Today is Super Tuesday and the election is drawing closer. As always it has been a really fascinating process watching it all play out. The Democrat race has been a lot more exciting and it’s a lot more important. Unless something changes the political landscape between now and November a Democrat is going to be the next President of the United States. The likely choice seems to be Hillary Clinton. She isn’t really the popular choice, but the inevitable one.
On the Republican side it’s a blood bath. There never was a candidate that excited the base. Now it appears the Senator John McCain will be the likely Republican representative. He was able to win the liberal leaning Republican states while Huckabee and Romney split the vote in the Southern and Western states. McCain is a disaster for the Republican party. He doesn’t excite the base, many conservatives won’t vote for him, and in a year that the economy is likely to be a major issue he’s woefully unprepared to debate the topic. All of these factors add up to a landslide. Much will be written in the next twenty-four months about the “death of the Republican party” which is of course what always happens in bad election years. It’s not true of course, but this is the result of eight years of moderate Bush rule. He passed huge liberal bills (No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drugs), ran up the deficit, refused to secure the boarders, and that’s leaving out his foreign policy follies. The President was never a conservative and he’s leaving the White House with his party deflated and shattered.
The biggest change likely on the horizon is the courts. Four to eight years of a Democrat White House will mean some of the older liberal judges such as Ginsburg and Stevens will be replaced with younger leftists. The big question will be about Justice Kennedy who is the swing vote. He’s over 80 years old and if he steps down the court will take on a strict liberal interpretation of the constitution (or BYOC “bring your own constitution”). I don’t expect there to be any sweeping changes from the legislative branch.
Even if Democrats control all three branches of government, the margins are so slim it makes major changes close to impossible to implement. The Democrats lack the support to create any huge programs, and they lack the intelligence to deal with the fiscal problems facing the nation (not that the Republicans are any better). So is this the death of the Republic? There’s a lot of talk about change in this election, but I just see more of the same pandering populism that got us where we are today. Maybe the Republicans will learn from this disaster.
if you’re going to say “democrat party” then you have to say “republic party”. or, you could just use good grammar. plus, it’s just one of those things that makes you all look really small-minded and petty. say hi to hannity for me.
Oh yes, I’m well aware of what I call the “Democrat Party.” I’m not an expert on small-minded pettiness, but I’ll take your word for it. Since my analysis doesn’t fit into your ideological world view you’re only left with insults. It fits you very well.
first of all, i don’t care about your “analysis”. secondly, your purpose in saying “democrat” IS to insult so stop acting like a victime all the time. and finally, why don’t you try expanding your definition of ideology beyond “political ideology”? it’s easy, just try reading a little theory.
Brown, if you don’t care, why are you here? This site is dedicated to my “analysis.” By the way, if you’re so dedicated to grammar it’s “victim” and not “victime.” Normally I let this type of thing go, but I just want to make sure you’re consistent.
I suggest you find a blog about “political ideology” if it fascinates you so much. It’s obvious you’re clueless about economics, the looming fiscal crisis, and the Cheney-Iraq-9/11-connection. Say hi to Michael Moore for me… (wow, that’s so witty)
Calling people names, (Democrat, Associated DePressed, Mr. Celophane, BDS, etc) is the easy way out of intellectual exchange. This is less about grammar or PC and more about power and defining a conversation before the other side does. You are better than that.
You need to be careful nemov. Your understanding of economics on the micro level is pretty standard, but your overall understanding of economics on a macro scale seems to be limited by your own ideology. Even Fukyama has backed away from “the end of history…” frame that he was working with in the 1990s – Though to be sure he included politics, sociology and history to provide context within what was essentialy the theory that the market economy and liberal democracy was the pinnacle of mankind’s political and economic development – Much like Marx viewed communism. But I digress… Economics is not a question of math, it is a question of history, trends, politics, psycology sociology and more and it is not in a vacuum. Certainly our country is a fiscal crossroads and action must be taken, but it is really a question of priorities, promises and creating consensus on a grand scale. You can wag your finger at the Democrats (and Republicans) but no one will give a damn what you have to say unless you are willing to undertake the conversation and find solutions instead of saying just pointing out the problem.
Change Change Change is all I hear. Your call for change has substance and real consequences, fortuntately there are many ways to the promised land, many stakeholders and a whole lot that can change in coming decades.
This site isn’t about an “intellectual exchange,” it’s the world according to nemov. If you want that type of dialog you should go to http://www.americasdebate.com. This site is dedicated to my not so serious look at current events from a Conservative’s perspective.
