The State of the Conservative Voice in the Forum and the Nation

[TimmySmith]

It could be that they are portrayed as crazy by the media. Could be.

I mean, one could merely look at the threads about them on this site. They are "sexy adventures" or something similar. People buy into that stuff very easily these days. This site is very left leaning, which is to be understood because the immediate areas around DC are very left leaning. No right wing candidate will ever get a fair shake here.

[Larry]

Choosing the independent label was hard for me, I am free to admit. But once I did it, it set me free But it isn't easily seen in my posts.

I can certainly understand that effect.

Speaking for myself, for example, I have no doubt whatsoever that the VAST majority have attached a label to me that reads "extremist lefty", based simply on reading one Gay Marriage thread.

OTOH, I've been expressing an idea I've had for radically changing welfare (I think we should consider bringing back the Poor House. A barracks-like environment where poor people can go to receive shelter and food (from the mess hall) for free.) that has had people call me a Nazi.

But, Tailgate has had a lot more threads about Gay Marriage than it has about welfare reform.

So, what people see, about me, is my Gay Marriage position.

[Kilmer17]

That cuts both ways Larry. Grab a death penalty thread or an abortion thread and I'm considered a baby killing socialist hippie. And I dont even get the cool pullover.

[Larry]

There are still a fair number of intelligent conservative commentators out there, including guys like George Will and David Brooks. However, their voices are being drowned out by rabid "conservative populists" like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin.

I had high hopes for Will. Especially after Bill Buckley died, I thought that he was angling to be his replacement.

But, last few years, the impression I get is that Will has moved towards Rush a lot more than the reverse.

---------- Post added November-9th-2011 at 09:57 AM ----------

I was talking with my boss about the state of the republican party and why it seems there are so few moderates in either party. We attribute the polarization of both parties to the congressional redistricting to form safe seats for incumbants. As soon as there are "safe" seats for a party, extremes from that party will campaign to win the seat. Suddenly the safe Dem is facing a primary challenge from the left. These primaries have the effect of weeding out the middle from any of the safe seats.

I do think that you've noticed something. I do think that it's dangerous, that politics has become so precise and such a science.

I also think that part of the problem is that the people don't expect ethics in politics any more.

I remember being horrified 20 years ago, when I heard Rush inspiring his followers by telling them that they need to gt out and vote, because redistricting is coming up, and we want our party to be drawing those boundaries.

My reaction was "that person is literally telling people 'get out there and vote for my side, so we can rig elections even more in our favor'".

And nobody had a problem with that. They don't have a problem with their politicians literally announcing "If elected, I promise to do everything I can to give my political party every unfair advantage I possibly can."

----------

I think that a shorter demonstration of that phenomenon is the number of posters who seem to believe that "well, the other side isn't perfect" is some kind of valid defense for evil behavior.

I know we have "blue dog democrats." Is there a Republican version?

Yes. They're called "blue dog Democrats".

Because they got kicked out of the GOP for insufficient ideological purity.

[NavyDave]

Holy crap we libertarians are being lumped in with the left instead if the right-that's new

 
http://video.adultswim.com/robot-chicken/we-are-the-victors.html

---------- Post added November-9th-2011 at 10:40 AM ----------

I know we have "blue dog democrats." Is there a Republican version? They are called RINOs Republicans In Name OnlyThey are for bigger government. And just like Obama when their pockets are lined by Big Pharmacy they go along with extending patents on meds or pushing for competition across state lines when it comes to insurance. The repeal of DADT so openly Gay types can serve in the military came about unfortunately due to the push by the Log Cabin Republicans.

The GOP is Team Donkey lite without conservatives.

[Madison Redskin]

It could be that they are portrayed as crazy by the media. Could be.

I mean, one could merely look at the threads about them on this site. They are "sexy adventures" or something similar. People buy into that stuff very easily these days. This site is very left leaning, which is to be understood because the immediate areas around DC are very left leaning. No right wing candidate will ever get a fair shake here.

