It's been an interesting week in the conservative heartland. Nebraska legislators overturned the governor's veto and abolished the death penalty, while in Kansas, the state legislature is thinking about raising taxes because, well, that old conservative orthodoxy that says you can cut taxes and spur economic growth doesn't seem to be working. Even would-be conservatives like Governor Chris Christie are paying the price for slow growth, and Christie still wants to cut taxes.
But there's more. In a new Gallup survey, the number of people who consider themselves socially liberal has caught up to those who say they are socially conservative, a large jump from previous polls. Couple this with the news that younger Evangelical Christians are more socially progressive than their elders and you have the beginnings of the swing back to the middle this country so desperately needs.
The fever, it seems, might be breaking after all.
This was inevitable, as social and political shifts have been occurring approximately every 30 years. What began in the 1980s as a swing to the right, with Ronald Reagan's presidency, and gained momentum and roots with the conservative takeover of the Republican Party during the 1990s and early aughts, has evidently peaked and is now poised for a slow decline that will gain speed as a new generation of voters, who tend to be more progressive, participates in greater numbers. I certainly remember moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats in the 1960s and 70s, and I look for them to return sometime soon.
The main problem for the Republicans is that this new attitude might not save them for the 2016 presidential race. Social conservatives who vote in large numbers tend to be older than the new progressives, and they turn out for primaries. That's why somewhat more moderate candidates, such as George Pataki and Chris Christie will find it difficult to gain traction, but that movement away from the far right will also doom Rick Santorum and Rick Perry. Rand Paul could benefit, but my sense is that he's ahead of the GOP curve. By 2024, he could be the mainstream nominee.
What we are seeing is the beginning of a new alignment that will take a couple of election cycles to define itself. How each party reacts to this is key, but the benefits to the country will be real.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Monday, May 25, 2015
Afraid of Rubio? They All Scare Me.
Ooohhh! Scary!!! Yes, The New York Times reported last week that many Democrats are most afraid of a presidential match-up between Hillary and...Marco Rubio.
Scary!!!
And why? Because...he has a story! Scary!!! And he's good looking. And he's a good speaker. And he's Hispanic and his father came here from Cuba and he won big time races in Florida. And he was once friends with Jeb Bush who might or might not have promised not to run for president in 2016, which would have opened a spot for Rubio but Jeb evidently doubled back on that maybe promise and now Marco's really really really scary angry.
Scary!!!
So why am I so, you know, cool about this whole thing? One reason is that once GOP primary voters wake up they'll realize that Rubio represents everything the Republicans oppose in...Obama. Scary!!!
One term Senator. Check
Makes a good speech. Check
In his 40s. Check
Supports an immigration overhaul that, scary, would lead to a path to legal status. Check
Not a lot of foreign policy experience. Check
Another reason is that the GOP base wants a bona-fide conservative with a record of tax cutting, union-busting and border fence building and that's not Rubio.
But aside from that, Democrats should not be singularly afraid of any one candidate. They should be quaking in their boots at the thought of any of the announced or near-announced candidates becoming president. All of them have pledged tax breaks for the wealthy and lower taxes for corporations. They've all pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act with no credible plan to replace it, keep health care costs down, or to continue to cover those who have already signed up for care. Each one would either strongly advocate for, or at least tolerate, religious objection laws for marriage equality and contraception coverage.
They would all mandate government interference in women's reproductive health issues. They oppose higher minimum wages and believe that public workers pensions are negotiable or expendable. And none of them has any credible plan for world order other than genuflecting in front of Benjamin Netanyahu and calling for American troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria. Not to mention climate change denial and the unwavering support of the NRA.
That's a frightening collection of misguided and misbegotten policies that were derided in the 1980s as outlandish pipe dreams, the subjects of journal articles in the 1990s, adopted as the GOP platform in the aughts and now, as mainstream political thought in the teens.
Making any of them a reality? Scary.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
Scary!!!
And why? Because...he has a story! Scary!!! And he's good looking. And he's a good speaker. And he's Hispanic and his father came here from Cuba and he won big time races in Florida. And he was once friends with Jeb Bush who might or might not have promised not to run for president in 2016, which would have opened a spot for Rubio but Jeb evidently doubled back on that maybe promise and now Marco's really really really scary angry.
Scary!!!
So why am I so, you know, cool about this whole thing? One reason is that once GOP primary voters wake up they'll realize that Rubio represents everything the Republicans oppose in...Obama. Scary!!!
