Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It would be devastating for the conservative movement to abandon the Republican party and try to start a new one. It is a much better strategy to "purify" the core of the Republican party and start from a new ideological center, than to try to make a new party out of whole cloth.
There is an example of a third party flipping from irrelevance to dominance in a two party country (Great Britain) but it is a rare and unlikely event. Typically, third parties only ensure victory to the undivided party of the opposite ideology.
With all this talk about purification though, it is important for conservatives to understand that a conservative will never win in New England. So, after the new center has been established, there has to be room to elect moderates in liberal areas of the country. Working legislative majorities are the goal and foregoing an entire section of the country because they are not conservative enough, is not a workable strategy.
From the way I see it the Tea Parties stem from people with conviction and concern, including Conservatives, and True Liberals (Not Statists), and Independents that indeed see Self Determination under Attack. I think that the one thing probably absent from the Tea Parties, are the Elitist's and Statist's of both Parties. What the Tea Parties Attack is Statism, directly and indirectly.
OK
So what does that have to do with which party is more heavily represented among tea partiers?
It would be devastating for the conservative movement to abandon the Republican party and try to start a new one. It is a much better strategy to "purify" the core of the Republican party and start from a new ideological center, than to try to make a new party out of whole cloth.
There is an example of a third party flipping from irrelevance to dominance in a two party country (Great Britain) but it is a rare and unlikely event. Typically, third parties only ensure victory to the undivided party of the opposite ideology.
With all this talk about purification though, it is important for conservatives to understand that a conservative will never win in New England. So, after the new center has been established, there has to be room to elect moderates in liberal areas of the country. Working legislative majorities are the goal and foregoing an entire section of the country because they are not conservative enough, is not a workable strategy.
I agree with your analysis. But I'd expect the success of "purifying the core" to be completely contigent upon probably one (but maybe a few) VERY persuasive, very magnetic figures outlining and "selling" the pure core philosophies in a way that doesn't alienate the more moderate.
From the way I see it the Tea Parties stem from people with conviction and concern, including Conservatives, and True Liberals (Not Statists), and Independents that indeed see Self Determination under Attack. I think that the one thing probably absent from the Tea Parties, are the Elitist's and Statist's of both Parties. What the Tea Parties Attack is Statism, directly and indirectly.
OK
So what does that have to do with which party is more heavily represented among tea partiers?
Dem's most often support government intervention into private areas (think social intervention to "benefit" some segment of the population), the coercive force of government is used to implement the "benefit." This is statism.
Since the overwhelming majority of Dems support those actions (environmentalism, social welfare programs, single-payer health care) then the opposite party and those unaligned must be the majority of those fighting against those statist policies.
Does that help?
It would be devastating for the conservative movement to abandon the Republican party and try to start a new one. It is a much better strategy to "purify" the core of the Republican party and start from a new ideological center, than to try to make a new party out of whole cloth.
There is an example of a third party flipping from irrelevance to dominance in a two party country (Great Britain) but it is a rare and unlikely event. Typically, third parties only ensure victory to the undivided party of the opposite ideology.
With all this talk about purification though, it is important for conservatives to understand that a conservative will never win in New England. So, after the new center has been established, there has to be room to elect moderates in liberal areas of the country. Working legislative majorities are the goal and foregoing an entire section of the country because they are not conservative enough, is not a workable strategy.
I agree with your analysis. But I'd expect the success of "purifying the core" to be completely contigent upon probably one (but maybe a few) VERY persuasive, very magnetic figures outlining and "selling" the pure core philosophies in a way that doesn't alienate the more moderate.
I wouldn't suspect that it would be 100% effective. Politics is messy business. There are time pressures, messenger issues, etc. that will keep the process from being as good as it could be. So, it will occur to some extent or another. The greater the extent the better. And, then party building must occur in due course. You simply recognize where you are (as far as your new center goes) and move on from there.
My statement above was more normative than practical. You shoot for the moon, but you only get as far as you get.
OK
So what does that have to do with which party is more heavily represented among tea partiers?
Dem's most often support government intervention into private areas (think social intervention to "benefit" some segment of the population), the coercive force of government is used to implement the "benefit." This is statism.
Since the overwhelming majority of Dems support those actions (environmentalism, social welfare programs, single-payer health care) then the opposite party and those unaligned must be the majority of those fighting against those statist policies.
Does that help?
