Posted on 10/08/2009 3:03:15 PM PDT by neverdem
Especially in a democratic age, statesmen are careful students of social trends. They know that the art of political leadership can't afford to ignore the science of political demography, even though the former can never be reduced to the latter. Conservatives who seek a revival in their movement must exhibit similar wisdom and closely examine how America has changed since the glory days of President Ronald Reagan, and how those changes pose new challenges to, and may impose new limits on, conservatism today.
The conservative ascendancy of the Reagan years centered in the middle class. It wasn't just any middle class, though; conservative strength was concentrated in the modern suburb. Commonplace today, suburbs revolutionized American life. In 1940, 23% of Americans lived on farms; by 1980, only 4% did. Big cities declined too: between 1950 and 1980, cities in the North and Midwest lost millions of residents either to their own suburbs or to those in the Sunbelt. Though they began as a small, largely upper class phenomenon, the suburbs eventually became home to nearly a majority of the American population.
Thus the key political question increasingly became: who are the suburbanites and what do they want? When Reagan was elected...
--snip--
Populism need not be directed against Big Business alone. The essence of populism is the belief that an unworthy elite whom you cannot control has control over you, and that government can redress that grievance. Wall Street bailouts that enrich corrupt elites enrage working-class voters. Non-payment of taxes by administration appointees fuels the common man's suspicion that government is not on his side. Add the economic pressure he will soon feel from the Obama Administration's aggressive pursuit of its environmental and immigration agendas, and one can see how Republicans could begin to recapture the populist mantle for themselves...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I kind of hate it being called a Republican majority. I’d rather call it a Conservative majority. And one way to have that is to get rid of as many RHINOs as we can in 2010.
Yes. The PC crowd has run rampant and wrecked everything. I only regret that when things become prosperous and stable, they turn to liberals who mess it up again.
may not happen...i am not re imerging with them....not til they start waving the constitution like its the flag of this country
No, it’s something new that’s starting. The GOP as we know it has too many Rhinos.
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all."
~~~ President Ronald Reagan
I would not hold my breath waiting on the current batch of GOP leadership ( Steele, Bonehead Bohnior and Mcconnell ) to lead the GOP to a majority. Sure, the GOP will pick up seats in the mid-term because of the RATS policies. But with this current crop of leaders, a majority is out of the question.
If there were a young, Newt Gingrich, leading the charge i would have a different opinion. Not with this current bunch of losers.
Leftists are pros at institutionalizing Leftism. What they cannot get passed into legitimate law via Congress they can count on Scotus and regulations issued by the unelected, untouchable bureaucrats in such agencies as the EPA.
So yes, all we conservatives can really do is dance around the edges of what the Left has made permanent and maybe delay what they will eventually get.
Demographics is destiny, and the point of immigration reform and unfettered borders is to change America’s demographics to reverse the Reagan Revolution. Plain and simple. There will be a backlash from the demographics that elected Reagan, but they are about 10 percent fewer than they were 25 years ago, and shrinking. There is one last chance to save America while we conservatives can still muster a majority, but we better make the most of it, or it will be a short counter-revolution, kind of like California’s brief Republican legislature in 1995 that lasted about 15 minutes.
The country has snapped out of the fog as Obama has proven to be a far leftist. Time is running out for them.
I have been thinking of a reframing. Instead of being against big government or for small/less government, what about being FOR “LOcAL” government? Localists? Just a thought.
That's the idea behing a Federal Republic but what we have to do is get back to the Constitution, support it, believe in it and ENFORCE it as it was intended. It's the law of the land. The pols must be made to obey it or face the consequences.
But investigations need to be conducted NOW, indictments MUST be served and the process begun or it's not worth the beautiful parchment it's written on.
behing=behind *sheesh* sometimes I wonder...
Liberals like to chant “Demographics! Demographics! Demographics!” because they know they are losing the current argument and want to feel that whatever happens, demographics will hatch more liberals. James Carville even wrote a book called 40 Years of Liberal Rule.
The big problem is that demographics is actually about birth rate. If you talk about demographics and do not talk about birth rates, then you aren’t talking demographics. You are talking about ‘segmentation’ instead.
This is why the Catholic Church chooses its battles over anything that touches the birth rate. Abortion, contraception, and anything that leads to no children are opposed because the Church’s long time goal is to let other Churches shrivel and die out due to having no children. This has worked for thousands of years.
Ideas and values are passed primarily from parent to child. This is why Radical Feminism has never become popularized because they do not have children or believe in having children.
In America, one side believes in abortion and generally a less children and even depopulation. The other side opposes abortion, believes in having children. Which side has a demographic future? You betcha.
One thing all the demographic talkers always do is that lump hispanics as a race. Hispanics are not a race. If Hispanics are a race, then being Irish would be a race. They are Spanish descendants after all. Sure, there is native American blood in them, but there is also Native American blood in all Americans. I live in Texas and witness George W. Bush winning the majority of the Hispanic vote down here. In California, Hispanics voted against gay marriage. If anything, Hispanics remind me more of the old Democrats of the 1930s. They are economically poor, but they do not tolerate sissies. Hispanics are not going to be anything like the New England liberals.
Historically, the party in decline occupies New England. Now, this might be because New England is the most European part of America. But whatever the case, political parties go to New England to die. Federalist Party. Whigs. When FDR was winning election after election, Republicans occupied a few New England states. In 2008, all of the House Republicans in New England got wiped out. This is why it is destiny for the RINOs to die and for conservatives to take over the party. This is what 2010 will be about. It may not produce the majorities that 1994 made, but it will be a more substantive win because the RINOs will be made extinct.
But regardless, anyone who lumps Hispanic as a Race is a political hack and isn’t serious about demographics. Hispanics are members of the White Race. They speak a White language (Spanish), and they have a White religion (Catholic HQ in Italy).
All the talk about 2010 and who is running in 2012 is illustrative where the people are going. People like to look at a rising sun, not a setting sun. The chattering about 2012 and 2010 everywhere tells me that the liberal sun is setting and in decline. The political cycle’s pendulum is swinging back.
No chance of that happening. The country is not majority conservative in its beliefs.
Technically speaking, there is no reason that bad legislation can't be undone. The problem is political will, or lack thereof, which has historically been the case for those that masquerade as Republicans. The moderates claim to be fiscally conservative, but I've seen very little evidence of this trait in their deeds. So, until they walk the walk, reversing some of the damage done to this country during the Obama years will be nearly impossible (unless conservatives truly take over the GOP, of course).
BOB HERBERT: Does Obama Get It?
The Lion King in Winter (NY Times rips Charlie Rangel a new one!)
Qom Known Since 2006 Remember that 2007 NIE?
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Where?
The electorate of 2010 won’t be the same electorate as it was in 2008. But it’s important to remember, it won’t be the same electorate as it was in 1994.
Overall, a pretty good analysis on how to appeal to suburban voters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.