What would it take to fall out of love with the right-wing?

[Dominus Atheos]

So we need the crisis to get worse to prevent it from becoming worse? The objective harm wrought by an economic disaster is desirable for the fleeting damage it might cause to an abstract concept? Are you even hearing yourself, DA?

I never said it would be worth it, I was just answering the OP.

[Stark]

I'm curious how many of you buy into this "Americans deeply mistrust the government" bullshit. It seems to me that most Americans are pretty big on the death penalty; what could be a greater example of trust in government than to trust them to execute citizens without getting it wrong? How about torturing people? Most Americans seem to be OK with trusting them to use that power responsibly too.

PS. How about the FDA? How many Americans implicitly trust the FDA's judgements on pharmaceuticals, despite the voluminous evidence that the FDA is under enormous internal pressure to ramrod approvals through the system, not to mention the fact that the FDA allows pharmaceutical manufacturers to certify their own testing results?

I can't find a way to articulate it, but I think this might be less an issue of 'trust' and more an issue of identification with the concept of 'America'. Clearly you can't talk about various abuses rationally, because America did it and you're American, so you're on the 'same team'.

[Darth Wong]

Obama's winning, so I'm wrong? Looks like someone doesn't know how to read.

Speak for yourself. My first post had the other thing that would have to happen:

Hell, if Obama had the spine to, he could start using the word conservative as an insult right now. It would probably go over pretty well in this political climate. All he has to do is repeat some buzzwords like "Socialism for the rich, free market for the poor" or "steal from the poor to feed the rich", and they would probably catch on. Just copy the strategy of the right.

How does that address my point, you fucking moron? I pointed out that Obama is right-wing himself, and you come back with this bullshit about what kind of rhetoric you think he should be using?

[Yogi]

The problem, is that a large group of Americans live in their own fantasy world, with their own fantasy news and their own fantasy facts and their own fantasy experts. There's no way to change their opinions, since they have a constant stream of people who continue to validate it. In sort, until it becomes illegal to lie and people start getting prosecuted for it, never.

[chaoschristian]

I do not believe this is a demographic issue that will be solved as the older generation dies off. This crosses generational lines. There are young 'conservatives' who are as entrenched in their belief that liberalism/progressivism is the evil spawn of Satan as any of these older generation folks.

This has more to do, I think, with an uncritical acceptance of successful scripting that has been written by the neo-conservative movement, propogated through media and reinforced by both an educational system that doesn't teach critical thinking skills necessary to examine and perhaps ultimately reject the scripting and a far-ranging belief system expressed through large parts of the Christian church that creates a propensity to accept that scripting.

[thejester]

I don't think Americans will ever become disillusioned with the right-wing. They've obviously started to reject one branch of it = but how often have the words 'George Bush is not a true conservative' been uttered over the last couple of years? On the two biggest issues voters seem to be hammering him on, he's not anyway (or in the classical sense of the term 'conservative'). He's an economic neo-liberal and he's fought two large, costly wars. All his disasters mean is that people who identify naturally with right-wing social points will go 'man, where did we fuck up?' rather than 'free healthcare!'

[Patrick Degan]

Right wing politics are pretty destroyed right now. But like I said, by the next election most people will have forgotten all about how they feel right now. For better or worse, there are a lot of people who haven't been directly affected by the economic crisis. sure, they've heard about it on the news, and they might even know someone who has lost their job due to it. But unless the crisis gets a lot worse, and a lot of people lose their jobs, it's not going to make enough of a lasting impression. John McCain's policies could push the economy into that state.

I see you're determined to pollute another thread with this Naderite bullshit of yours, so I'll make this plain enough for even somebody like you to comprehend: YOUR WISHFUL THINKING DOES NOT TRUMP THE CONSEQUENCES OF ALLOWING WHAT YOU THINK NECESSARY TO ACTUALLY HAPPEN. I think this has already been pointed out to you and you still don't seem to get it.

Enjoy the ass-pounding you're about to receive when you keep trying to push a fundamentally broken argument.

[Dominus Atheos]

Obama's winning, so I'm wrong? Looks like someone doesn't know how to read.

