[Fishrrman]

“None of this changes the fact that nobody on this thread has offered suggestions for how to broader the coalition. The demographics of this country have changes and will continue to do so. You either adapt or die”

Your point is well taken, but let me ask:
What if the hard truth is that that “coalition” _can’t_ be “broadened” because the vast majority of non-Euros simply aren’t interested in that particular brand of “conservatism” that Euros have to offer?

What if to “adapt” would fundamentally destroy the value system that we hold dear?

- John

[St. Louis Conservative]

The demographic changes that will hurt Republicans will be primarily in states like Cali, NY, NJ, & FL. As they become more Democratic and the Democrat party becomes more liberal, the GOP will become stronger in states like Arkansas, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin and elsewhere where the demographic changes will not be as severe. All of those states have Democrat senators and congressmen that can and will be defeated as the Democrat party becomes more beholden to a hundred different interest groups and minority groups.

[Clemenza]

Conservatism as it currently exists will not survive in a two-party system. Its only future, IMHO, would be as a "spoiler" in a multi-party system much like the religious parties in Israel or the regionalist parties in Spain and Italy.

I still think that we are entering into a liberal/statist era on both sides of the aisle not seen since the New Deal coalition that created the dominant political paradigm from the 1930s until the early 1970s. When such a movement becomes too excessive, a new conservatism will rise in response. It could be between secular moderates/libertarians against statist lower class Xians (who will be predominantly of color), it could be coastals vs. heartlanders, etc. We could see the American equivalent of Pim Fortyn, ie a homosexual taking the lead against the reactionary values of "Americans of color" and/or immigrants. We could see a hard money movement versus a fiat money movement, etc.

My point is that "conservatism" as a comprehensive philosophical movement has always changed along with the nations/polities associated with it. It is by its nature a reactive and dynamic movement, rather than an unchanging one.

None of this changes the fact that us libertarians are screwed under either party for the foreseeable future.