Sometimes, portraits accurately depict reality. People like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann on the right, and Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich on the left, do not deserve to be taken seriously. Whereas most mainstream liberals would agree with that statement, most conservatives would not. What accounts for that difference? In my view, it is the growing radicalization of, and anti-intellectual fervor among, conservatives which, in turn, is likely fueled by a terrible economy and a growing distrust of "The Establishment." While I am no fan of "The Establishment," I do not believe that voting for a bunch of newbies with extreme views is the solution to the problems affecting our government.

Also, with all due respect, the notion that "no right candidate will ever get a fair shake" on this board is simply wrong. Conservatives such as Honorary Hog, twa, Wrong Direction, Kilmer17, and you would certainly give a conservative a fair shake. The same can be said of the resident libertarians, such as Hubbs, ACW, koolblue, SnyderShrugged, and SkinsHokieFan. Finally, moderate independents and Democrats (e.g., yours truly) are quite eager to hear from reasonable Republicans like Huntsman and Christie and would give them a very fair shake since many of us are not particularly enthralled with Obama. Unfortunately, the GOP base does not want to give moderate Republicans a fair shake, as evidenced by the leads held by Bachmann and Cain. In other words, a majority of the members of this board are willing to give Republicans a fair shake. People are not, however, willing to give a pass to dimwitted extremists who constitute a small minority of the Republican party but who are getting a lot of support from the base.

[GhostofSparta]

(and TY ghost for the kind words)

No problem man. I tend to side with guys like you and Hubbs and at times feel guilty to just nod along to my computer screen and not chime in when you guys are doing all the hard work, but as you said, sometimes it's hard to jump into the fray when the name-calling has started. But if this thread (or this type of thread) can allow for a little more civility on both sides in the Tailgate, then I'll probably be a bit more active. Of course I could also burn out because of how contentious the next year is likely to be in politics.

[Thiebear]

I'm a Libertarian lite that advocates for smaller government in some issues and more in others. Seems perfectly fine to me.

Take care of those that cannot as much as possible

and

limit those that can take care of themselves from running the system dry for the above.

[ACW]

It showed ND replied to mmy post; now there's nothing :paranoid:

[The Evil Genius]

Perhaps I am totally off on this - but America today feels more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative than it did 20 years ago.

The GOPs unwillingness to bend on social issues simply eliminates it from a lot of people's minds.

[twa]

Yes. They're called "blue dog Democrats".

Because they got kicked out of the GOP for insufficient ideological purity.

They never joined for the most part, the GOP version are RINO's,not Blue Dogs

[SkinsNumberOne]

<long post clipped>

This is the kind of post that makes me click on the name and see what else that person has said. Nice, and you got me laughing at the end.

[Jumbo]

I wish I had time to respond in detail to the continuing additions of intelligent and well-thought commentary from folks. I will try to do so with some more, later. But while I don't agree with all the perceptions expressed, I am pleasantly surprised as I mentioned before as to the vast majority of rationally reasoned examinations I am reading.

I'm relieved to see so much cognitive stability, even in degrees of disagreement, still exists on this forum.

I will add that is typically the more politically polarized, or rigidly biased in a more relfexive manner, (or even extreme) poster that will often take whatever level of leaning they disfavor that may actually exist in any situaion and magnify it via their skewed perceptual habits. These are the type of posters I often hear from when there is little actual imbalance or any real imbalance seems more the opposite of their allegations in complaint.

Evidence and research suggests that synapses fired in the same repeated fashion in reaction to the same matter with consistency over long periods of time form an electrochemical and literal (physiological ) "rut" (pathway) in the brain that appears take serious active cognitive self-challenging (as exercised/advocated in many disciplines) to "over-ride" or minimize---just as we have work hard to train some muscles to respond differently or with greater range than their norm for various reasons.

Some folks are already familiar with such ideas, even if framed differently, in practicing various professions or activities that call for stilling one's own "inner stuff" and focusing more on objectively receiving "outside" input involving another person or pursuit that calls for detachment or suspension of one's beliefs/positions/suspicions/assumptions etc.