Speak for yourself. My first post had the other thing that would have to happen:

Hell, if Obama had the spine to, he could start using the word conservative as an insult right now. It would probably go over pretty well in this political climate. All he has to do is repeat some buzzwords like "Socialism for the rich, free market for the poor" or "steal from the poor to feed the rich", and they would probably catch on. Just copy the strategy of the right.

How does that address my point, you fucking moron? I pointed out that Obama is right-wing himself, and you come back with this bullshit about what kind of rhetoric you think he should be using?

Right, Obama is clearly not the one to destroy conservatism. He doesn't have the spine or the mindset necessary. But Obama probably won't be running in 2012. If someone comes along who proudly calls himself a progressive, supports gay marriage (he or she might have to do the same bullshit song and dance conservatives do WRT abortion when talking about though, but after 4 more years maybe not), and calls his opponent a "conservative" as an insult, I don't think he'd lose. Obviously this is all just a guess, but if you ask a theoretical question, I can only give a theoretical answer.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Americans don't hate 'big' government, and the American conservative movement has never been about 'small' government. Since at least the days of Goldwater the American Right has wanted only to enact corporatism, with a veneer of religious civility; in the Republican Party the well-to-do own almost everything, and only toss out scraps to their culturally-conservative dupes. Reagan had a Republican Senate until his last two years in office, and Bush had a Republican Congress for his first six. Where was the overturning of Roe v. Wade? What about the proposed amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage?

The corporatists could never pass such theocratic legislation, since doing so would mean alienating at least one major chunk of the electoral populace (I have seen simulations that suggest women would flock to the Democrats 80%-20% on the hypothetical overturning of Roe v. Wade, an even greater disparity than the present ~60%-40% difference). Take Palin, for instance: if she ever attains a high national office, she will be instantly muzzled, just as Dubya was, so as to maintain the semblance of a ruling consensus by the economic Right. And if her social agenda were ever passed, even staunch reactionaries would be up-in-arms over it.

The coming GOP civil war will be fought over just such matters. If the socially moderate, fiscally conservative wing (represented by Romney) wins out, then it has a chance to at least remain a powerful opposition party in the coming era. If, however, the theocratic Palin clique triumphs, then the last remnants of the Nixon-Ford moderate wing of the Party will finally be driven completely into the hands of the Democrats, and it will be as if we were reliving the New Deal era all over again. The only real danger is Huckabee, who acts like the second coming of Huey Long, but even a Huckabee candidacy would have to contend with the living memory of the last aw-shucksing Republican administration.

The Reagan coalition is done for, at any rate. Perhaps they will be able to hold together after this cycle, perhaps even after the first mid-terms, but it will not survive the coming 2012 primary bloodbath. Jindal? Jindal you say? Not even his redneck base would vote for him; they'd likely abstain altogether. Palin? Good luck getting elected on 35% of the vote. Romney? Mormonism is considered heretical among the Baptist base. Rudy? Roffles.

Far more likely is the exodus of Eisenhower Republicans from the GOP, the long-suffering intelligentsia and moderates who have had to put up quietly with cowboy diplomacy and 'socially socialist' domestic policies for decades. We have seen it in this very election cycle, in Colin Powell and George Will. Even Peggy Noonan has bucked the vulgarization of the Republican Party. The fact of the matter is this: the typical Republican voter, the typical redneck, is still class conscious enough to suspect the big-money owners of the Republican Party, and his loyalties lay not at all with their libertarian economic prescripts, but rather their socially-reactionary pretenses. The redneck has seen, time and again, that the Republican Party wants him only for his vote, and he is tired of it. For their part, the big-money moderates have a class-based distaste for What's The Matter With Kansas-style reverse populism, and would just as soon be done with it.

The "Permanent Republican Majority" is kaput. I suspect that the coming few decades will see a splintering of the Reaganite consensus into two parties, probably literally. And even if McCain were to miraculously eke out a win, it would only accelerate the process: he'd be absolutely incapable of passing his agenda through the Democratic Congress, and the base would be salivating for his death, so as to see their Savioress exalted into what they deem to be her rightful place: Queen of the Know-Nothings, Empress of the Ignorant Hinterlands and All Found Therein.

