[quote]H factor wrote:
I don’t agree, I think a center-right movement can happen, but not without moving towards something more like the Libertarian party.[/quote]
Riiiiight. Yeah, don’t you just feel that surging clamor for economic liberalism. Even the tea-party doesn’t want it’s entitlements touched. And for every entitlement added, they too will become part of the untouchables. Obamacare, until it falls completely apart, for instance. Then it’ll just be replaced by UHC.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I don’t agree, I think a center-right movement can happen, but not without moving towards something more like the Libertarian party.[/quote]
Riiiiight. Yeah, don’t you just feel that surging clamor for economic liberalism. Even the tea-party doesn’t want it’s entitlements touched. And for every entitlement added, they too will become part of the untouchables.
[/quote]
You can’t start there Sloth. You have to reform those entitlements by explaining to people in clear detail why they must be reformed. Trying to chop off the head of the beast is really stupid politics. Entitlement reform can win. Running around saying we need to end Medicare and Social Security is going to lead to loss after loss.
Don’t tell people you want to end those entitlements immediately or people will turn off their ears. Say you need to scale them back and explain to people why that is in clear detail and you can start a path towards changing them.
Gradual is the only pace that people will even consider letting us work at. The guys on this forum may accept ending them tomorrow, but the amount of people who do not feel that way is overwhelming. And it is just as much righties as lefties.
I’m a Libertarian, but also a realist. You can only achieve politically what you can actually do. Slow reform is a possibility, something that you may be able to convince people with a clear enough argument. Saying you will get rid of them is suicide. They won’t even listen to anything else you have to say.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I don’t agree, I think a center-right movement can happen, but not without moving towards something more like the Libertarian party.[/quote]
Riiiiight. Yeah, don’t you just feel that surging clamor for economic liberalism. Even the tea-party doesn’t want it’s entitlements touched. And for every entitlement added, they too will become part of the untouchables.
[/quote]
You can’t start there Sloth. You have to reform those entitlements by explaining to people in clear detail why they must be reformed. Trying to chop off the head of the beast is really stupid politics. Entitlement reform can win. Running around saying we need to end Medicare and Social Security is going to lead to loss after loss.
Don’t tell people you want to end those entitlements immediately or people will turn off their ears. Say you need to scale them back and explain to people why that is in clear detail and you can start a path towards changing them.
Gradual is the only pace that people will even consider letting us work at. The guys on this forum may accept ending them tomorrow, but the amount of people who do not feel that way is overwhelming. And it is just as much righties as lefties.
I’m a Libertarian, but also a realist. You can only achieve politically what you can actually do. Slow reform is a possibility, something that you may be able to convince people with a clear enough argument. Saying you will get rid of them is suicide. They won’t even listen to anything else you have to say. [/quote]
Dude respect…you type faster than anybody I have ever seen.
No joke, at all.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I don’t agree, I think a center-right movement can happen, but not without moving towards something more like the Libertarian party.[/quote]
Riiiiight. Yeah, don’t you just feel that surging clamor for economic liberalism. Even the tea-party doesn’t want it’s entitlements touched. And for every entitlement added, they too will become part of the untouchables.
[/quote]
You can’t start there Sloth. You have to reform those entitlements by explaining to people in clear detail why they must be reformed. Trying to chop off the head of the beast is really stupid politics. Entitlement reform can win. Running around saying we need to end Medicare and Social Security is going to lead to loss after loss.
Don’t tell people you want to end those entitlements immediately or people will turn off their ears. Say you need to scale them back and explain to people why that is in clear detail and you can start a path towards changing them.
Gradual is the only pace that people will even consider letting us work at. The guys on this forum may accept ending them tomorrow, but the amount of people who do not feel that way is overwhelming. And it is just as much righties as lefties.
I’m a Libertarian, but also a realist. You can only achieve politically what you can actually do. Slow reform is a possibility, something that you may be able to convince people with a clear enough argument. Saying you will get rid of them is suicide. They won’t even listen to anything else you have to say. [/quote]
You can’t slow the rate of growth without even tea party members going after you. Oh, no that’s right, tea-partiers did agree that “waste and fraud” could be rooted out, or something. Lol.
