NationStates Jolt Archive

Ever since Reagan created the New Conservative Coalition in 1980, the Republican Party, despite the great ideological rifts within it, has been very successful at what it does best, winning elections. Recently (circa 2000) one group, the neoconservatives, have gained control of the party and have changed much of its platform to fit with their unique conservative ideology. The question I pose is the following: Has the unity of the party, a unity founded in the balance between the different ideologies been broken thanks to the neoconservative dominance of the party?

In my opinion, it has, but John McCain has the chance to bring it back together. It is inevitable that the libertarians would fall out of the coalition, as they have, judging by the strong showings of Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. It seems that eight years of GWB's disregard for the ideals of small government and civil liberties (he has enhanced the power of the federal gov't while trampling upon the Constitution) has isolated us from the "mainstream Republicans". McCain's views on the Evangelical movement has isolated them in this election, many of them are considering going to the polls for Obama rather than the GOP man, and it is doubtful whether he will be able to rally them under his banner. I guess it just seems to me that all good things must come to an end, and the clock may have struck twelve for the Republican party in its current form.

Your turn...

Is the Reagan Republican Coalition Dying?

Not until a Republican actually tries to balance the American budget.
Actually, that probably predates him. Oh well.

Not until a Republic actually tries to balance the American budget.

? How so?

Is a political coalition made by a treasonous, half mad, political incompetant dying out?

One can only hope.

God willing.

How was Raegan not neo-Conservative?

He supported the Mujahadeen for his own political aims, welcomed religion back into the education system, made 'liberal' into an insult, smashed workers' power and killed Muammar al-Gaddafi's daughter in an airstrike.

Nice.

Bush is not a Neo conservative. Bush is a paleo conservative, or religious conservative.


Reagan Cheney and maybe McCain are Neo conservatives.

Bush is not a Neo conservative. Bush is a paleo conservative, or religious conservative.


Reagan Cheney and maybe McCain are Neo conservatives.
And that would make your character... what?

Is a political coalition made by a treasonous, half mad, political incompetant dying out?

One can only hope.

Political incompetent? He seemed to be pretty competent at beating up on whoever the Democratic party threw at him (or do I need to bust out the old Reagan-Mondale electoral map?)

That half-mad treasonous man ended the Iranian hostage crisis successfully, fixed our nation's economy, and ended the Cold War, the greatest threat to our nation and the world that either of which had ever seen.

According to many scholars, Reagan ranks within the top five greatest presidents, but what do they know, they just have Ph.D's in presidential history.



God willing.

Wow, I could have sworn that I just heard someone say that. *Points to above*

I am so glad that all of you liberals have original thoughts.

How was Raegan not neo-Conservative?

He supported the Mujahadeen for his own political aims, welcomed religion back into the education system, made 'liberal' into an insult, smashed workers' power and killed Muammar al-Gaddafi's daughter in an airstrike.

Nice.

Reagan was a neo-con, but he allowed in the ideas of other conservative groups, and formed a political machine that the Democrats could not beat until 2006. That is the coalition. And with regards to his support of the Mujahadeen, his support of them did something that Mr. Carter failed utterly at, that is bringing the Iranian hostages home.

He may have--according to you--smashed workers' power, but in doing so he curbed the productivity slowdown of the seventies and ended stagflation thus allowing us to regain our spot at the top of the economic totem pole.

Bush is not a Neo conservative. Bush is a paleo conservative, or religious conservative.


Reagan Cheney and maybe McCain are Neo conservatives.

Bush was a figure head, Cheney and Rove were the ones behind the Bush Machine.

Regardless, unilaterally invading a country could be considered somewhat neoconservative tendencies.

And that would make your character... what?

I am a Rockefeller Republican

That half-mad treasonous man ended the Iranian hostage crisis successfully,

The hostages were released immediatly upon Regean taking office. He engaged in no diplomacy what so ever. He didn't do a damn thing to the end the crisis, he couldn't. He had been in office less than 10 minutes. Giving credit to a man for accomplishing the feat of not being born Jimmy Carter is the extreme of sycophantism

fixed our nation's economy,

By instituting the economic abomination of "trickle down", an economic policy so fundamentally flawed that the man who was hired to sell it to the american public later came out against it.

and ended the Cold War.