The reason you don’t find those names funny is that you’re ideology prevents it from happening. I’m not going to quit watching the Daily Show or the Colbert Report just because they bash conservatives all the time. If you don’t like it, quit reading. Frankly I quit reading your blog after a few days, it just wasn’t interesting.
posting is for suckers, right?
Posting IS for suckers and I am not particularly concerned about what you read.
If you are not interested in other views and the opinions that are attached to them, than why blog and allow comments? Why not just write what you think and let it go at that? Oh well, it doesn’t matter.
BTW I do find your name calling funny, it has been interesting watching you develop and search for a voice. Here is the thing, every once in while, I am going to call you on it. Its more fun that way.
I said I wasn’t interested in your blog, not in other views. You assume that just because I’m a Conservative that means I haven’t researched “the other side.” If that makes you feel better fine, but I found what was “searching for” a long time ago.
I wonder what fuels all this anger from you and Brown. I do find that quite interesting.
this IS a blog about political ideology. that’s what i’m trying to point out to you. you think it’s not, but it is. you don’t have the theoretical tools to examine the underlying assumptions of your opinions. for example, you see many social, economic, and cultural phenomena as “inevitable” or “natural”. this is ideological thinking. liberate yourself man, there is a cure to ideological thinking. read some foucault, habermas, marx, derrida, etc. learn a little about marxism(s), structuralism, post structuralism, rational choice theory, and you’ll find it useful in strengthening your arguments. consider questions such as “what is the ideology of capitalism itself?” “how does capitalism reinforce itself through culture?” and don’t get so frustrated with bunE and i, we’re not angry. this exchange is good for all of us.
Brown… Here’s the thing, I’ve studied all of those topics you’ve listed and come to the same conclusion. I’m one language class from double majoring in Political Science and Economics. Don’t you think that maybe “Rational Choice Theory,” Marx, and structuralism came up?
As far as I’m concerned capitalism is an evil of itself; however, it’s better than the alternative. There is no other proven alternative, and the US is far from a pure capitalist nation. The problem in this country isn’t our economic system, but the problems faced by every representative democracy (See: Plato’s Republic).
You’re not offering any insights, you’re just assuming I haven’t considered you’re view of the world. Perhaps this is why Plato didn’t like the Sophists.
“it’s better than the alternative” – seems like an ideological statement to me. who is proposing an alternative in your mind? not me. not bunE. i’m just trying to broaden the discussion to include gramci’s cultural hegemony theory for example. did you read that in your poli sci classes? but, heh, if you’ve examined all of the underlying assumptions built in to your conclusions, then i suppose you have arrived at the truth and there is nothing anyone can say to you that you don’t already know. i didn’t realize you were such a savvy theorist and cultural historian. why don’t you enlighten us then with your theory of “the culture of illegitimate children”?
none of the above comments are about the topic of this post. feel free to post your questions on http://www.americasdebate.com.
I think that all of this wailing and beating of breast about John McCain being a bad conservative is part of a larger campaign to make moderate democrats feel more comfortable pulling the lever for a Republic. Republics will vote for whatever is trotted out (Present company, Ann Coulter and Rev Dobson aside). Once the Democrats have their candidate, the tactic will be to to paint him/her as liberal.
aside: The Democratic Party is no longer liberal. After the Contract on America and the loss of Congress in 1994, the whole of the American Politic shifted to the right with the Moderate becoming the average Democrat and the Conservative becoming the Average Republic, The liberals were the far left and the Ultra Conservatives became the far right.
Should the Democrats win, the judge thing is really not that big of deal. The Supreme’s Far Right 4+ will hold sway for the next 25 years and the creeping conservatism of the courts will follow. All you have to do is read the Appelate Reports and see what the Supremes deny cert for. Bush has done a remarkably effective job of pushing the judicial system into the least relevant branch of our government and has quietly filled the courts with conservative judges. Effectively decisions have gone back to the States and to the Circuits. Conservative’s most favorite legal theory “Original Intent” is such a limited legal theory. Our common law heritage frames the Constitution and is the tool with which we hedge the tyrany of the state. The law is always changing and has no ultimate truth. Not to delve into faith, but we are a nation of laws that come from the people, not from a higher power and as such are subject to the views of the people. Each case is judged on it merits, not on an unyielding set of rules (except in Lousiana).
The real struggle will be with allocating scarcer and scarcer resources in an environment of higher and higher costs. Republic or Democrat…
dude, you’re throwing in the towel? come on, just give us one more nugget of wisdom… how bout “the culture of illegitimate children”? please grandpa, that’s our favorite story!!