When Did it Happen? (a radical shift in the American political mindset)

Dean's World ^ | August 24, 2002 | Dean Esmay

[185JHP]

You've nailed the problem - vast spiritual wickedness in a country with a Constitution designed for moral God-fearing folk. The last Spiritual Awakening was almost 100 years ago. The good news is, another one's coming...

[Mike Darancette]

Neocons tend to have the right idea on foreign policy but given that they supported McCain..

I'm a 100% true broken glass Bush Republican. Could Bush do better? Yes but we've got to get him the Congress first.

Bush has the moral fortitude to do what is right when he is able.

[j271]

The long-awaited "morning in America" scenario of a conservative renaissance doesn't begin and end in congressional elections.

If this rebirth truly exists, then you should be able to see the evidence at the state and local level, as governments shift from Democrat to RINO to conservative.

Needless to say the establishment liberals will make every effort to put a stop to this, including extensive use of their Big Media and "Get out the (Voter) Fraud" machines.

[Mr. Mulliner]

IMHO, no political revolution will take place until it is at least started in the realm of the media. I don't think that what we see in Fox News is enough, but it's a nice start. If the establishment liberals die off soon enough, we might have a chance.

[tubebender]

"Those who went in as liberals come out with some better-sounding rhetoric, but there are really no more of them, percentage-wise, than went in."

The problem is they are concentrated in the media and government.

[rmmcdaniell]

I think they're would be a a conservative renaissance if we could get minorities to vote GOP. They're are many minorities that hold views closer to that of the Republican party but always vote RAT out of pure hatred. I remember reading somewhere that if we were to get just 20% of the black vote in the South the Republicans would never loose another governorship or Senate seat south of the Mason-Dixon. Its the monolithic minority vote that is pushing this country far to the left.

[muleboy]

I would say the beginning of the realization of a real renaissance ends with the election of a working majority of true conservatives at the state level, both houses of congress, and the presidency.

Conservatives have made great gains during the past 22 years in states, Congress, and the executive branch. The question now becomes "can they occupy all three simultaneously", thus producing the necessary conditions for a real "renaissance"?

The balance of Governorships and State Legislatures may have crested, as well as the HOR and Senate. If so, the next two or three decades looks very bad. Somewhat like Pickett's Charge, it is not enough to reach the top of the hill being assaulted, for true victory, one has to drive their opponent from the field.

The next two election cycles will confirm whether a balance of power was all that was achievable or true victory is realized.

[spoiler2]

The apex of this change really could have occurred during the Clinton era.

Remember how liberal boomers swelled with pride as "one of their own" finally became President? The "value-bubble" of liberal expectations was highest at that point, as they felt they could do no wrong, as their Pied Piper with the saxaphone led them into the night.

But as the years and lies mounted up, along with the Clintons' own behavioral excesses, liberals everywhere found themselves forced to over-extend their allegiance to Clinton, to justify their own existence, stuck in the liberal scheme of things.

Just as the stock market has fallen apart due to over-speculation during that same period, a new, cold reality has firmly taken hold in America's mindset, with the events of last September. When Geraldo publicly declared that Clinton was "irrelevant", he was like the boy who finally said - the Emperor had no clothes.

People everywhere discovered that the old, liberal fuzzy-logic lies could no longer be traded on par with conservative truths, since so much more, our very survival is now at stake.

Without admitting it publicly, I think many liberals now find themselves quietly re-aligning themselves with candidates that sound much further to the right, than anyone would have previously thought. McKinney's recent defeat is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

[Southack]

"By contrast, the natural-born conservatives were gagging the whole way, and were forced to intellectually confront -- and refute -- ideas that made no sense to them. Their wits were sharpened by this, as was their own grounding in the intellectual foundations of their own beliefs."

So true.

It was the infamous 1980's. Defying my peers who warned me about the Communist wench who taught the infamous "History of Women" social studies class, I joined one other guy and enrolled.

On the first day of class our fearless instructor shouted at the class that "Men have more rights than women in every imaginable way".

When she paused for breath, I stood up and said "How many women have less rights than men in regard to abortion, and how many women in this class had to register for the draft?"

There was silence in the room.

Then I added, "Well, I had to register for the draft and my girlfriend can have an abortion no matter what I think."

Our fearless instructor sat down.

There was a general buzz in the class.

After a pregnant pause (pun intended), she stood back up and said "You're the first man who I've ever said this to, but you're right."

Needless to say, I rocked through that class for the rest of the semester. Radical feminism never could stand up to honest debate.

Moreover, socialism itself hasn't managed to stand up to honest debate.

So now we've got a massive generation of Baby Boomers who are just starting to become first-time grandparents (the most conservative point in time for most people), and will continue this trend towards a new conservative stage for another 20 years, just as Conservatives are dominating talk radio, the internet, best-selling books, and we finally have at least one voice via FOX's broadcast TV news - all to reveal that liberalism can't actually stand up to honest debate.

[justshutupandtakeit]

bttt.

[justshutupandtakeit]

bttt.