Such "reflexive response" and even some "exaggeration" of "threat potential" (ala actual paranoia) as described above can be viewed as a logical evolutionary positive in many matters of real threat-response or self-preservation. We can watch some of this activity with new brain scan technology. The function seems to "spill over" into other non-survival related cognition and has been part of some studies done on deeply-rooted racial or ethnic hatred, among other subjects.

[The Evil Genius]

Generally I am not the person who sticks the knife into the dieing outdated conservative ideals, however I have been known to give that knife a good twist every now and then.

Yesterdays results, however temporary they may be, further entrenched my beliefs that this country is moving to a more socially liberal view.

For example, Mississippi, a state at the heart of the bible belt and one who consistently marches in line with what the conservatives there tell them too, shot down a bill that would have defined life as beginning at fertilization. An anti-abortion bill that would, for all intents and purposes, made birth control pills illegal. This is that state's GOP...and the people finally said no.

Bravo.

[Bang]

I agree with Kilmer on the ebb and flow.. it's certainly gone more left in the last five years or so.. including myself.

For my own reasoning, it has everything to do with the lunacy that the GOP has adopted to guide their current philosophy, and the fact that they've decided to full on exploit stupidity and under-informed people to further their goals by stirring up anger and fear (the easiest emotions to create and manipulate.)

The board,, I get tired of the rigidity of the positions that our players adopt. More often than not any political debate turns into a game of one upsmanship and trading punches that really don't add to the topic at all.

We've got a few of these on board.

Truth is, I even read through a lot of that, because sometimes buried within all of the hacking and slashing there is a cogent point or a solid bit of insight.

And the truth is there's a lot of good well informed posters who i may or may not agree with, who can show me things in a possibly different light, and let me think on things. Even a guy like TWA, who I argue with a lot, and am sometimes not so respectful. But he can definitely present a perspective that I may not be thinking on myself.

(Believe it or not, I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, and I do re-examine things a lot. I don't like to be wrong, i like to be sure. Every single one of the posters here can show me a thing or two. Maybe not in the Stadium, though. According to some, I'm apparently a know-it-all ******* over there )

But much of that stubbornness is born out of this idea that changing your mind is a weakness, no matter how much sense the other person is making.

Which brings it back to politics, and the fact that the right has decided that once you make your mind up, you better not ever change it, you better not ever learn more about the subject.. you better just dig in your heels and stand on it no matter how preposterous it becomes... and another reason for my seeming left turn.

And i hope that addresses the topic, because sometimes I ain't so good at follerin' along with you smarty types.

~Bang

[Kilmer17]

Bang, I think if you look at the topics that devolve into dueling, you will find that they almost always revolve around what one side or the other is doing, was doing, or is complaining about doing.

Our debates on actual issues (ie, not parties stance on issues) tend to be robust and intelligent.

While I enjoy the latter the most, I admit to devolving threads on the former just for ****s and giggles.

[Teller]

I'll admit that I haven't read the entire thread yet -- I'm at work -- but I will certainly go back and do so. This is an important topic to me, and I appreciate the thread, Jumbus.

Here's what I see, through my admittedly-red (with a SLIGHT purple tinge) glasses.

Over the years here, I've seen the ebb and flow of the Tailgate. I've seen times that posters on both sides of the aisle can lineup, and argue in a well-thought-out, well-presented manner. I've seen posters on the respective sides move closer to the dividing line, and in some cases cross over, depending on how arguments are presented, and the support provided for them.

I've done it myself. Larry and others helped me see the error of my ways when it comes to warrantless wiretapping. And it was BECAUSE of how they presented the counter-argument that I was receptive to it. I've learned far more from those opposed to my position around here than I ever could from those who agree.

But I've also been around long enough to see the state of the Tailgate in pretty rough shape, which is the way I see it now. I KNOW, beyond any shadow of a doubt that when a thread is posted about a GOP politician, the first 5 or 6 posts are going to be "worthless" (IMO) snark; usually from posters who are far better than that.