He didn't do shit to end the cold war. the USSR was already in a state of economic decay, and all Reagan did was institute a hard line policy against the USSR which effectively accomplished two things:

1) helped trigger a regrowth of soviet nationalism and anti-americanism in the USSR which allowed the leadership to hold power a little longer

2) spurred an arms race so that when the Soviet Union finally did collapse, it did so leaving a shit ton of nuclear weapons, plants, and facilities in unstable sattelite nations.

Not only did he not end the cold war, he prolongued it, and, in the process, made the world a whole lot LESS safe. I don't call that a success. In fact, I have another expression for it.

Abject failure.

Add to that the whole Iran-Contra affair, which, while I'm very sure he had the best interests of america at heart, might technically be considered, you know...high treason.

they just have Ph.D's in presidential history.

I have yet to encounter a single person who has a Ph.D in "presidential history"

Wow, I could have sworn that I just heard someone say that. *Points to above*

So? We're both right. What's your point?

Bush was a figure head, Cheney and Rove were the ones behind the Bush Machine.

Regardless, unilaterally invading a country could be considered somewhat neoconservative tendencies.

first look at criticism of him prior to 9/11
He took a beating for being less harsh on China then Clinton, and providing less support to Israel then Clinton.

he took some Neo Con tendencies post 9/11 but even then he is still soft on places like China. 9/11 forced bush to see the world as black and white.
Which is really what Bin Laden wants, because if we stop funding Israel Al-qaeda(spelling?) ceases to have a reason to exist.

Ever since Reagan created the New Conservative Coalition in 1980, the Republican Party, despite the great ideological rifts within it, has been very successful at what it does best, winning elections. Recently (circa 2000) one group, the neoconservatives, have gained control of the party and have changed much of its platform to fit with their unique conservative ideology. The question I pose is the following: Has the unity of the party, a unity founded in the balance between the different ideologies been broken thanks to the neoconservative dominance of the party?

In my opinion, it has, but John McCain has the chance to bring it back together. It is inevitable that the libertarians would fall out of the coalition, as they have, judging by the strong showings of Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. It seems that eight years of GWB's disregard for the ideals of small government and civil liberties (he has enhanced the power of the federal gov't while trampling upon the Constitution) has isolated us from the "mainstream Republicans". McCain's views on the Evangelical movement has isolated them in this election, many of them are considering going to the polls for Obama rather than the GOP man, and it is doubtful whether he will be able to rally them under his banner. I guess it just seems to me that all good things must come to an end, and the clock may have struck twelve for the Republican party in its current form.

Your turn...

The cracks have been showing for quite some time. For example, TAC ran a nice article on that topic five years ago (http://www.amconmag.com/11_17_03/cover.html).

As for McCain, he's got a problem there - continuing his attempts to kiss and make up with the "agents of intoleance" will push away the libertarian and paleocon "RINO" wings, just as the socons and evangelicals have pushed them out of the GOP.

Reagan's coalition is dead and buried w/him. The Republican party was invaded and conquered by Democrats renamed "neo-conservatives". So now there's the first Oppressor's party and the 2nd Oppressor's party.:mp5:

It was already undead. The only thing to change it, vitae-wise, would be a fresh infusion of stem cells, and we're still to see how that all plays out.
Fuck 'em.

"I am so glad all of you liberals have origional thoughts."

And I'm so glad all you conservatives make such sweeping attacks on entire groups, while turning every political thread into a troll stampede.:upyours:

And as has already been said, Regan did Jack Shit to end the hostage crisis. If you want to credit the man responsible, you'll have to credit Jimmy. Of course, its so much more fun to twist history to suit your agenda:rolleyes:.

What the hell did Carter do to make him so much more hated than even other Democrats? Was it the fact that he practiced a little-known art called diplomacy? Or is it just because he doesn't think we should give "God's Chosen People" a blank check?

The Reagan Coalition failed pretty hard actually, certainly not when you consider that the New Deal Coalition ensured that the Democrats were quite powerful and the welfare state lasted right into the 70's. When you consider it's impact the Reagan Coalition (and Reagan's Presidency in general) were completely overrated.

The Reagan Coalition failed pretty hard actually, certainly not when you consider that the New Deal Coalition ensured that the Democrats were quite powerful and the welfare state lasted right into the 70's. When you consider it's impact the Reagan Coalition (and Reagan's Presidency in general) were completely overrated.

the new deal coalition was strong. however it was past its prime in the 64' election. and the democrats with the realignment of the south and europeon ethnic groups going to the republican party had become the civil rights coalition democrats by 68'.

