Posted on 11/17/2012 10:55:00 PM PST by oneprolifewoman
Back in 2011, the Obama White House earned some mild mockery for its “win the future” slogan. But now that the president has been re-elected, the liberal conventional wisdom is that the Democrats have done just that — that Republicans are now Radio Shack to their Apple store, “The Waltons” to their “Modern Family,” a mediocre Norman Rockwell to their digital-age mosaic.
Maybe it’s too soon to pierce this cloud of postelection smugness. But in the spirit of friendly correction let me point out some slightly more unpleasant truths about the future that liberalism seems to be winning.
Liberals look at the Obama majority and see a coalition bound together by enlightened values — reason rather than superstition, tolerance rather than bigotry, equality rather than hierarchy. But it’s just as easy to see a coalition created by social disintegration and unified by economic fear.
Are Democrats winning Hispanics because they put forward a more welcoming face than Republicans do — one more in keeping with America’s tradition of assimilating migrants yearning to breathe free? Yes, up to a point. But they’re also winning recent immigrants because those immigrants often aren’t assimilating successfully — or worse, are assimilating downward, thanks to rising out-of-wedlock birthrates and high dropout rates. The Democratic edge among Hispanics depends heavily on these darker trends: the weaker that families and communities are, the more necessary government support inevitably seems.
Likewise with the growing number of unmarried Americans, especially unmarried women. Yes, social issues like abortion help explain why these voters lean Democratic. But the more important explanation is that single life is generally more insecure and chaotic than married life, and single life with children — which is now commonplace for women under 30 — is almost impossible to navigate without the support the welfare state provides.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Read the comments, no one seems to agree with this guy.
So...buy more guns.
Our country, under the Obama admin, hasn’t been this divided since the Civil War. How can this be considered stability?
In the 50's military contractorss built products, like airplanes on spec and went into competition to win a longer contract. Then the Democratic party decided to take that burden off the workers and the employer. We may not return to that but we sure could work out some of the cost over run crap.
The comments from typical leftists readers of the New York Times is mind-boggling. The extraordinary hyper-rationalization of the facts and arguments shows yet again that liberalism, socialism and Communism are forever a mental and emotional process of self-delusion.
It is rather remarkable isn’t it? Just one monolithic string of agreement and put downs of this guy who happens to mildly criticize their “god.” Just reading those comments tells you all you need to know about what’s wrong and what’s happened to this country.
Not only that, they call him a wingnut. Good grief, what a mess these people are, calling for outright socialism and blaming Bain for killing Hostess. Straight talking points.
Typical of liberal rags to publish something like this right after the election, in which they actively took the liberal side. It’s as if thye are trying to wash themselves somehow, ask for absolution of their bias, or somehow make the scales balance so they can lay some (however tenuous) claim to neutrality.
Sorry, we have seen this movie before. Not buying it.
In my family, we are actually finding more stability in the midst of economic struggles. I’m sure that is due to the foundation of faith in God as provider. I have observed that during times of prosperity, we tend to forget that.
It is a sloppy analysis to blame a group like Latinos for the loss, who have never been a Republican voting bloc. Voter Cutting welfare wasn’t even a particularly big issue during the campaign. Obama did as well among that group as Clinton did. Romney lost the election because he did not make the sale on the economy and fixing the finances of the federal government, even to conservatives, not because of changing demographics.
srbfl
Quite true. Liberals have for many decades passed laws mandating that things happen, leaving it up to others to figure out how to “make it so.”
The presently mandated automobile mpg requirements are a classic example. Even if (slightly) possible physically, meeting them will require the cost going up by a significant multiple.
Liberals’ response will be to provide waivers to car companies, who can then compete for political favors rather than by meeting customers’ wants.
This “leave it up to others” approach has (sorta) worked for quite a while, but at some point the drag on the system will bring it to a halt. We may be approaching that point.
“Republicans are now Radio Shack to their Apple store, “The Waltons” to their “Modern Family,” a mediocre Norman Rockwell to their digital-age mosaic”
In all three comparisons, I prefer the former to the latter.
I agree. We get to prove that liberalism won't work."There is no talk of an economic engine in the new world order. It’s because money comes from somewhere unknown, like an allowance from your parents.” - Thebaddog
We "get to" live through the proof thatliberalismsocialism still doesn’t work, any more now than in Plymouth Bay colony, or than it did in the church of Jerusalem in the days of St. Paul.At most, the experience will cause socialists to coopt another word, they way they did with “liberalism” in the 1920s (reference: Safire’s New Political Dictionary) and progressive (The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries - “progress" did not originally mean socialism).I consider it obvious that the meaning of “liberalism” could not have been inverted within a decade without the active support of wire service journalism. When I’m writing, I want to have “liberalism” in scare quotes when the actual meaning is socialism.
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.