Not really. Dive Con and I were discussing which party is more heavily represented among tea partiers. Intense quoted the discussion and replied with one word: "Independents." I was asking her to explain how that one word response applied.
I understand that Democrats, on the whole, are not as sympathetic to the Tea Party cause and that a new party comprised of Tea Partiers would more likely draw a lot more heavily from the GOP than from the Democratic Party. So agreeing with my observation doesn't really answer my question to Intense.
). There are other parts that are whack jobs to the left and right (Nazis, Communists, socialist workers party, etc.) they are permanently marginalized and unlikely to compromise. The remain bulk of independents are largely made up of people who like Ron Paul, Ross Perot etc. Largely disaffected conservatives/libertarians of one sort or another. I would attribute perhaps 20% of the 30% of independents to this (maybe a little less). In any case, it's a large chunk. Is it larger than conservative Republicans supporting the tea parties? I wouldn't think so. But, at this point, it might be as large.
I agree with your analysis. But I'd expect the success of "purifying the core" to be completely contigent upon probably one (but maybe a few) VERY persuasive, very magnetic figures outlining and "selling" the pure core philosophies in a way that doesn't alienate the more moderate.
I wouldn't suspect that it would be 100% effective. Politics is messy business. There are time pressures, messenger issues, etc. that will keep the process from being as good as it could be. So, it will occur to some extent or another. The greater the extent the better. And, then party building must occur in due course. You simply recognize where you are (as far as your new center goes) and move on from there.
My statement above was more normative than practical. You shoot for the moon, but you only get as far as you get.
Again, I agree with the analysis - not necessarily the goal - but I think you have a very realistic perspective of the situation. And while I agree with the "HOW", I'm not convinced to join the movement. While I agree with fiscal conservatism - if you define that as not spending more than you take in - I would need to hear more about other issues before supporting a newly-centered Republican or Tea Partier.
actually, thats changingDem's most often support government intervention into private areas (think social intervention to "benefit" some segment of the population), the coercive force of government is used to implement the "benefit." This is statism.
Since the overwhelming majority of Dems support those actions (environmentalism, social welfare programs, single-payer health care) then the opposite party and those unaligned must be the majority of those fighting against those statist policies.
Does that help?
Not really. Dive Con and I were discussing which party is more heavily represented among tea partiers. Intense quoted the discussion and replied with one word: "Independents." I was asking her to explain how that one word response applied.
I understand that Democrats, on the whole, are not as sympathetic to the Tea Party cause and that a new party comprised of Tea Partiers would more likely draw a lot more heavily from the GOP than from the Democratic Party. So agreeing with my observation doesn't really answer my question to Intense.
If you look at the break down of political affiliation of late, it's about 35% Dem, 35% Repub and about 30% "Independent" whatever that means.
So, I think Intense is partially correct and partially incorrect. There are some self-described independents who are no more independent than Nancy Pelosi. They just like the patina of "Independence" but when it really comes down to it, they would never vote for "the other party" unless some strained hypothetical were to occur (they will be happy to tell you about this hypothetical that maintains this patina of Independence too
I mentioned them in my first reply (non-affiliated) I think I said. But there's the detail.
Couldn't disagree more.
The people who stay home have much more to do with who wins or loses than do the vastly overrated squishy "moderates".
That's a hard one. I know because of My views, I would stay home rather than have to choose the lesser evil, I almost did last time. However, had the Dems ran a Leon Panetta, or a Jerry Brown, I would have Crossed Party lines without hesitation, rather than vote McCain, who should never have ran. 50% stay home? I wonder if dropping the Electoral College would effect that?
What????
Do have any idea what you're talking about? Do you know who Jerry Brown is and what he stands for?
The electoral college is one of the few bulwarks of federalism left in place. Are you against federalism?
Having someone to vote for, rather than having a "choice" between an evil or a lesser would do a lot to get people off their sofas to vote.That's a hard one. I know because of My views, I would stay home rather than have to choose the lesser evil, I almost did last time. However, had the Dems ran a Leon Panetta, or a Jerry Brown, I would have Crossed Party lines without hesitation, rather than vote McCain, who should never have ran. 50% stay home? I wonder if dropping the Electoral College would effect that?
See: Jesse Ventura.