[Uraniun235]

One big prerequisite is probably a charismatic speaker whom left-wingers can rally behind. Are there any really awesomely charismatic left-wingers?

(It doesn't matter if the right-wing has any at the moment, either. They're still coasting off Reagan, they can always rerun Reagan tape if they need to.)

[Zablorg]

Speak for yourself. My first post had the other thing that would have to happen:

Hell, if Obama had the spine to, he could start using the word conservative as an insult right now. It would probably go over pretty well in this political climate. All he has to do is repeat some buzzwords like "Socialism for the rich, free market for the poor" or "steal from the poor to feed the rich", and they would probably catch on. Just copy the strategy of the right.

Do you have any idea what kind of affect that would have on his campaign? There are enough accusations of implied socialism already, if he outwardly admitted and even used socialism as a pro-active attack campaign there would be trouble. As I understand it, the people who are inclined to Obama in regards to the economy are smart enough to realize that what Obama has planned isn't socialism in any real sense of the word. If Obama were to go out and confirm the rumours you can bet that his numbers would go down, not up.

[RedImperator]

But Obama probably won't be running in 2012.

Wait, what? On what are you basing this assumption?

[Shroom Man 777]

I have a sinking suspicion that America will conveniently repress memory of George W. Bush's 8 years of presidency, like a child abuse victim forgetting how he was raped when he was once a little girl. They have to, or else they'll end up losing their preconceptions of how great America was. They won't change their ways and they won't fall out of love with the right wing, they'll continue as is because if they do anything else, then they would be admitting that they're wrong. Some people just can't do that.

[Patrick Degan]

But Obama probably won't be running in 2012.

Wait, what? On what are you basing this assumption?

I'm curious about that one myself, Atheos. What makes you think President Obama would not be running for re-election?

[SirNitram]

I have a sinking suspicion that America will conveniently repress memory of George W. Bush's 8 years of presidency, like a child abuse victim forgetting how he was raped when he was once a little girl. They have to, or else they'll end up losing their preconceptions of how great America was. They won't change their ways and they won't fall out of love with the right wing, they'll continue as is because if they do anything else, then they would be admitting that they're wrong. Some people just can't do that.

It'll persist for a while, then the steady, constant work by loyal conservatives, true to the cause, will begin turning him into a hero.

[Covenant]

I'm curious how many of you buy into this "Americans deeply mistrust the government" bullshit.

Most Americans profess a mistrust in the government while also being loyal to the power structure of their ideology, even when it comes to people like the lolbertarians and others who firmly believe that governance is broken and therefore Ron Paul should be elected supreme leader. It's doublethink to the core.

Right, Obama is clearly not the one to destroy conservatism. He doesn't have the spine or the mindset necessary. But Obama probably won't be running in 2012. If someone comes along who proudly calls himself a progressive, supports gay marriage (he or she might have to do the same bullshit song and dance conservatives do WRT abortion when talking about though, but after 4 more years maybe not), and calls his opponent a "conservative" as an insult, I don't think he'd lose. Obviously this is all just a guess, but if you ask a theoretical question, I can only give a theoretical answer.

Not only are you entirely incorrect (the elections are decided by the socially conservative faux-independant middle, not the enthusiasm of the progressive left), but enflaming a culture war between the "progressive" and "conservative" camps, two fictional groups, is only going to get the idiots on both sides to dig their heels in more and keep perpetuating this adversarial ideology. The best thing that's been done is the weakening of the partisan divide in many places, allowing traditionally conservative voters to break ranks with the Republicans and throw their hat into the Democrat's ring because of policy and emotional reasons and not just the same old tribal bullshit. If you want to set us back 50 years, go ahead and turn conservative into a pejorative, but that will neither defeat conservatism nor advance a liberal agenda.

Because of this, the only way to dismantle the Conservative movement is to increasingly pull their members to the left, get them to absorb the talking points of the slightly-more-liberal Democrats, and then get the Republican party to implode as it's intellectual members go Democrat and the only ones left are the Fundies. Then you'll probably have a more European-style moderate party appear to take over the New Left, and we can keep inching ourselves to the left over time.