One term Senator. Check
Makes a good speech. Check
In his 40s. Check
Supports an immigration overhaul that, scary, would lead to a path to legal status. Check
Not a lot of foreign policy experience. Check
Another reason is that the GOP base wants a bona-fide conservative with a record of tax cutting, union-busting and border fence building and that's not Rubio.
But aside from that, Democrats should not be singularly afraid of any one candidate. They should be quaking in their boots at the thought of any of the announced or near-announced candidates becoming president. All of them have pledged tax breaks for the wealthy and lower taxes for corporations. They've all pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act with no credible plan to replace it, keep health care costs down, or to continue to cover those who have already signed up for care. Each one would either strongly advocate for, or at least tolerate, religious objection laws for marriage equality and contraception coverage.
They would all mandate government interference in women's reproductive health issues. They oppose higher minimum wages and believe that public workers pensions are negotiable or expendable. And none of them has any credible plan for world order other than genuflecting in front of Benjamin Netanyahu and calling for American troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria. Not to mention climate change denial and the unwavering support of the NRA.
That's a frightening collection of misguided and misbegotten policies that were derided in the 1980s as outlandish pipe dreams, the subjects of journal articles in the 1990s, adopted as the GOP platform in the aughts and now, as mainstream political thought in the teens.
Making any of them a reality? Scary.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
Sunday, May 17, 2015
The Foreign Policy Election
First it was Jeb Bush. Now it's Marco Rubio. For other Republicans, it's all about Hillary Clinton and Benghazi. Meanwhile, Scott Walker has tripped over his own feet while discussing the world and Chris Christie, who has something to say about everything, has little to say yet on foreign affairs.
Why is this important? Because 2016 is shaping up to be a foreign policy election. Yes, there will be talk about taxing the wealthy, cutting taxes to the wealthy, what to do about entitlements and the middle class, abortion, immigration and health care, but right now, the world seems to be blowing up and countries are looking to the United States to help fix what ails them.
President Obama has wisely not gotten us involved in a foreign adventure despite calls by the hawkish neocon crowd over on the right to send troops to Syria. And Lebanon. And Iraq. And other places. Which sounds like the good-old-fashioned response that George W. Bush followed and that was a terrible mistake. And it all sounds heroic and noble until the body bags start coming back and the soldiers return with severe damage to their bodies and minds.
What 2016 presents for the country is an opportunity to be creative with our foreign policy. The Cold War has been over for more than 20 years, but the mentality remains, this time with China as the Soviets and North Korea as the Cubans. ISIS is a tremendous threat to Middle East stability, but they are alienating other countries in the region, who are showing more of a propensity to fight on their own. We can support our friends, but right now there is little reason for us to get more soldiers involved.
It will be interesting to see where the debate goes from here. Rand Paul has been championing a more isolationist foreign policy as a basic belief. Hillary Clinton certainly has the experience, but she hasn't enunciated a specific policy yet. Can Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Rick Perry, Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders come up with credible ideas? Perhaps, but I've come to a conclusion that's even more true now than it was in 2004.
We should have elected John Kerry as president when we had the chance.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
Why is this important? Because 2016 is shaping up to be a foreign policy election. Yes, there will be talk about taxing the wealthy, cutting taxes to the wealthy, what to do about entitlements and the middle class, abortion, immigration and health care, but right now, the world seems to be blowing up and countries are looking to the United States to help fix what ails them.
President Obama has wisely not gotten us involved in a foreign adventure despite calls by the hawkish neocon crowd over on the right to send troops to Syria. And Lebanon. And Iraq. And other places. Which sounds like the good-old-fashioned response that George W. Bush followed and that was a terrible mistake. And it all sounds heroic and noble until the body bags start coming back and the soldiers return with severe damage to their bodies and minds.
What 2016 presents for the country is an opportunity to be creative with our foreign policy. The Cold War has been over for more than 20 years, but the mentality remains, this time with China as the Soviets and North Korea as the Cubans. ISIS is a tremendous threat to Middle East stability, but they are alienating other countries in the region, who are showing more of a propensity to fight on their own. We can support our friends, but right now there is little reason for us to get more soldiers involved.
It will be interesting to see where the debate goes from here. Rand Paul has been championing a more isolationist foreign policy as a basic belief. Hillary Clinton certainly has the experience, but she hasn't enunciated a specific policy yet. Can Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Rick Perry, Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders come up with credible ideas? Perhaps, but I've come to a conclusion that's even more true now than it was in 2004.
We should have elected John Kerry as president when we had the chance.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)