From the way I see it the Tea Parties stem from people with conviction and concern, including Conservatives, and True Liberals (Not Statists), and Independents that indeed see Self Determination under Attack. I think that the one thing probably absent from the Tea Parties, are the Elitist's and Statist's of both Parties. What the Tea Parties Attack is Statism, directly and indirectly.
OK
So what does that have to do with which party is more heavily represented among tea partiers?
Dem's most often support government intervention into private areas (think social intervention to "benefit" some segment of the population), the coercive force of government is used to implement the "benefit." This is statism.
Since the overwhelming majority of Dems support those actions (environmentalism, social welfare programs, single-payer health care) then the opposite party and those unaligned must be the majority of those fighting against those statist policies.
Does that help?
OK
So what does that have to do with which party is more heavily represented among tea partiers?
Dem's most often support government intervention into private areas (think social intervention to "benefit" some segment of the population), the coercive force of government is used to implement the "benefit." This is statism.
Since the overwhelming majority of Dems support those actions (environmentalism, social welfare programs, single-payer health care) then the opposite party and those unaligned must be the majority of those fighting against those statist policies.
Does that help?
I know what Statism is. It is clear that there are different concerns coming from the Left and the Right. Nationalism is the Road to Totalitarianism. Thats where I'm at. Still Tea Parties bring People in from all sides for different reasons. Putting aside the concept of Pro Administration Agents putting up offensive and misspelled signs, for effect, and Left Wing Media focusing what they want to focus on in their Picture Fests, You would have to go and see for yourself, to give a fair account. I bet, You'll see a pretty diverse spectrum. More3 so than is being portrayed. I see the Focus on Liberty, and Self Determination. Thats a good thing. There are always negative things to watch out for and effect positively at Rallies, be they left or Right. I've been at both ends. Keeping them constructive and Positive is the Goal. We should be encouraging Voice and Participation, not Ridiculing It.
The nominate another neocon like the Shrub or squish enabler like McQuisling and thay can kiss the election bye-bye....And they know it.If Rand Paul wins the Kentucky Senate seat, he'd be a better choice than Barry the Manchild.
The chance of Republicans electing Rand Paul for the nominee is about as likely as Republicans electing Ron Paul for the nominee.
Yeah, a movement lead by the former Republican Majority Leader isn't a movement supportive of Republicans. That's really your argument?
One question - a couple of points.
The question: Can someone please provide some documentation to support the breakdown that suggests there are more Democrats than Republicans among the Tea Party participants. The notion that this Libertarian movement has somehow appealed to more Democrats than Republicans seems counterintuitive. But I'll look at the supporting data if you can provide any.
Point One: It seems to me Ted_Esq that the moderate, pragmatic resolution you suggest would best serve the interests of the GOP, but is it reasonable to expect incremental, deliberate modifications to appease this group? I think the evidence suggests that they may not. It seems to me that the kind of people who carry signs: "We came unarmed - THIS time" are not likely to be pacified bit-by-bit over a long period of time.
Point Two: I have a strong sense that perhaps the GOP is realizing now that creating an angry mob is a lot easier than keeping an angry mob channeled in a way that suits your immediate political needs. A real leader realizes this and steers away from creating angry mobs. IMHO this is another manifestation of the lack of leadership in the present-day GOP.
Where it comes into perspective is the realization that Obama is scaring.
He is too heavy handed on the rudder, and blind at the wheel.
Where it comes into perspective is the realization that Obama is scaring.
He is too heavy handed on the rudder, and blind at the wheel.
that is where what comes into perspective?
One question - a couple of points.
The question: Can someone please provide some documentation to support the breakdown that suggests there are more Democrats than Republicans among the Tea Party participants. The notion that this Libertarian movement has somehow appealed to more Democrats than Republicans seems counterintuitive. But I'll look at the supporting data if you can provide any.
Point One: It seems to me Ted_Esq that the moderate, pragmatic resolution you suggest would best serve the interests of the GOP, but is it reasonable to expect incremental, deliberate modifications to appease this group? I think the evidence suggests that they may not. It seems to me that the kind of people who carry signs: "We came unarmed - THIS time" are not likely to be pacified bit-by-bit over a long period of time.
Point Two: I have a strong sense that perhaps the GOP is realizing now that creating an angry mob is a lot easier than keeping an angry mob channeled in a way that suits your immediate political needs. A real leader realizes this and steers away from creating angry mobs. IMHO this is another manifestation of the lack of leadership in the present-day GOP.
