Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (69604)	5/31/2008 9:49:31 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 542008

Future of the Right 31 May 2008 01:06 am [Jon Henke - cross-posted at The Next Right] It seems to me there are three main factions within the Republican Party, and while we can see strengths and weaknesses in each of them, the future of the Right is far from clear. 1. Progressive Republicans (aka: Teddy Roosevelt Republicans) - These are the Republicans who may be solid allies on many issues, but who also seem to want a Great Leader who can do Big Things. They are Crusader Conservatives - generally reliable on limited government, but willing to go off on Big Government crusades. Illustrative Quote: "The object of government is the welfare of the people," (Teddy Roosevelt) 2. Goldwater Republicans - These Republicans vote for limited government, individual liberty and strong defense; they may have various opinions on social issues, but they subsume those views to the goal at hand: limiting government Illustrative Quote: "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom." (Goldwater 3. Bush Republicans - these voters may or may not care about limited government, but they're willing to accept Big Government, so long as the government does socially conservative things. (See: Mike Huckabee, Christian Democracy) Illustrative Quote: "Prayers can help, and so can the government." - President Bush, February 6, 2008 Of those mentioned, many have fallen into a fourth camp - Status Quo Republicans. They are mostly focused on winning that next election and consolidating their own power. So, where does the Right stand? At this point, the Progressive Republicans are in the drivers seat - partly because John McCain (a Progressive Republican) has the Republican nomination, and partly because a charismatic figure with some Big Ideas beats factions with no attention-grabbing ideas. At this point, no other faction has the policy ideas and grassroots support to challenge for leadership. But that position can only be maintained by a charismatic leader for a short time. It is not sustainable, At some point, the other coalitions will see to fill the core policy vacuums McCain may leave open. The Bush Republicans are doing badly right now - you've all seen the polling - but the social conservative/evangelical base is still strong (as evidenced by the out-of-nowhere Huckabee campaign) They're not gone yet, and they could make a quick comeback with a charismatic candidate. Like, you know, Mike Huckabee. If they do that, it will mark the GOP's turn towards the European Christian Democracy style of political parties. Finally, there are the Goldwater Republicans. They have been relegated to lesser roles, or turned into Status Quo Republicans. While a few still make appropriate noises on the Hill, a lack of publicly appealing, political viable ideas for limiting government has rendered them mostly impotent. The Goldwater Republicans have the greatest opportunity, however, because it is they who will have the most compelling arguments against Democratic and/or McCain poliices, and it is they who will need to begin driving a narrative about the impact of Big Government poicy. If they do it well, they will have a chance to reassert the Goldwater brand. If they don't, they will probably become marginalized. It's impossible to tell which of these factions will dominate. Your predictions are welcomed.

To: Lane3 who wrote (69604)	5/31/2008 10:08:34 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542008

That's a problem, but it's an entirely different problem from the suppression of free speech, which was the topic. No, it's not. It's about drastically limiting public speech representing almost half the electorate. If you want to say that "drastically limiting" is not suppression, I will leave that to semantics experts. But the message is that nothing the White House does can ever be seen to be protested by anyone within camera range. Ever. The White House used its security power to shut out visible dissent, in the hopes that would reinforce its political image. The folks they thought would be effectively silenced by sticking them three miles away (where network cameras won't bother to cover them) ended up playing a large (and disgruntled) part in the debate as the White House's political popularity fell away. Separate it into neat little boxes for your purposes if you like, but this problem fits together in a single sheet.