CDZ 2008 & 2016: Progressivism's One-Two Punch

[Mac1958]

Just thinking out loud here, read at your own risk, don't blame me.

First, my guess is that historians will look back at the election of Barack Obama as a primary turning point in the history of this county, just as Reagan's was - only probably more long-lasting. The point at which we clearly moved away from the America-centric conservatism of the last 30 years and towards a more Euro-social Democratic stance; the point at which America chose to no longer being the dominant economic, military and cultural force on the planet - all for better or worse. Obama will see his "fundamental transformation" begin to come to fruition. Punch #1.

Second, it seems to me the best argument the Republicans have to vote for Trump is the Supreme Court. If Hillary wins, as Jeffrey Toobin describes here - The Supreme Court After Scalia, "...for the first time in decades, there is now a realistic chance that the Supreme Court will become an engine of progressive change rather than an obstacle to it". It seems pretty clear to me that he's right, the SC will be the foundation on which the change started by Obama will be clearly and significantly accelerated. Punch #2.

And finally, if Hillary wins and this all plays out, I wonder if conservatives will (at least privately) take any degree of responsibility for it. To me, conservatism's slow decline ironically began at the moment it began its 30-year reign: Reagan's "government is not the answer to our problems, government IS the problem". It's a great speech line, to be sure, but many conservatives took it literally and it fed on itself to the point where it became gospel across the board.

And at the center of it? Conservative media (particularly Rush and talk radio early on), which taught its fans to think in absolutes, to never give an inch, to take contrary thought and deflect/pivot/attack 100% of the time, until we now - oh so ironically - have seen Reagan's 80% Rule absolutely ignored and gutted. And the final nail in the coffin? Whichever of the talk show hosts (and I think it was either Rush or Levin) who coined the term "RINO", which led to this violent division within Reagan's beloved party.

Well, there's a few minutes of your life you'll never get back. As I said, don't blame me.
.

 

[aaronleland]

I didn't read a single word.

 

[Mac1958]

I didn't read a single word.

I knew it.
.

 

[JoeB131]

The mistake you make is thinking the election of Reagan was about "Small Government', when he grew government and most of his followers didn't care.

(And yes, i voted for him twice.. shame on me.)

Reagan's election was about White aggrievement. You see, the turning point wasn't Reagan. It was Nixon. People like my parents saw the minorities and the gays and the women actually demanding the same things white males enjoyed as a matter of course, and Nixon with his "Southern Strategy" and "Silent Majority" played on those anxieties. And rather than stand up to these appeals to racism and sexism and homophobia, the Democrats more often than not went along with them. It's no coincidence that the only two Democrats who won between 1968 and 2008 were in fact conservative southern Democrats.

Carter embraced the Moral Majority. Clinton denounced Sister Souljah, signed welfare reform and DOMA. They were just as happy to play the "us vs. them" game, just not as aggressively.

Obama did not get elected because America just learned to love them some progressivism. He won because Bush messed everything up. And, yes, because the non-white vote has grown to 30% of the electorate, the old strategy of "That Darkie wants half your cookie' tends to backfire now. I hope.

But Hillary isn't a progressive, she's a third way Democrat like her husband is. If she were a progressive who stood for something, she'd be mopping the floor with the Orange Nazi Hairpiece right now.

What we will probably see in Hillary's one term is more gridlock. more scandals because the Clintons just can't help themselves. Maybe the court might become more progressive, but i wouldn't count on it. Congress, on the other hand, will remain conservative.

(didn't realize this was a CDZ thread, so edited for language.)

 

[aaronleland]

I didn't read a single word.

I knew it.
.

What's most bizarre is that the GOP would spend those decades refusing to compromise only to nominate the most liberal candidate running in 2016.

I swear I didn't read a single word.

 

[Mac1958]

I didn't read a single word.

I knew it.
.

What's most bizarre is that the GOP would spend those decades refusing to compromise only to nominate the most liberal candidate running in 2016.

I swear I didn't read a single word.

Yep.

I wish I had bookmarked it, but a few weeks ago a Trump supporter literally said that conservatism is a failed ideology, and that nationalism/populism is taking its place. I almost fell over backwards. There's a self-inflicted wound element to this, though.

And stop reading my thread.
.

 

[Ozone]

if historians look back and see a one-two punch, it's not going to look good for the progressives because the progressives are thuggish bullies trying to play the knock-out game, so to speak.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep.

I wish I had bookmarked it, but a few weeks ago a Trump supporter literally said that conservatism is a failed ideology, and that nationalism/populism is taking its place. I almost fell over backwards. There's a self-inflicted wound element to this, though.

Or maybe people were never voting for "conservatism" to start with.

Let's be honest, the only "pure" conservative was Barry Goldwater. He tried to undo 32 years of progressivism from FDR to LBJ and go back to the good old days when the wealthy could exploit the working class with impunity because... "Freedom".

People saw this for the rat poison it was. He lost 44 states, only carrying his home state and five southern states that were throwing a hissy because LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which everyone agrees today was a good law.)

Nixon walked back the conservatism, quite a bit, but he doubled and tripled down on the racism. Yes, he grew government, he gave us the EPA and OSHA and a lot of other agencies, but he also played on those white Anxieties.

Reagan doubled down again with his welfare queens and young bucks. and it paid off. Bush-41 told us Willie Horton was hiding under our beds.

The guy who tried to walk it back was Dubya. (One of the few things i'll praise him for). But after the country rejected him, Romney went back to the same old script. Trump is that script of racial resentment on steroids.

The sad thing is, he'll probably get 40% of the vote. He might even win. The only protection between America and racist fascism is hoping Hillary can get through two more debates without a coughing fit.

 

[Staidhup]

After reading the posts on the web site its apparent the Hag has it in the Bag. So she can cough and lie all she wants it wont make a difference. Face it all she needs is 45% of those that view their problems as being the direct result of the 2%, 6% voting for third party candidates, and the Donald receiving 40% or so from those uneducated, misinformed, bigoted, racist, Christians, that work for a living.

 

[2aguy]

How did they refuse to cooperate....Reagan increased some taxes, passed kennedy's immigration reform with the deal they would secure the border...of course they lied.....

The democrats do not compromise....the Republicans always did......George H.W. said no new taxes...then raised taxes.......

You need to go back and actually study the history...

In fact....reagan came to an agreement with the democrats where he would raise taxes 1 dollar for every so many dollars in cuts.....they got the tax increase, then lied and didn't make the cuts....

The democrat party is the party of lying and non compromise.......has been and always will be...

 

[JoeB131]

How did they refuse to cooperate....Reagan increased some taxes, passed kennedy's immigration reform with the deal they would secure the border...of course they lied.....

The democrats do not compromise....the Republicans always did......George H.W. said no new taxes...then raised taxes.......

You need to go back and actually study the history...

In fact....reagan came to an agreement with the democrats where he would raise taxes 1 dollar for every so many dollars in cuts.....they got the tax increase, then lied and didn't make the cuts....

The democrat party is the party of lying and non compromise.......has been and always will be...

Actually, a lot of Democrats would argue they gave up too much to pay for Reagan's policies.