I've ignored a lot of it. And I've dropped some return jabs here and there. Hell, on occassion, I've even gone into the more liberal threads and fired similarly-toned "pre-emptive strikes." As you know, Jumbo, it was my intent with those comments to show how pointless and stupid they are. I thought that seeing the other side get riled up over someone else using the same tactics would show clearly how useless such tactics actually are.

I was wrong.

It generated more hostility, more frustration, and pulled the tone of the Tailgate even further down. I sincerely regret that. This board, this forum, and the posters here are VERY important to me. I've made dear friends here on both sides of the aisle, and I certainly don't want to be "part of the problem."

As I've told you before, I don't pretend to know what the solution is. Tailgaters DO get more of a benefit of the doubt than Stadium posters, and I like that. We're permitted to push the envelope a little further, to argue a little more aggressively, and to enjoy more of a "hands off" approach from the staff around here. I think that's a GOOD thing. But it's only a good thing as long as we ALL realize that that is a privilege; and privileges are NOT to be abused.

So I'm kind of at a loss. I think the tone around here sucks right now, in all honesty. But at the same time, I'm opposed to the crack down that might actually fix it. (Hell, I should run for Congress, shouldn't I? )

It's my opinion that the left has been more snarky of late. Look at the threads for the individual GOP candidates. They're basically set up to bash, and call them stupid, loony, etc., etc. I think the fact that there's no "Barry's Bumbling Buffoonery (actually Obama news)" thread, speaks volumes. And trust me, there's plenty of fuel out there to make for a plenty-long thread.

I've been tempted to start it myself, but I know it won't help anything, and will just seem petty. And honestly, it probably would be. I long for the days when we could have serious discussions about issues, and not just try to score ridiculous political "points." We are Congress at this point. And that's not a good thing. It's about trying to make the other side look bad, not actually trying to accomplish anything productive.

I believe we'll come back round. The Tailgate has always been cyclical, and I don't believe this stretch is any different. The sad part is that I don't believe we'll see the uptick until April or May of 2012; when we're a little removed from the presidential election cycle. I hope the veteran, respected, posters won't get fed up and walk before then.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

They never joined for the most part, the GOP version are RINO's,not Blue Dogs

How can they be Republican's in name only if they never joined?

[twa]

let me try to clarify

Blue Dogs are not Rinos....rinos by definition have become Republicans,or already were

both are outside the mainstream on the party they belong to.

it would be interesting if they formed a separate party,but I fear that what they share is less than what could bring them together

[Bang]

While I enjoy the latter the most, I admit to devolving threads on the former just for ****s and giggles.

I think a lot of us do.. i know i do... especially in the stadium. (I may have to start keeping notches for everyone who gets banned for calling me a name.. )

I think sometimes just being a smartass helps keep a person sharp.

~Bang

[Enter Apotheosis]

As I've told you before, I don't pretend to know what the solution is. Tailgaters DO get more of a benefit of the doubt than Stadium posters, and I like that. We're permitted to push the envelope a little further, to argue a little more aggressively, and to enjoy more of a "hands off" approach from the staff around here. I think that's a GOOD thing. But it's only a good thing as long as we ALL realize that that is a privilege; and privileges are NOT to be abused.

They do? I'm not so sure of that...

If Stadium posters seem to draw the wrath of the mods more often it's probably because of the fact that the Stadium has a higher population, so to speak, and that, by virtue of this being a football message board, virtually everyone who visits here feels qualified (if not compelled) to offer up their harebrained opinion on just about any Skins-related subject. Tailgate topics offer more of a barrier to entry for the average poster simply because they are more likely to know that they don't know a whole lot about <insert bizarre China thread here> than they are to know that they have no idea how, say, zone blocking or 3-4 defenses work.

The Stadium is also considerably more transient, so you have a large population of people who just don't know what flies around here.

[Teller]

They do? I'm not so sure of that...

Well, if I'm wrong, I think Jumbo or another mod will make an appearance and set me straight.

[Predicto]

Interesting thread. People have already covered a lot of ground, and I don't want to repeat things. But Larry said this in an earlier post, and I do want to follow up on it.

