Okay, so 39% or so of the voters identified as conservative and something like 19% identified as liberal. So....we want to change names with them? I don't think so.
We are doomed. The lamestream media will never allow a repub. pres. to be elected ever again.
The author is right. Conservatives (not R's) today are the agents of change. But these are just labels. Labels are useful and we have spent years building up a great negative brandname for "liberal." Why toss it out all that work?
I agree we need to get back to Reaganism, but I think 'classical liberalism' is a misnomer.
Good point, but it is our policies that they like. Our stated policies, not the ones the Republicans have governed under. People are not so stupid that if we clarify things with a new self-description, they won't understand. It's not particularly complex, after all. On the contrary, the voters quite rightly don't like what Republican-style "conservatism" has been about in the past few years. Hence a name change should be all to the good.
Small-government conservatives will eventually have to come to terms with some kind of national health care, or at least one that plugs the gaps for those who don't have it. This is a middle-class issue - health costs are simply out of reach of anyone without insurance. People like Rush and Hannity don't understand this because they are very well off. Republicans will ignore this issue at their peril. This must be done at the same time that the budget is balanced, and so taxes on the upper levels - and maybe even the middle levels - must go up. The public will support this.
LOL! The idea has merit, even, "globally". My first chuckle of the day. I think I like this idea.
New age conservatism? Great. I'm a conservative. I don't like my age--where do I sign up for a new one?
;)
Yeah, OK, semantics. So I'm a liberal now. Thank you for that riveting and cogent analysis, NRO.