“Fiscal conservatism” (libertarianism) is lost. See you on the side-lines.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I don’t agree, I think a center-right movement can happen, but not without moving towards something more like the Libertarian party.[/quote]
Riiiiight. Yeah, don’t you just feel that surging clamor for economic liberalism. Even the tea-party doesn’t want it’s entitlements touched. And for every entitlement added, they too will become part of the untouchables.
[/quote]
You can’t start there Sloth. You have to reform those entitlements by explaining to people in clear detail why they must be reformed. Trying to chop off the head of the beast is really stupid politics. Entitlement reform can win. Running around saying we need to end Medicare and Social Security is going to lead to loss after loss.
Don’t tell people you want to end those entitlements immediately or people will turn off their ears. Say you need to scale them back and explain to people why that is in clear detail and you can start a path towards changing them.
Gradual is the only pace that people will even consider letting us work at. The guys on this forum may accept ending them tomorrow, but the amount of people who do not feel that way is overwhelming. And it is just as much righties as lefties.
I’m a Libertarian, but also a realist. You can only achieve politically what you can actually do. Slow reform is a possibility, something that you may be able to convince people with a clear enough argument. Saying you will get rid of them is suicide. They won’t even listen to anything else you have to say. [/quote]
You can’t even slow the rate of growth without even tea party members going after you. Oh, not that’s right, tea-partiers did agree that “waste and fraud” could be rooted out, or something. Lol.
“Fiscal conservatism” (libertarianism) is lost. See you on the side-lines.[/quote]
It’s a frustrating battle I will give you that much. I have faith in the future, but only because I see some glimmers of hope in places. I will definitely admit to having to talk myself into optimism most days though.
“Fiscal Conservatism” (libertarianism) has been dead, if social conservatism is just now breathing its last.
The real interesting thing to watch for–which will arise again–will likely be generations after we’re both dead.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Dude respect…you type faster than anybody I have ever seen.
No joke, at all.[/quote]
Just the way my brain works. My thoughts are pretty much constant…I don’t put much thought into the text, I just let things flow.
For the most part it’s actually like a conversation with people. I can type really fast and I don’t pause and think about wording or anything like that really. I just view this as talking to people. That’s probably why I come off like a sailor sometimes.
Never been diagnosed with ADD, but if I don’t have it no one does 
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I don’t agree, I think a center-right movement can happen, but not without moving towards something more like the Libertarian party.[/quote]
Riiiiight. Yeah, don’t you just feel that surging clamor for economic liberalism. Even the tea-party doesn’t want it’s entitlements touched. And for every entitlement added, they too will become part of the untouchables.
[/quote]
You can’t start there Sloth. You have to reform those entitlements by explaining to people in clear detail why they must be reformed. Trying to chop off the head of the beast is really stupid politics. Entitlement reform can win. Running around saying we need to end Medicare and Social Security is going to lead to loss after loss.
Don’t tell people you want to end those entitlements immediately or people will turn off their ears. Say you need to scale them back and explain to people why that is in clear detail and you can start a path towards changing them.
Gradual is the only pace that people will even consider letting us work at. The guys on this forum may accept ending them tomorrow, but the amount of people who do not feel that way is overwhelming. And it is just as much righties as lefties.
I’m a Libertarian, but also a realist. You can only achieve politically what you can actually do. Slow reform is a possibility, something that you may be able to convince people with a clear enough argument. Saying you will get rid of them is suicide. They won’t even listen to anything else you have to say. [/quote]
You can’t even slow the rate of growth without even tea party members going after you. Oh, not that’s right, tea-partiers did agree that “waste and fraud” could be rooted out, or something. Lol.
“Fiscal conservatism” (libertarianism) is lost. See you on the side-lines.[/quote]
It’s a frustrating battle I will give you that much. I have faith in the future, but only because I see some glimmers of hope in places. I will definitely admit to having to talk myself into optimism most days though. [/quote]
Ok. But, that’s an entirely different tone.
Now, allow me to further blunt your optimism. Conservatism needn’t necessarily include economic liberalism. In fact, you will find voices within Conservatism already making the case that under-constrained capitalism–especially global/multinational capitalism–has played a significant role in gutting the little platoons. Traditional institutions and etc. If suddenly, somehow, the Republican party became the Libertarian Party ('cause, hey, they’ve done so well), Conservatives would no longer feel an obligation to them exclusively.
That faction of Conservatives (economic egalitarian/anti multi-national/global corporations) might as well cast their vote with Democrats, whose more egalitarian/populist view of the economy they share. Paleos. Trad-Cons. Crunchy-Cons. Front Porchers. The Republicans would bolster the Democrats. They would have no anchor to the Ayn Rand party.
Why do you think the surveys of tea party folk has been so disappointing for libertarians when it comes to entitlements?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, allow me to further blunt your optimism. Conservatism needn’t necessarily include economic liberalism. In fact, you will find voices within Conservatism already making the case that under-constrained capitalism–especially global/multinational capitalism–has played a significant role in gutting the little platoons. Traditional institutions and etc. If suddenly, somehow, the Republican party became the Libertarian Party ('cause, hey, they’ve done so well), social Conservatives would no longer feel an obligation to them exclusively. That faction of Conservatives (economic egalitarian/anti multi-national/global corporations) might as well cast their vote with Democrats, whose more egalitarian/populist view of the economy they share. Paleos. Trad-Cons. Crunchy-Cons. Front Porchers. The Republicans would bolster the Democrats.
Why do you think the surveys of tea party folk has been so disappointing for libertarians when it comes to entitlements? [/quote]
It’s not perfect. Part of the reason Libertarians in the past have struggled is BECAUSE they weren’t social conservatives. These pro-freedom views have hurt us in the past. Let’s be honest it’s only been fairly recently that pro-gay marriage, pro-marijuana legislation, etc have been even remotely popular enough to make a movement out of. Look at what’s happening though. Those stances are becoming the norm. They will be more and more in the future.
Social conservatives are a dying breed. I know you represent them, but I’m being honest. Those people are not the future. At all. 81% of voters under 30 support gay marriage. Republicans on the whole are moving towards it more and more. Same thing with marijuana legislation. The baby boomer type mindset of my Dad’s generation is going to be a non factor very shortly at the polls. They will be replaced by a generation that is definitely do what you want as long as it harms no one else directly. Those arguments of how harmful gay marriage or how marijuana would lead to heroin use just don’t exist for them. Backwards thinking of an old time. About as surprising as doctors recommending lucky strike cigs. “Remember when the government felt the need for this is your brain on drugs commercials?” Remember gateway drug talks?
Basically I’m saying the Republican Party needs to gut the social conservatives and embrace a pro-freedom platform. Individual and economic. This can win. One but not the other cannot right now. It just can’t.
Like I said it would require pissing off a lot of people, maybe even a lot of people on this forum. In the future of American politics pandering to social conservatives may get one some votes, but it isn’t getting anyone the White House. The nation simply isn’t thinking like that right now…and ten years from now it will be MUCH less so.
IMO of course. In 2016 Democrats would like nothing more than to make the focus be on social issues. In fact this will be exactly what they try. They can’t run on 8 failed economic years. They can run where they have the advantage. A country that supports gay marriage, a country that is more secular than ever, etc.
Republicans would be wise not to give them this advantage.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Social conservatives are a dying breed. I know you represent them, but I’m being honest.
IMO of course.
[/quote]
If Conservatism is a dying breed, libertarianism is a dead breed. Don’t mistake your usefulness for progressives on the social issues for acceptance on the political-economic direction of the nation. Not even. You’ve already shown this with your survey of tea partiers. Not even THEY are buying actual economic liberalism. The only thing that’ll happen is that Conservatives who’ve always had an uneasy fit with the more economically liberal Republican party will be free to move to the DNC. Permanent third party status for Republicans. Maybe the Green Party will become the 2nd of the two party system? Who knows.
[quote]H factor wrote:
IMO of course. In 2016 Democrats would like nothing more than to make the focus be on social issues. In fact this will be exactly what they try. They can’t run on 8 failed economic years. They can run where they have the advantage. A country that supports gay marriage, a country that is more secular than ever, etc.
[/quote]
Most of that post is probably pretty accurate.^That is the only part I would disagree with. All any party needs is one, maybe two good years. If 2014 and 15 present a good upswing you can guarantee democrats will use it to their advantage. The people who vote based on their wallet aren’t thinking about far reaching political and social strategy. They’re thinking about their wallet. Full and getting thicker or thin and getting thinner, that is it.
During that last election cycle I was working with a bunch of guys who do exactly that and there are a lot of them. Obamacare was just a distant promise. We were all working 60’s/week. Guys were telling me I was an idiot straight to my face because I was saying that the ACA was a potential catastrophe that was going to cost us even though we don’t qualify. They were literally saying “Bullshit! No way I’m paying for this healthcare (through our employer) when I can get it free through the government.”. These are guys with wives and kids, mind you. They were walking into HR and dropping their plans based on the idea that their wallets were already thick and Obamacare would make it thicker. The CEO actually came out and addressed the company to tell people to hit the brakes on dropping their insurance based on political rhetoric, that they (the company) had no idea what was going to happen when it took effect.
These are your typical voters. They don’t care about global economic conditions or the sanctity of marriage. They want another scoop of taters and big ladle full of gravy, and who ever gives it to them (or says they will) gets the vote.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Social conservatives are a dying breed. I know you represent them, but I’m being honest.
IMO of course.
[/quote]
If Conservatism is a dying breed, libertarianism is a dead breed. Don’t mistake your usefulness for progressives on the social issues for acceptance on the political-economic direction of the nation. Not even. You’ve already shown this with your survey of tea partiers. Not even THEY are buying actual economic liberalism. The only thing that’ll happen is that Conservatives who’ve always had an uneasy fit with the more economically liberal Republican party will be free to move to the DNC. Permanent third party status for Republicans. Maybe the Green Party will become the 2nd of the two party system? Who knows.
[/quote]
I think we are getting our definitions crossed. Libertarianism is on the rise. The things in the platform are becoming more mainstream. Social conservatism is a dying breed.
I’m saying conservatives need to shift from conservative on fiscal and social issues to conservative on fiscal issues and pro-freedom on social issues.
Fiscal conservatism+ Social conservatism=no chance in the future.
Fiscal conservatism+ social freedom (as long as it does not harm others)= winning ticket.
Unless the definition of social conservative changes. Exclusionary is not going to win. The people they are pandering to now are not long for this Earth. And the future generations which will decide elections have no place for that anyways.
[quote]H factor wrote:
I think we are getting our definitions crossed. Libertarianism is on the rise. The things in the platform are becoming more mainstream. Social conservatism is a dying breed. [/quote]
You mean progressive ideology is on the rise. Libertarianism has a whole-heartedly rejected economic component.
Oh, yeah, the Libertarian Party part II. Same outcome.
Nope. That’s not just optimism, that’s being in a state of denial.
Agreed, economic liberals (the economic plank of libertarianism) are going extinct.
Conservatives on the other-hand will still be around when the gray, barren, US falls to pieces.
Sorry, H-factor, that population isn’t looking for your libertarianism to let them starve in their childless old age. Or to starve their fatherless children. To snatch tuition from the fatherless child. To take away their health-care. Etc. They’re not going to ask you to take away the adopted family (the nanny state) they’ve turned to in their isolation and weakness. That is not a society just waiting to vote libertarian. That society is looking for cradle to grave relief. Freedom. Freedom from natural consequences. Not the freedom to starve, get left behind, and die of lack of health-care.
We aren’t in disagreement necessarily.
Would you agree a fiscally conservative and socially pro freedom agenda has a better chance than a fiscally conservative socially conservative one?
Because I think the former has a shot. I think the latter used to be able to win, but has limited chance in the short term and no chance in the long.
I will wholeheartedly agree that Americans in general have no desire to get rid of many of our entitlements which is why the focus HAS to be on reforming them to make them sustainable (i.e. cut them back) and then work on reducing from there.
I guess what I’m saying is the social aspects of Libertarianism will be more popular with the electorate than the fiscal ones. Very few people in the country are ACTUALLY fiscally conservative. They just pay lip service to it.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Very few people in the country are ACTUALLY fiscally conservative. They just pay lip service to it. [/quote]
They are as long as it’s someone else who loses. I don’t live too far from where they build nuclear subs. Do we need another one? It doesn’t matter because the politicians in this state will fight to keep building them regardless of the nation’s need.
[quote]H factor wrote:
We aren’t in disagreement necessarily.
Would you agree a fiscally conservative and socially pro freedom agenda has a better chance than a fiscally conservative socially conservative one?[/quote]
No. You’d lose Conservatives and the DNC would pick up Conservatives. You’d be left with moderates and progressives making fun of the now shrunken Republican-refried-Libertarian party, whose sole claim is to economic extremism.
“Old people eating cat food. Grandma (except she’s increasingly likely to not even have children or grandchildren to help) not getting her meds.” When even talking about slowing the rate of growth in entitlements.
“Poor children left alone to wallow in cycles of poverty.” Financial aid.
You better hope it only goes as far as Western Euro-style social entitlement/welfare.
Ahem. Exactly. This isn’t you and the progressives watching us walk off the court to take a seat on the bench, while you two continue on with the game. We’re joining you on the bench. For a time.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Very few people in the country are ACTUALLY fiscally conservative. They just pay lip service to it. [/quote]
They are as long as it’s someone else who loses. I don’t live too far from where they build nuclear subs. Do we need another one? It doesn’t matter because the politicians in this state will fight to keep building them regardless of the nation’s need. [/quote]
Americans are for government when it directly helps them and against it when it does not. This has probably always been true, but more now than ever. I live in a highly conservative area of Kansas, and if the government touched certain social services or changed some farm subsidies these “small government” Republicans lose their absolute freaking mind.
I WISH I was making this up. With the government shutdown people on a local facebook group (essentially a swap talk forum) went absolutely bonkers about the difficulty with getting certain government services. The irony is that they all blamed Obama because they were Republicans. I should have saved that feed (could probably find it again if I wanted to). “Obama’s kids aren’t starving and mine are because he shut down the government!”
Honestly it is mind blowing how little the average American knows about politics. In Kansas we have Republicans getting mad at Democrats for positions that Republicans support because all they can say is “this is Obama’s fault.”
It would make for some hilarious TV if it wasn’t so scary how little our populace knows about government.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
We aren’t in disagreement necessarily.
Would you agree a fiscally conservative and socially pro freedom agenda has a better chance than a fiscally conservative socially conservative one?[/quote]
No. You’d lose Conservatives and the DNC would pick up Conservatives. You’d be left with moderates and progressives making fun of the now shrunken Republican-refried-Libertarian party, whose sole claim is to economic extremism.
[/quote]
If we would lose conservatives to the DNC then conservatives aren’t fiscally conservative and the only thing that makes them conservative is social issues.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Americans are for government when it directly helps them and against it when it does not. This has probably always been true, but more now than ever. I live in a highly conservative area of Kansas, and if the government touched certain social services or changed some farm subsidies these “small government” Republicans lose their absolute freaking mind.[/quote]
Refer back to my post about Conservatives simply moving to the DNC, trivializing the New Liberta…err Fiscally Conservative Republican party further. Economic liberalism is at best a tenuous tether to the GoP for a good many Conservatives.