It will really take the collapse of the American religious machine to make that happen though, as the Evangelical vote is massive and the biggest voices for the Conservative party come either from them or the Mormons, really, as well as so much cash. What are considered "mainstream" Churches are actually extremely left-leaning by American standards, so it would really take the total collapse of American Christian Fundamentalism to knock that huge conflux of money, religious influence and political power out of alignment. For that to happen would require some sort of huge, embarassing thing--like a religious-political movement inadvertantly kicking off a campaign of terror against American Muslim, Jew and Gay populations perpetuated by Joshua's Warriors or someone similar, believing their end-times was near. That could theoretically alienate those people the way that Palin has alienated the American centrists and the smarter Conservatives.

It's all about creeping forwards and trying to make the left seem to be an appealing place to jump ship to, a more socially acceptable thing where you're less embarassed to admit it at a party. It's stupid, but that's the way it is. Obama is a great candidate just for that reason--he really is a rather liberal guy, but politically centrist, because he's an astute study of the way to get people to come together. Read up on the way he disagreed with every one of the Federalist-folks at Harvard, but nonetheless got their endorsement for the Law Reivew. It would be nice if we could simply lay out the facts and have peoplre read them and make a decision like that, but we can't, so you need to sometimes help build a bridge for them and just admit that we're not going to be able to catch up to the rest of the civilized world in a single generation.

[Dominus Atheos]

But Obama probably won't be running in 2012.

Wait, what? On what are you basing this assumption?

I'm curious about that one myself, Atheos. What makes you think President Obama would not be running for re-election?

I'm sorry, I misphrased that. What I meant to say is wouldn't. In the scenario I was describing of what it take to "fall out of love with the right-wing", namely McCain winning the election, Obama probably wouldn't be re-nominated in 2012.

[Winston Blake]

I still think a McCain presidency might do it.

Tell me, what do you think the last 8 years of spectacular mismanagement, corruption, and flagrant disregard for the law indicate about your "incompetent right-wingers will discredit the right-wing in America" theory?
Hint: it doesn't work. 8 years ago, if I'd given you a list of all the misdeeds of the Bush administration, you would have confidently predicted the total destruction of right-wing politics in America by now.

Yeah, but all the crap that's been pulled has been 'out of sight, out of mind'. There's always a screen of justification that the average person isn't going to bother looking behind. The Bush administration has avoided anything that would break the magic spell of 'It doesn't really affect me' and 'I've got nothing to hide'. The Iraq War is a war 'over there' which doesn't substantially affect the quality of life of the average American.

Consider conscription - the U.S. military has been under enormous strain, but Bush wouldn't dare propose conscription. When bills calling for the draft were raised by Democrats to make a point, the Republicans were vehemently against it. If conservatives demanded conscription, I think they would lose a lot of support.

Seriously, what would it take? Is it impossible?

My thoughts:
- Conscription
- Disenfranchising women and/or non-whites
- Putting citizens of Iraqi/Syrian/Iranian background in internment camps
- Nuking a country out of sheer bloody-mindedness
- Widespread kidnappings of citizens for interrogation, especially from red states
- Outlawing homosexuality (possibly outlawing sodomy)
- Outlawing 'miscegenation'
- And I suppose, of course, re-instating slavery

[Justforfun000]

I think the most optimistic view we can take towards people proudly proclaiming themselves "conservative", and disparaging liberal mindsets, is the steady increase in Obama's support. Obviously there is a hardcore base of conservatives that are simply impossible to reach by logic or itemized lists of corruption and mismanagement. As so many religious believers have said already, they would pick someone like Bush by default because he professes a dogmatic Christian belief system. It's sickeningly sad, but true. Who needs competance or merit? Just be on the right 'side' and that's good enough.

I like to think most people are not hopelessly stupid and that they will eventually pull their head out of their ass and learn to critically judge people and their platforms. But it's going to take a very long time to truly erode the base of people that mindlessly support conservatism.

[Zablorg]

Is Obama right-wing because he knows he won't win if he takes a left stance in the first place, or does he truely believe in the issues Mike pointed out?

[chaoschristian]

Romney? Mormonism is considered heretical among the Baptist base.