I can come up with theories. Somebody, while back, was suggesting that perhaps the Right is suffering from too much success. That things that used to define people like Reagan, like welfare reform and a simpler, flatter tax code, have now become mainstream. Forcing them to move further Right, just because.

That person who suggest that was me, and I continue to hold to that view. Politics is not just a war of people and personalities, it is also a war of ideas and intellectual movements. And because of our two party system, there is a natural ebb and flow of ideas that favors one party or the other over the decades.

When Reagan showed up, the country had been moving more liberal for a long time, and the Left's ideas were pretty much exhausted. The Left started out in the early 60s with real winners such as voting rights and free speech and racial and sexual equality and environmentalism, all of which were greatly needed at the time and all of which gradually won over the country and pulled it to the Left.

However, by the late 70s, those ideas were mostly implemented (albeit imperfectly in many cases). Now mainstream Republicans were environmentalists, everyone agreed on the fundamentals of voting rights and the legal equality of women, etc. Leading Republicans were guys like Ford and Romney and Rockefellar and Dole, sober guys who were pro-business, but in many ways look like mainstream Democrats today.

Yet the Left kept pulling as hard as ever in that direction, even though many of the ideas it was now pulling for were starting to move out of the American mainstream and were getting very expensive to boot. That is the nature of 2 parties - you always pull the covers in your direction.

So Reagan shows up and is backed by a new wave of conservative ideas that say government is getting too big and too intrusive, taxes need to come down, you can't flat-out favor minorities over other Americans, etc. And whether or not you agreed with all of his ideas, there was no question that he tapped into the zeitgeist of America in the 1980s, and you also can't question that his principles were backed by genuine intellectual vigor.

So now the Right was in the ascendancy, and it managed to implement a great number of its ideas, some of which were just as needed as the ideas that the Left had pushed through a generation earlier. And it stayed in the ascendancy for a long time. The only Democrat to be elected President for 28 years did so in large part by co-opting some of the Right's best ideas such as welfare reform, making goverment more efficient, and balancing the budget.

Thus, over time, the Right has used up the best of its batch of current ideas just as the Left once did, and lacking the intellectual movements that once propelled it, has begun to rely more and more on pure politics to hang on to power. It has reached its zenith (for the time being) and is forced to pull for things that are ever more fringe, is forced to appeal further afield. We see that in presidential candidates like Michele Bachmann. A nutter like that would never, ever, have been taken seriously as a Presidential Candidate during the time of Reagan and George Bush Senior and Bob Dole.

That's my basic thesis, and I'm pretty convinced of it.

The following part is more of a personal belief.

I think the problems in the current GOP stem directly from the influence of the single most awful political figure of modern times (in my opinion). I'm not talking about Glenn Beck or Limbaugh or Sharpton or any of the current collection of clowns. I'm talking about the grandaddy of them, the original "nasty shameless win at all costs" political guru - Lee A****er. A****er may be dead now, but his legacy lives on in the GOP.

A****er taught politicians how to lead and manipulate the media, not defer to the media. He taught that it is more powerful to find out what people fear and hate rather than what they admire or aspire to. He taught how to use proxies to get nasty messages out that you don't want to take the heat for yourself (FoxNews and talk radio have taken on that role for the GOP and run wild with it today). The Willie Horton ad (which was utterly dishonest but extremely powerful) destroyed Michael Dukakis, and lead to the swiftboating of John Kerry. A****er taught the guys like Karl Rove and Roger Ailes. What he taught them is that motivating your base is more important than appealing to the middle, and that the way you motivate your base is through their emotions not their intellect, that you want to make them think in a binary manner (us vs them, good vs bad, etc) and, most important, that coming up with a new outrage about the other side every few days is the best way to keep the pressure on, even if you have to make the outrage up and abandon it for a new one if it doesn't fly. The key is keep the pot boiling, keep the other side on the defensive, always attack and never defend.