[weegee]

He's not the first to say it. In March of this year, David Galernter said, "I hate to put it in such bald terms. But right-wingers are just smarter than left-wingers. A lot of people didn't feel that they could say it. But since September, it has become slightly easier to admit that you have your doubts about some aspects of the liberal agenda."

I for one have been saying that political correctness made it heresy to speak out against any liberal position. Those on the left who disagreed with a position were shamed into silence. Someone who likes animals must also go vegan, protect the forests, push for same sex benefits for their fellow volunteers, etc. etc.

[j271]

Excellent observations.

I would emphasize the fact that the gains over the last two decades are only the beginning, if there is to be a renaissance.

As well, despite the gains, conservative views are still marginalized by Big Media. The national discourse is consistently framed in terms of the liberal agenda, and the so-called conservatives that actually appear are generally from the RINO right.

When Big Media political programming regularly features topics like "How large should this year's across-the-board tax cuts be" and "Why don't state and local governments have more say in (insert issue de jour here)" then conservatives will know they're making an impact.

[Bernard Marx]

Bump for later.

[x]

If you look at, say Truman and Eisenhower, they probably took about the same position on what we'd call "social issues" or "cultural issues." Indeed, Truman was more provincial and may have been more "socially and culturally conservative" than Eisenhower. The shift happened when liberals turned against the basic norms or mores of society. I suppose it was when intellectuals and ivy leaguers became a major force in the Democratic Party. The average Democrat in the street may have been envious and economically radical, but didn't question social traditions until his or her "betters" started to and came to run the party.

But the shift to the conservatives isn't rock solid. First of all, people have grown used to some of the social changes of the sixties and seventies that were once regarded with horror. Secondly, the public is only willing to go so far in the direction of conservatism. They'll be critical of progressive statism, regulation and regimentation and as well of liberal decadence and self-indulgence, but they haven't signed on to a project of "restoration" of social and cultural values, norms and taboos.

[DWSUWF]

"...If conservatives had had full control of every major news outlet in America for half a century, perhaps they also would have forgotten how to argue. This is, I think, the point he is trying to make here..."

Oh, I understand the point being made, I just hate liberalism and the human debris who advance it with every fiber of my being.

I would never (even with tongue in cheek, to make a point) pray or wish for the bastards who promote this 'enemy of mankind' worldview to experience anything less than utter obliteration.

The ability to argue more cogently?

Hell, I begrudge these pigs the air they breathe.

[Mr. Mulliner]

Remember how liberal boomers swelled with pride as "one of their own" finally became President? The "value-bubble" of liberal expectations was highest at that point, as they felt they could do no wrong, as their Pied Piper with the saxaphone led them into the night.

But as the years and lies mounted up, along with the Clintons' own behavioral excesses, liberals everywhere found themselves forced to over-extend their allegiance to Clinton, to justify their own existence, stuck in the liberal scheme of things.

I'm reading Harry Stein's How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (and found innner peace) right now and this perfectly describes his own transformation from radical/liberal to conservative. Actually, his started to take place a few years earlier and the main issue for him was daycare. He started to suspect some of the untested dogma of his own politics was just plain wrong, but couldn't question it. By the time Clinton came on the scene in 1992 and the lies started coming, he could tell there was something not right.

I see no reason to believe that this same kind of transformation can't take place by the millions. The main thing keeping liberals from thinking, in many cases, is that their ideas are not challenged in a forum they ever pay attention to: TV, newspapers, magazine. I've often said that if Americans would just shut their TV's off for about a month, the country would shift right almost immediately.

[B. A. Conservative]

"Liberal" and "Progressive" are self-styled code words used to describe themselves to others in an effort to hide their real philopsphy, socialism. These people are socialists and are to be defeated, not pitied.

The real tragedy of this article is that too many stupid conservative oafs think we are winning. Look at the evidence. Conservatives are on the run. Socialism is on the ascendancy, precisely because both conservatives and "liberals" are dumb or ignorant. Dumb and ignorant are not synonymous. If your statement is true that "95% of the conservatives here at FR would agree with many of the ideals of liberalism from the 50s", then it is testament that prayer of the liberal from the period was answered. No matter what your political philosophy is, you always believe that those who disagree are stupid or ignorant. The mark of the intelligent is that they benefit from education and a review of history. It is the retrospectoscope that gives a clear view of reality.

We are losing the US Constitutional Republic. In less than two decades, the United States will be on the ash-heap of history beside the Soviet Union and Rome, if your "95%" doesn't quickly realize the seriousness and magnitude of our existing problem.

[bankwalker]

It all started with that quack, Dr. Benjamin Spock.

[Pietro]

"We are in a monumental spiritual battle between good and evil."

Excellent insight into the real danger we face.

We see it played out here on FR daily, as conservatives battle libertarians on every issue up and down the board. Ironically, it is the libertarian view of 'freedom" that reinforces the liberals view of anything goes which is, I think, the fulcrum of he argument we face.

As the libertarians support an ACLU, no community standards, agenda they undermine the conservative position and unwittingly bring about, through the efforts of true liberals and socialists, the very nanny state that they abhor.

A society that cannot enforce its own standards of morality, w/o the heavyhand of Big Bro, must ultimately surrender ever more of its freedoms. But that the libertarians could see this.