I concur with your analysis but quibble with this. Technically Baptist churches (and all the rest of the mainstream Christian churches) do not consider the LDS Christian at all. Accusing someone of heresy is a tacit acknowledgment that they are, while in error, Christian.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I've been watching American politics for years and I have to wonder: just what would it take for right-wing politics to actually fall out of favour in the US, to the point where a majority of people would openly describe themselves as "liberal" or "leftist" and where "right-wing" might actually be used as a perjorative term, the way "liberal" is now?

It seems to me that the right-wing can do no wrong in America. Right-wingers can start a war on fraudulent pretenses, run up hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits, fire scores of qualified, experienced employees for ideological impurity, use the Justice Department to settle personal and political grudges, hopelessly mismanage both an occupation and an economy, tear down the wall of separation between church and state, make fools of themselves by championing a brain-dead woman's "right to life", and yet ... most Americans are still proud to call themselves "conservative". The confidence of the American public in conservative ideology has not been shaken at all; they just think that this particular band of idiots has somehow implemented that ideology incorrectly.

Seriously, what would it take? Is it impossible?

The problem is the lack of a genuine welfare state. Its why Bill Kristol strenuously argued to Republican Congressmen and Senators to kill utterly the Clinton universal health care plans rather than compromise, because once the American people saw how good it was the Democrats would stay in power merely on gratitude and fear of Republican free market fundamentalism.

[Lagmonster]

The problem is you had a solid ten years of Reagan Brainwashing that simply can not be removed by anything but time. People remember the right wing and harken back to Reagen despite the fact things were not much better then.

I think that despite what needs to be done to the American people to nuke right-wing love, the other thing that has to happen that I don't think has been mentioned yet is that the Republican party needs to somehow unlearn the lessons they got as a result of McCarthyism. The American far right has become very good at using hyper-patriotism as a weapon.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I'm sorry, I misphrased that. What I meant to say is wouldn't. In the scenario I was describing of what it take to "fall out of love with the right-wing", namely McCain winning the election, Obama probably wouldn't be re-nominated in 2012.

No. Just. No. What makes you think that McCain winning the election would cause Americans to fall out of love with the far right-wing? If McCain beat Obama this election cycle, all it would do is drive the Democrats further to the right. The lesson they'd take away from it would be that the voting public is so enamored with the far-right that they'd cheerfully elect a senile dyed-in-the-wool conservative on death's doorstep and a demagogic ideologue who lies somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun . . . after twelve years of effective right-wing control of the nation, with all the associated issues thereof. Obama would be quietly swept under the rug, and the Democrats will nominate someone much further to the right to take on Palin in 2012. Assuming, of course, the party survives the defeat of the most charismatic, well-funded, and well-organized Democratic candidate for President since JFK.

And if the economy went into basket-case territory under McCain's watch, the blame for it would not be laid at his feet. It would be laid at the feet of the Democrat-controlled Congress, and the rural God-fearin' American would be going "If it weren't for that goddamned Bill Clinton whoring around and interferin' with the Republican Congress, none of this would've ever happened. And if it weren't for those goddamned Lie-berals gettin' in the way of the Greatest President since Saint Ronnie, why I'd be drivin' my Suburban an' payin' $1.00 a gallon fer gas, instead of standing in this here church soup kitchen line 'cuz bread costs $2500 a loaf!"

[MKSheppard]

I've been watching American politics for years and I have to wonder: just what would it take for right-wing politics to actually fall out of favour in the US, to the point where a majority of people would openly describe themselves as "liberal" or "leftist" and where "right-wing" might actually be used as a perjorative term, the way "liberal" is now?

When the left wing purges itself of the criminally insane people who pursue such insane policies as unilateral disarmament, et al; and would rather see America vunerable in the name of "global stability".

We were at our safest in 1960, when we had 1,700 bombers backed up by 88 NIKE-HERCULES batteries, 174 NIKE-AJAX batteries in ARADCOM, and 60 squadrons of all-weather interceptors in Air Defense Command.

Today? All that is gone. And if we tried to resurrect it; there would be self-righteous bleating from the left-wing as it is constituted today. Eliminate those that bleat, and watch as the left-wing becomes a more credible alternative.