All of that has worked well for the GOP in the short run. Their base absolutely does get out better than the Democratic base, election after election. But this strategy has a price. The price is what you are seeing today - an extremely motivated and scared and perhaps shrinking base that can only be appeased with extreme ideas and slogans and candidates, ideas and slogans and candidates that turn off the middle of the electorate. Jon Huntsman can only get 1 percent of GOP primary voters to support him, while Michele Bachmann gets 20 times that much.

The Democrats have their own albatrosses, and the way they manipulate their voters is also crass at times, no denying it, but this thread is about the conservative voice. Ultimately, I think that the conservative voice (at this time) has become little more than rooting for your own team against the "bad" guys. That is why we see so many "drive by" postings from extremely conservative posters. They aren't here to discuss ideas, because they are not motivated by ideas these days. They are motivated by their dislike of Liberals, and all they want to do is vent that dislike and get out of the thread.

The lack of intellectual heft on the Right may change if the libertarians can take a more significant role in the GOP, but I don't see that happening soon, because they seem to be unable to moderate their views enough to make incremental progess, and are tied so closely to Ron Paul, who values purity of message over getting anything accomplished.

That's my 2 cents from the Liberal point of view.

[SnyderShrugged]

Predicto, (good post and thoughts btw), I dont think its purity of message as much as its fidelity to principles. Fidelity, I may add, that is seen as the only reasonable way to get something accomplished in the right way.

[Jumbo]

HH, I just want to note a big part of my theme here is that sometimes people acting out is actually fairly justifiable based on the degree of reality that supports their reaction.

And my view (objective as I try to be and as I think you'll see once you read all my posts, and others, in here) differs perhaps from yours in that I think the "conservative" voice has truly deteriorated (it happens to "both sides" at times) and there isn't an equal parallel dynamic currently with the liberal voice.

IOW, this is a time when there really is more dumb, stuipid, and crazy honestly attachable to one side more than the other both nationally and in the forum to a notable degree. That's my position, although I wouldn't think such if this thread were more representitive of the larger scene I have described.

Now there are more left-leaning folk (and more libertarian-leaning folk) posting more often here these days as I have frequently noted, so I (and the facts) support that perception. But I stand on the postion that the large majority of snark and derision (within limits of course) directed at the right is much more well-deserved by their own actions than is normally the case.

And you know I'm not "of the left."

You see, I'm not addressing basic and typical ideological differences, or even traditional party platform fundamentals as a basis for any such judgement or as part of my general theme (though some posters have reasonably applied some of them to the matter).

I'm addressing basic intelligence in argument, rational thinking, and various behavioral matters related to personal conduct when I indict the talking heads/media/leadership/candidates/posters (posters least of all, though) for content fairly castigated as being "bat **** crazy" or "stupid" or featuring themes of "irrational anti-science" or "religious-driven nonsense" on social matters like sexual orientation (as opposed to intelligent and responsible religious-driven concerns) etc. that constitute the material prompting my indictment.

I think the right is visibly "out there" by quite the margin in the last 18 months. I can understand why people reflecting that back, both biased and objectively, can be irritating to people in that demographic who are still trying to be reasonable.

To me it's similar to being a Redskins fan in a sports bar, and at some times I am seated with a bunch of fine fellow fans whose conversations and behavior is just peachy. :helmet:

Other times I end up with drunk and stupid *******s around me who still happen to be Redskins fans. This is particularly distressing when there's well-behaved and intelligent-in-conversation fans of rival teams at the same time in my vicinity.

So this proposed (temporary IMV) deterioration of the "conservative voice" (the most visible and public aspects of it), and my claim that it is objectively real, in the forum (to a lesser but still noticeable extent) and the nation, is my topic. Despite the complexity, people have done an outstanding job of getting it.

I also made sure to note in my post that a similar dynamic applied to the left was equally "real" (supported objectively by detached observation and evidence) during the Bush II/Gore times for instance. But today we're talking about current trends and I do feel the whole Fox/Rush/Beck/Savage/Coulter and on and on and on is a big factor in what I describe, well beyond the effect of the MSNBC/Mathews/Maddock equivalents in scope and impact.

<whew, now I'm late for another meeting >

to copy twa: added---Another excellent post to the mix, Predicto.

But I have to go!