I sure hope so. After so much damage it's done to this country.

the new deal coalition was strong. however it was past its prime in the 64' election. and the democrats with the realignment of the south and europeon ethnic groups going to the republican party had become the civil rights coalition democrats by 68'.

Jettisoning the southern racists was a good thing. Thurmond, Wallace, and their ilk were holding us back. And what european ethnic groups are you talking bout? WASPs? pfft.:rolleyes:

Reagan's coalition is dead and buried w/him. The Republican party was invaded and conquered by Democrats renamed "neo-conservatives". So now there's the first Oppressor's party and the 2nd Oppressor's party.:mp5:

The Christo-fascists "agents of intolerance" did their bit as well, don't forget...

I for one am welcoming the end, perhaps now we will get some small gov conservatives in the Senate (Ron Paul is in the House).

"I am so glad all of you liberals have origional thoughts."


Sir, you are misquoting me, because unlike you, I know the correct spelling of "Original"

And I believe that your middle finger makes you the one trolling on this thread.

Sir, you are misquoting me, because unlike you, I know the correct spelling of "Original"

And I believe that your middle finger makes you the one trolling on this thread.

You may or may not be trolling, but you are peddling a pack of lies with your revisionist history and claims of studies by people with non-existent doctorates.

You may or may not be trolling, but you are peddling a pack of lies with your revisionist history and claims of studies by people with non-existent doctorates.

Here ya go. ;)

Historians have had difficulty assessing Reagan's contradictory record. The most recent poll of scholars, completed three years ago, placed Reagan in the "average" category, far below the greatness of Washington and Lincoln but comfortably above the failures of Harding and Buchanan. Yet this composite ranking is misleading, since many members of the panel thought that Reagan was anything but average. Seven of the thirty-two jurors considered Reagan's record "near great," but nine thought he was a "below average" chief executive. Four consigned his presidency to "failure."
http://hnn.us/articles/341.html

Jettisoning the southern racists was a good thing. Thurmond, Wallace, and their ilk were holding us back. And what european ethnic groups are you talking bout? WASPs? pfft.:rolleyes:

Italians Irish and Germans mostly the mostly catholic groups.
It wasn't just the southern racist who left, but southern farmers in general. which is why republicans give out farm aid or as I like to call it Farm welfare. (against their principles.)

The democrats also lost the religious groups. Though they maybe heading back to the Democrats with in the next decade.

I for one am welcoming the end, perhaps now we will get some small gov conservatives in the Senate (Ron Paul is in the House).

Ron Paul being small government. Now that's a lark.

Ever since Reagan created the New Conservative Coalition in 1980, the Republican Party, despite the great ideological rifts within it, has been very successful at what it does best, winning elections. Recently (circa 2000) one group, the neoconservatives, have gained control of the party and have changed much of its platform to fit with their unique conservative ideology. The question I pose is the following: Has the unity of the party, a unity founded in the balance between the different ideologies been broken thanks to the neoconservative dominance of the party?

In my opinion, it has, but John McCain has the chance to bring it back together. It is inevitable that the libertarians would fall out of the coalition, as they have, judging by the strong showings of Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. It seems that eight years of GWB's disregard for the ideals of small government and civil liberties (he has enhanced the power of the federal gov't while trampling upon the Constitution) has isolated us from the "mainstream Republicans". McCain's views on the Evangelical movement has isolated them in this election, many of them are considering going to the polls for Obama rather than the GOP man, and it is doubtful whether he will be able to rally them under his banner. I guess it just seems to me that all good things must come to an end, and the clock may have struck twelve for the Republican party in its current form.

Your turn...

The party never had a balance. The party was based on giving one segment (corporatists) everything they want and paying lip service to the rest except where other ideologies could be used to stamp out civil rights and give the government greater control.

The only thing that differentiated this crop of Republicans from any other is that they lacked subtlety. Their goals and, well... evil have become obvious to ever dumber segments of the conservative population.

Once upon a time it was only obvious to those of us who think that positions on civil rights, poverty, war, unemployment and drug use are values votes. Now we've got people saying "I used to be a values voter, but the economy's gotten so bad, we need a change. Even if it is going to be from a Muslim president who swears in on the Quran" In other words, conservative voters have learned the error of their folly, but not that it was their error or their folly.

