.

an interesting thought to many, about religious types that advocate this war is "how can you believe that peace is gods goal and not work towards peace yourselfs" the answer that i have found is that many believe (including myself) that peace will never come to man untill Christ returns and he bounds all evil to hell.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

vault dweller, you mention "tho shalt not kill", while many different religious people will give you different answers as to the exact meaning of this, many will tell you that this simply means tho "shalt not shed innocent blood". i wont tell you that bush has god grace with this war in iraq because i believe that "god" wants peace for the world.

an interesting thought to many, about religious types that advocate this war is "how can you believe that peace is gods goal and not work towards peace yourselfs" the answer that i have found is that many believe (including myself) that peace will never come to man untill Christ returns and he bounds all evil to hell.

Bob...thank you! Not only for answering my question, but giving me such a well-thought out response. I kinda thought maybe my subject hit too close-to-home for people in-the-know to answer it. I feel much better now and glad that you were willing to bridge the gap. I was worried someone would say "Well your wrong." or "Obviously they believe differently from you Vault Dweller."

I take this as a sign Republican's (not to stereotype you Bob) are really gonna try and mend fences after this destructive and depressing election. Am I the only other person noticing the sudden lack of jadedness in our recent discussions? Maybe we just know there's nothing else we can do now that its over...

Very Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller