There is more than the big two candidates in this upcoming election….I have already offered up the Libertarians and the second in this series will be……
Former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode (Running mate: attorney Jim Clymer)
Labeled “Mr. Independent” by his home newspaper in Virginia, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, former six-term Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode has demonstrated a willingness to change parties when his principles did not comport with his party. Goode was elected to the Virginia state Senate as a Democrat, and served his first two congressional terms as a Democrat. But he became a political independent in the year 2000, and was reelected twice as an independent before switching to the Republican Party. Goode may have a major impact on the November race, as the former Virginia congressman is currently polling between five and nine percent in Virginia. Virginia is a key swing state in the presidential race, and support for Goode could tilt the outcome of the state in the race more than any other third-party candidate.
Goode left Congress after narrowly losing a reelection bid in the 2008 Democratic landslide for Obama. In his last term in Congress (2007-2008), this magazine’s “Freedom Index” congressional scorecard rated him at 72 percent. Now running for president, he has already qualified for the ballot in at least 17 states in November (but will probably qualify for twice that number).
Fiscal Agenda: As a congressman, Goode reliably voted to cut foreign aid and other wasteful spending. He even voted against his own party’s appropriations bills on some occasions.
Goode promises to introduce a balanced budget immediately by cutting spending. “Nearly every department and agency will face significant cuts and some will face elimination,” Goode says on his campaign website. Goode plans to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and No Child Left Behind, and to cut the Department of Education and foreign aid. He would pursue a full audit of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Foreign Policy: Goode favors a strong military that is substantially disengaged from unnecessary foreign wars, which is a change from his earlier vote in favor of the Iraq War (roll call 455, 2002). He now says, “I do not believe we should be involved in wars that have not been declared by Congress as specifically provided in the U.S. Constitution, so we must come home from Afghanistan. And I don’t think we can afford — nor is it strategically necessary — to have military bases all over the world. We owe too much money to underwrite the stationing of so many troops all around the world. Finally, I am against placing our armed forces under United Nations command.”
Goode strongly opposes multilateral free-trade agreements as job killers, voting against CAFTA — the Central American Free Trade Agreement — (roll call 443, 2005) and calling for the end of NAFTA and the WTO. In such calls, he could be contrasted with the libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul, who supports genuine free trade but opposes the trade regimes as centralizing forces and threats to national sovereignty rather than as job-killers. Goode makes no claim to support free trade as an objective good.
Civil Liberties: As a congressman, Goode voted to allow warrantless searches (roll call 502, 2006) and for virtual civil immunity for telecommunications firms that provide private subscriber information to intelligence services (roll call 437, 2008). He also voted for military tribunals for terrorist suspects (roll call 491, 2006), tribunals that flatly contradict the Sixth Amendment requirement for a jury trial for all criminal suspects.
Goode says he has learned from his years in the private sector, noting in his acceptance speech at the April 21 Constitution Party national convention that one of the most important votes he made a mistake about was his vote in favor of the Patriot Act (roll call 398, 2001) and its reauthorization (roll call 414, 2005). “I made some mistakes in the House on votes,” Goode said in his acceptance speech, “and one in particular — several but one in particular: I voted for the Patriot Act. And most in this room are very much opposed to that measure. I want to say that my association with the Constitution Party over the last three plus years has given me a better perspective of analyzing legislation from a constitutional viewpoint. And I want to say that I made a mistake in voting for this measure.”
But in his very next words, Goode demonstrated that his improved view of civil liberties had yet to be brought up to the level of actual constitutional understanding. He would only seek to repeal the Patriot Act “as it applies to U.S. citizens in this country and to legal permanent residents. I do not favor, though this may not comport with all federal court decisions, extending constitutional rights to persons from foreign countries or those illegally in the United States.” Of course, the Constitution does not limit rights to U.S. citizens, nor can it. Rights are inalienable gifts from God. Moreover, the Bill of Rights makes no distinctions between citizens and immigrants — legal or illegal. The Sixth Amendment demands that a trial by jury is a right in “all criminal prosecutions.” It allows no exceptions.
Goode is, however, a solid supporter of the Second Amendment (A+ rating from Gun Owners of America). And Goode says he favors repealing provisions of the NDAA that allow the president to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without trial.
Social Issues: On social issues, Goode has a solid conservative record. He is pro-life on abortion and supports traditional marriage. “I’ve always supported the proposition that marriage should be between one man and one woman,” he said in his April 21 acceptance speech for the Constitution Party presidential nomination.
Goode’s social focus is on immigration, making his campaign slogan “citizenship matters” a strong contrast to the establishment candidates Obama and Romney, as well as Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
Goode has called for a repeal of that portion of the 14th Amendment that courts have interpreted to mean that children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are entitled to automatic U.S. citizenship. Goode has called for a moratorium on even legal immigration (with few exceptions) until the immigration issue can be solved, a contrast with all the other candidates for president.
There you have a synopsis of the Constitution Party……as provided by The New American…..this one is not my cup of tea but if you need an alternative to the “Big 2″….then maybe a consideration of this party could be in order…..
Are you weary of the Paul Ryan story yet? Good, because there is lots of legs on this story and by the GOP convention we should know everything about the man, to include his opinion on anchovies.
I will do my part for the cause of a Ryan vice presidency…….since the MSM is fixated on Ryan, as they should be, after all Mitt has given them so much fodder that it just has to be the story for the next couple of weeks…….my previous post talked about Ryan the person and now I would like to give my readers information on Ryan the Congressperson……
Rep. Paul Ryan is the most ideologically far-from-center vice presidential nominee since at least 1900, according to one statistical analysis of historical Congressional voting records.
Based on the DW-NOMINATE model, Ryan’s record makes him the most extreme nominee from either party during that stretch, meaning he is not only ranked as more conservative than any past GOP vice presidential nominee, but also as further from center than any Democratic number two over that same stretch.
That ranking system analyzes all the roll call votes cast by members of Congress and computes a weighted average of how conservatives or liberal elected representatives are based on those votes. For example, the system pegs Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva (D-NM) as the ninth-most liberal member of the House, while Ron Paul (R-TX) ranks as the second-most conservative member (Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) barely beat out Paul for the title of most conservative.)
Ryan, meanwhile, falls well into the conservative end of the spectrum. In fact, the ranking system puts him just four slots closer to center than Tea Party crusader Michele Bachmann (R-MN.)
The system presents its averages on a numerical scale, from -1.0 to 1.0, liberal to conservative, with zero being completely centrist. Ryan earned a 0.562 Ideology Score according to the system, higher than Dick Cheney’s previous record high score for a VP nominee of 0.531. The most extreme Democratic nominee, by contrast, was President Franklin Roosevelt’s VP, John Nance Gardner (-0.482.)
That finding affirms anecdotal evidence about Ryan’s perceived image as a very conservative politician. His budget proposal last year, for example, was so extreme that even Newt Gingrich dismissed it as, “right-wing social engineering,” — though he has since come around now that Ryan is on the party ticket.
Analysis written by Jonathan Terbush
This should help Mitt become more likeable to the conservative base….the problem is he, Ryan, will be the vice president and we know that Mitt does not take well to people upstaging him. Personally, I think Ryan was the perfect choice for the party but a horrible choice for Mitt.
But we shall see, right?
College of Political Knowledge
First of all, I am not here to condemn anyone from being a conservative….I just want to point out a few things that may not be known……in this world of political correctness we tend to be damn right ignorant when it comes to true philosophy……take conservatism for one….
But what is conservatism…….in politics, the desire to maintain, or conserve, the existing order. Conservatives value the wisdom of the past and are generally opposed to widespread reform. Modern political conservatism emerged in the 19th cent. in reaction to the political and social changes associated with the eras of the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. By 1850 the term conservatism, probably first used by Chateaubriand, generally meant the politics of the right.
The original tenets of European conservatism had already been formulated by Edmund Burke , Joseph de Maistre , and others. They emphasized preserving the power of king and aristocracy, maintaining the influence of landholders against the rising industrial bourgeoisie, limiting suffrage, and continuing ties between church and state . The conservative view that social welfare was the responsibility of the privileged inspired passage of much humanitarian legislation, in which English conservatives usually led the way. In the late 19th cent. great conservative statesmen, notably Benjamin Disraeli , exemplified the conservative tendency to resort to moderate reform in order to preserve the foundations of the established order. By the 20th cent. conservatism was being redirected by erstwhile liberal manufacturing and professional groups who had achieved many of their political aims and had become more concerned with preserving them from attack by groups not so favored. Conservatism lost its predominantly agrarian and semifeudal bias, and accepted democratic suffrage, advocated economic laissez-faire , and opposed extension of the welfare state. This form of conservatism, which is best seen in highly industrialized nations, was exemplified by President Reagan in the United States and Prime Minister Thatcher
in Great Britain. It has been flexible and receptive to moderate change, favors the maintenance of order on social issues, and actively supports deregulation and privatization in the economic sphere. Conservatism should be distinguished both from a reactionary desire for the past and the radical right-wing ideology of fascism and National Socialism. (Thanx to the Free Dictionary for the definition)…….
In today’s political world, at least in the good ole US of A, when one calls themselves a conservative they are not completely accurate….they are more something else than a classical conservative….in the US of today we have several types of conservatives………
hard-hat A working-class conservative, so called from the protective metal or plastic helmet worn by construction workers.
A “Hard Hat” is a construction worker, but his helmet symbolizes all those beefy blue-collar workers who have suddenly become the knuckleduster on the strong right arm of President Nixon’s silent majority.
redneck An ultraconservative. This disparaging term usually refers to the poor white farmers of the Southern backwoods who are notorious for their purported intolerance of liberals, intellectuals, Blacks, and hippies. Redneck, originating as an allusion to a farmer’s perennially sunburned neck, is now an epithet for any person who shares similar prejudices.
right-wing Reactionary, conservative; averse to change, die-hard. The term reputedly arose from the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, in which conservatives sat on the right side, or wing, of the chamber. As used today, right-wing, like left-wing, has pejorative connotations of extremism—in this case, of bigotry, prejudice, moneyed interests, anti-humanitarianism, etc. Both terms are used primarily to denigrate and stigmatize one’s opponents; a political conservative would not call himself a right-winger, just as a liberal would not call himself a left-winger; yet each might well label the other with the appropriate epithet.
But what is a classical conservative?
mixed view of human nature
self-interest eventually harmful
society is organic whole
equality is not important
society is hierarchy of layers
elites have right to rule but responsibilities for welfare of others: “noblesse oblige”
stability of society paramount
law & order
customs & traditions are important
responsibilities & civil liberties of citizens, plus privileges for elites
mixed views on economy
Some of the traits of the classical branch are common in today’s political world but it all comes down to interruption…….and the mouthpiece spouting the perceived “truth”….in today’s world those calling themselves conservatives are more like neo-conservs……meaning?
limited government involvement in the economy
very limited range of social welfare programs
increased government protection of morality
emphasis on populism
maintain traditional social values
distrust of trade unionism
Once again let me emphasize that I am NOT condemning or demeaning conservative thought…..My only thing is trying to point out the differences in the beliefs and that NO one ideology is worse or better than another….only that there are different ways of approaching a political problem and that common ground should be found if there is to ever be a continuing of the political success of the country.
(For further explanation please check out next week’s post on neo-liberalism)
While we await the decision in New Hampshire….let us talk a bit about conservatism…….since I believe that this election is a bit of a mandate on the policies and beliefs of the movement……
First, let me apologize to my conservative friends……but the GOP needs to spend a lot of time evaluating their stances….Why? They will lose the 2012 election and have to go back a find a new direction…let us be honest…..your choices of candidates for 2012 are nothing short of a joke….sorry but you know I am spot on here…..you have a flip in Mitt he will NOT get past the election and to have a guy with more money than half the population and then we move on to a historian that is nothing but a revisionist that would not know the truth if it bit him in the ass…..a governor that is a bully that has NO idea how to govern on the national level….and then there is a Libertarian….need I say more?
I appreciate the differences in the two prevailing ideologies but in recent years the GOP has stopped being a real party just a stop by for the extremists in society……there are real conservatives in the party but they either cow tow to the extremists or they go home….there are NO conserv statesmen left (Dems are NO better)……
Maybe the idea of change should begin with the party and the people that are running for office……after the defeat in 2012 there should be a meeting of the RNC and new guidelines…..and a couple that have been put forth by Conor Freidersdorf in the Atlantic……
1) Stop obsessing over inconsequential slights, real or perceived. In the current primary season, a lot of conservatives deemed Jon Huntsman unacceptable, or not worthy of consideration, because he sent out a Tweet gently mocking climate-change and evolution deniers. Whether or not you object to his attempt to curry favor with the media, it is undeniable that he governed Utah for 8 years as a conservative, favors the Paul Ryan budget, and is generally more reliable and more conservative than Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, both of whom have outperformed him.
2) Realize that aggressive rhetoric isn’t a proxy for how successfully a politician can push conservative reforms. Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann can zing liberals as harshly as anyone. Their penchant for doing so on Fox News is a major reason both of them were at one time considered viable 2012 contenders. But neither were ever electable, and even if either improbably won a general election, they’d lack the necessary skills to actually advance a conservative agenda in office. In contrast, Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, had substantial executive experience and a demonstrated ability to advance conservative reforms by cooperating with and fighting legislators from the other party. Despite his record, he was deemed unreliable — partly because, on a debate stage, he shief away from insulting Mitt Romney in the same way he’d done elsewhere.
3) Understand that movement conservatism operates in a media bubble.That means that the politicians who Republicans think they know all about from Fox News and talk radio haven’t in fact been scrutinized and vetted — something right-leaning media outlets are hesitant to do their homework unless given the cover of a political campaign, when other conservatives are attacking. Were conservative media outlets more willing to acknowledge the flaws of their own outside of campaign season, the set of candidates deemed to be viable standard bearers would change.
4) Accept that governing always means compromise. This is relevant because a successful multi-term governor is always going to appear less pure than a businessman seeking public office for the first time or someone who needs only to win a Congressional seat in a safe district. Like the former governor, the businessman and the congresswoman will compromise to advance their overall agenda if elected to the presidency — the only difference is that we don’t yet know how they will compromise. A failure to realize as much is causing conservatives to feel unduly negative about electable candidates with executive experience, and unduly optimistic about empty vessels whose purity is mostly due to the fact that they haven’t accomplished anything or run anything or been around very long.
5) Recognize the right’s new foreign-policy radicalism. As George W. Bush proved in 2000, running on the need for a humble foreign policy that doesn’t squander American resources abroad can be effective for Republicans, as can critiquing Democratic presidents for abusing their power or expressing wariness about the military-industrial complex. Even though President Obama has embraced much of the post-9/11 Bush-era approach to fighting terrorism, the Republican field is determined to run to his right and to portray him as an appeaser who is uncomfortable asserting American power — a hopeless criticism given that his reply will be that he’s killed Osama bin Laden and much of Al Qaeda’s leadership.
Granted these may not be the sole answer but at least it would show conservatives that the Party is serious about winning elections with quality candidates……without young voters or Hispanics or African-Americans the party will be marginalized and ineffective….and for God’s sake work on a REAL message and stop with the one liners….it makes you look superficial!
College of Political Knowledge
There have reports, articles even books that have said that conservatism is dead. And then there has been a wealth of articles, reports and books that have disputed the claim. Especially, in the last couple of elections, it does seem that there are NO real conservatives left……but to answer the question….NO conservatism is not dead….but it is on life support and the far Right has their hands on the plug.
The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use “social issues” as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy.
The sine qua non of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. Alternatively, a conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the morality of the Bible for the benefit of all, recognizing that the Bible is the most logical book ever written. Specifically, conservatives seek or support:
- Limited government and balanced budgets
- Capitalism and free markets
- Classroom prayer
- Prohibition of abortion and respect for human life
- Abstinence education
- Traditional marriage, not same-sex marriage
- Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
- Laws against pornography
- The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
- Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
- The death penalty
- Parental control of education (parental rights)
- Private medical care and retirement plans
- Canceling failed social support programs
- No world government
- Enforcement of current laws regarding immigration
- Respect for our military … past and present
- Rejection of junk science such as evolution and global warming
- Minimal Taxation
- Federalism (Separation of powers among the National, State and Local governments)
- Favoring states’ rights over federal power, while accepting the Constitutional role of the federal government
- A strong national defense
- An Originalist interpretation of the Constitution
Does any of this sound familiar? Personally, it is not dead or dying….it is trying to re-define itself and that could lead to a break among the members of the party….but the aristocratic thinking of the conservative will remain.
Steven Haywood has an excellent point……
It might seem that the long-standing conservative project to shrink the New Deal welfare state by starving it of tax revenue, reigning in entitlements, and limiting its reach into the lives of American families and businesses – begun in the Reagan years and continued fitfully through the first and second Bush presidencies – might be ready to recommence. And perhaps, this time, with help from the fervour of the Tea Party, conservatives may even finish the job.
For those willing to probe a bit deeper, however, it should quickly become apparent that we badly need to take stock of our position. Conservatism, despite these impressive electoral victories, is failing on its own terms. Start with the social indicators, which are the most important to conservatives. The US’ fast-growing and largely minority underclass shows limited signs of progress or assimilation to middle-class American life. And the white middle class – the bed-rock of conservatism’s political strength and social vision – is showing signs of social stagnation and economic regress that should be sounding ominous claxons in conservative meeting halls but, so far, have attracted only the attention of Charles Murray. Stagnant income growth and mobility and a shrinking middle class are considered unhealthy by most conservative understandings of social health, cohesion and well-being. While conservatives have plenty of macro ideas for increasing economic growth, they have fewer ideas about how to secure a wider distribution of new wealth.
While conservs may see the need to re-think their positions….none have the cajones to admit it out loud….after all there are elections to be won…….so, NO conservatism is not dead, but it is walking with a limp……
The media cannot make up his mind….is its Trump or Huntsman or Perry or Bachmann….and now it is Cain, well before they started flicking Christie’s wanker, that is…….but what is all this back and forth about?
Feeling a little deja vu over the latest GOP poll, the one that shows Herman Cain surging as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann sink? You should, explains Steve Kornacki at Salon, because Republicans have once again embraced the “nuisance candidate.” It’s a pattern they’ve been repeating for a while now, with different candidates in the starring role. Bachmann had her moment, and even Donald Trump took a turn. It speaks to the “comically high ratio between fringe candidates and actual viable contenders.” The pattern goes like this, Kornacki writes: “Some sort of triggering event, followed by an encouraging poll or two, ramped up media coverage, even better poll numbers, a surge in fundraising, even more media coverage, and a sudden consensus that the candidate just might have more staying power than we all thought—at which point the moment would end and it would be someone else’s turn.” And Perry could have saved the party from the latest round if he hadn’t bombed so miserably in the debates. Full column here.
Cain is winning straw polls, at least for now and his 999 tax plan is getting a bit of play, well at least from us bloggers….and the media is on his side….that is when they are not trying to convince Chris Christie that the country cannot survive without his unique brand of conservatism…….but with Perry’s campaign in the crapper will he be the mainstream Repub candidate? My thought is no. Thoughts?
As most of my regular readers know I live in the state of confusion…..my bad…that should be the state of Mississippi….and I realize that unless you live here then much of what I read about means nothing to you….sorry for that….but there are some things that I need to write about and the 4th congressional district of Mississippi…..
In the last election a long time Dem representative, Gene Taylor, lost his bid for re-election….I could go into the election in detail but to save time click on the link for the post on that election…
I post this because with all the debate on the budget I wanted to see where the present Rep, Steven Palazzo, was having his town halls and wanted to see what he had to say about the battle being waged…..
This guy was seldom in debates or even in large groups….his campaign tried to keep him away from voters until after the election…instead of pressing the flesh, his campaigned depended instead on attack ads and the link between Taylor and Pelosi…the strategy worked…Taylor was defeated and now we have this guy…Palazzo…
I am not sure what to make of this guy…..three of his inner circle have resigned since January….with NO real explanations……sorry, I digress…….While searching Palazzo’s website I could NOT find any mention of town halls only that he would talk to my group if I set it up……I did find that he voted for the Ryan budget….and that is a direct fly into the face of the seniors in my area, which are many, it is a retirement spot…..I see voters remorse……..
If I had to guess this guy may be a one termer….he will most likely have a Dem challenger and a Repub one also…he is an idiot and NOT long for the Congress…….unlike Taylor…he is NOT and I repeat NOT voting in the best interests of his constituents……and he avoids face to face with crowds that he knows will be hostile…there is a word for that……
And then there is the state’s junior senator, Wicker……he was interviewed on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown, about the storms that ravaged north Mississippi and he spent most of the time giving GOP talking points on the budget, debt and basically blaming Obama for the damage of the storms….he ignored the destruction and suffering of his constituents in the aftermath of terrible storms……so he could repeat some lame ass talking points……and this is the PEOPLE, and I use the term loosely, that Mississippians traditionally vote into office…….maybe NOW they will wake up and get over the Civil Rights crap of the 60′s, maybe now they will get over the fact that Dems gave blacks equal standing and start thinking before they vote!
To be honest….I doubt it….but it makes for a good post (at least in my mind)…….
College of Political Knowledge
Subject: Political Theory/Political Parties/
NO Irene…this is not a case that will go before the Supreme Court…but that is an idea that I would not be opposed to in any shape……
First, I would like to say something….Will you conservs STOP using the term “limited government”! Very little of what you are doing is “limited”…..they are pushing further and further into the lives of Americans and that is NOT “limited”…..thanx for letting me vent…..
Finally! The American people are starting to wake up to the fact that NONE of the Reps in Washington are working in their best interests….and thanx to CNN we have some proof of this……
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday indicates that 32 percent of the public has a favorable view of the two year old anti-tax movement, which also calls for less government spending and a more limited role for the federal government in our lives. The 32 percent favorable rating is down five points from December.
Forty-seven percent of people questioned say they have an unfavorable view of the tea party, up four points from December and an increase of 21 points from January 2010. That 47 percent is virtually identical to the 48 percent unfavorable ratings for both the Democratic party and the Republican party in the same poll.
NOBODY has a favorable appearance to the people or should I say….the voter….but will it translate to fresh thinking….or fresh faces….or possibly a new party? If the total Congress and the parties have such a negative rating, what can we do as voters to change that?
To me….I will look for a NEW direction for the government and the country….I may be alone in this search but I will do it anyway……The country needs new ideas…new Reps….new parties….the stuff we have now is NOT working!
I am up to the challenge……are you?
P.S. Keep in mind an observation from an observer in the UK on the Tea Party…….”It’s the same in 2011 as it was in 1776 ( I hate to contradict my UK friend but the Party was in 1773 not 1776) when a Boston mob was incited to throw a cargo of tea into the city’s harbour: a bunch of rich folk getting poor folk to help them avoid paying their fair share of tax. Nowadays they don’t even have to get their feet wet. It’s all done on junk TV.”
Well, I am talking about the Dems in the South…..the last mid-term in 2010 pretty much crapped all over the conservative Blue Dog Dems……the last remaining parts of the old Dem Party of the South…..the world was lost to the Dems with the passage of the Civil rights Act 0f the 1960′s……and the Party has never rebounded from that situation……
There is an old bumper sticker that says…”The South Shall Rise Again”…..total crap but I think that the Dem Party has shot its wad in the South……never to return as a viable alternative to the GOP…..
A little history for those not in the know….from the Economist…….
AFTER President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he reportedly turned to his press secretary and lamented that Democrats “have lost the South for a generation.” Johnson’s judgment was optimistic. Despite brief flashes of strength during the presidential elections of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Democrats—particularly white Democrats—have been losing ground in the South for half a century.In the Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the eleven former Confederate states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia—had a total of 128 senators and representatives, of whom 115 were white Democrats (see chart). In 1981 Republicans took control of the Senate for the first time since 1953, but most Southern elected officials remained white Democrats. When Republicans took control of the House in 1995, white Democrats still comprised one-third of the South’s tally.
Some have argued that such conservatism dilutes the Democratic brand: that Democrats lost in November because voters knew what Republicans stood for but could not say the same of Democrats. Ari Berman, author of “Herding Donkeys: The Fight to Rebuild the Democratic Party and Reshape American Politics”, wrote in the New York Times that “Democrats would be in better shape and would accomplish more with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive caucus.” If by “accomplishing more” Mr Berman means “make liberals feel better”, he might be right; but if he means “pass more legislation”, he is wrong. Moderates and conservatives outnumber liberals in Congress, among congressional Democrats and among the electorate at large. Democrats built their 2006-10 majority by extending their reach into traditionally conservative districts. Abandoning those areas, many of them Southern, after the first mid-term election of a new president’s term—when the president’s party tends to lose seats anyway—would probably be a blunder.
The black population in the South will stay loyal to the Dems….unfortunately they do not vote heavily, as a rule…..but the whites will now be totally behind the GOP and its conserv platform….even though the Dems offer more in the way of services to all Southerns….they will continually vote against their own best interests……not the sharpest pencils in the political box…..
I mean come on! There are still Southerns trying to sell the Civil War as a matter of state’s rights and not slavery…..you can try to sell that piece of mis-information for so long…..why? History contradicts that argument……
However, the Declaration of the Immediate Causes for Secession, an official document that was published alongside South Carolina’s declaration of independence, mentions slavery 31 times and cites the election of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, “whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery,” as one of the main reasons for secession.Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/SOUTH+rises+again/4028880/story.html#ixzz19bdj6AjW
The Dems have been losing in the South for decades….but this last election may have finished it off with a fatal shot to the head…..
College of Political Knowledge
Subject: Political Philosophy/Government/Conservatism
Well, answer the question? Why do you think you are a conservative? Because Dad was? Or maybe Uncle Bob? Maybe you like Sarah Palin or you think Cantor is a cutey? By the way, none of those are actual reason that someone would be a conservative….as much as you may like to believe it is…it is NOT!
A “true” conservative views things in a certain way…but because of the total lack of understanding a classical conservative has little in common with the so-called modern conservative…..
A classical conservative…the conservatism of Edmund Burke, that is holds a special belief in issues and situations…..first let us look at ideology….they view this as a manifestation of the arrogance of rationalism. The see ideologies as elaborate systems o0f thought that are dangerous and unreliable.
Second, the concept of freedom…..conservs have this weak view of freedom as a willing recognition of duties and responsibilities…..with freedom comes democracy and conservs see this as the need to protect property rights and traditional institutions from the untutored will of the masses or “the many”….and with freedom and democracy there is the human nature…..which they see as limited security seeking drawn to the known, the familiar, the tried and the tested and that human rationality is flawed and unreliable and moral corruption is implicit…..and now the issue of equality….conservs have traditionally viewed society as necessarily hierarchical and dismiss equality as an abstract and unachievable goal……
How about the nation….what would a true conservative think of the nation? They see it as a an organic entity bound together with common ethnic identity and a shared history; it is the source of social cohesion and a collective identity…..they will see the nation as the most important of all the social organizations.
The state….no not the same thing as the nation…conservs want a strong state to protect us from chaos and disorder with authority and discipline……that brings us to the concept of authority…they see it as rising from natural necessity from above by those of unequal distribution of experience, social position and wisdom And that it fosters respect and loyalty and social cohesion……
More simply put…if you are a conserv then you see the needs of the country (or state) are best met by the elites of the nation and that authority and strong government (does not necessarily mean big government) is essential for the state to survive.