Is a political coalition made by a treasonous, half mad, political incompetant dying out?

One can only hope.
Amen,

Wish it had never existed to begin with.


It'll die, but at the cost of our nation's sucess.

Even if it is going to be from a Muslim president who swears in on the Quran" In other words, conservative voters have learned the error of their folly, but not that it was their error or their folly.
Uh please tell me the above was just you protraying the usual uneducated voter and that the above is not your real beliefs.

Uh please tell me the above was just you protraying the usual uneducated voter and that the above is not your real beliefs.

That whole part was in quotes if you noticed.

"I am so glad all of you liberals have origional thoughts."

And I'm so glad all you conservatives make such sweeping attacks on entire groups, while turning every political thread into a troll stampede.:upyours:

And as has already been said, Regan did Jack Shit to end the hostage crisis.
correct
If you want to credit the man responsible, you'll have to credit Jimmy. Of course, its so much more fun to twist history to suit your agenda:rolleyes:.

wrong. the credit goes to the Former Shah and the American people.
The Shah had the good decency to die removing the Iranian demand for the return of the shah to stand trial in an Islamic kangaroo court.
The American people get credit for elected someone other then Carter. This allowed Iranians a symbolic victory over the US, which is why they timed the hostage return for when Reagan came into office.

What the hell did Carter do to make him so much more hated than even other Democrats? Was it the fact that he practiced a little-known art called diplomacy? Or is it just because he doesn't think we should give "God's Chosen People" a blank check?

trying living during Carter's presidency. He wrecked the economy 10% inflation and 1% economic growth per year basically meant that Americans were getting 9% poorer every year. Though he did give the republicans the white house for 12 years. Carter ran the type of Economy that would make someone beg for Bush to be back in office.

As for his post office stuff some is good some is bad. I just think he is trying to cover up for his stupidity on the economy.

Personally, I don't consider my use of that smily to be trolling. If it is, I apollogise, but I suspect that if the mods felt it was trolling, one would be unable to use it on this forum. Regardless, you've got a lot of nerve to accuse me of trolling. Replace "all you liberals" with any other group, such as "all you women", or "all you blacks", and you'd probably be banned right now. Don't make broad geralizations about a group based on one (poor) example. It just makes you sound stupid.:)

trying living during Carter's presidency. He wrecked the economy 10% inflation and 1% economic growth per year basically meant that Americans were getting 9% poorer every year. Though he did give the republicans the white house for 12 years. Carter ran the type of Economy that would make someone beg for Bush to be back in office.

As for his post office stuff some is good some is bad. I just think he is trying to cover up for his stupidity on the economy.

The economy was already in the gutter during Ford's term.

correct
wrong. the credit goes to the Former Shah and the American people.
The Shah had the good decency to die removing the Iranian demand for the return of the shah to stand trial in an Islamic kangaroo court.
The American people get credit for elected someone other then Carter. This allowed Iranians a symbolic victory over the US, which is why they timed the hostage return for when Reagan came into office.


trying living during Carter's presidency. He wrecked the economy 10% inflation and 1% economic growth per year basically meant that Americans were getting 9% poorer every year. Though he did give the republicans the white house for 12 years. Carter ran the type of Economy that would make someone beg for Bush to be back in office.

As for his post office stuff some is good some is bad. I just think he is trying to cover up for his stupidity on the economy.

Blaming Carter entirely for the stagflation is a little disingenuous, most of it was caused by Nixon's currency conversion plan.

Well, so Carter wasn't a great economist(and I'd like statistics to prove the economy was worse under him than Bush). He was and still is a great diplomat and humanitarian. I can understand criticizing him on the economy. What that doesn't explain, and what I have a problem with, is the level of vitriolic hatred conservatives have for him.

People will honestly say he's one of the worst Presidents in history. How can you compare economic incompitance to covering up illegal activities (Nixon), war crimes (Bush, Jackson, no doubt others), shredding the Constitution (Bush and Wilson and hell, probably just about all of them). I'd rather have an honest man than a thief and lier, however compitant. Besides, he has done a lot of good in other areas to balance out any harm he inadvertently did to the economy.

Bottom line, Carter is the only x-President alive for whom I retain any respect.

Well, so Carter wasn't a great economist(and I'd like statistics to prove the economy was worse under him than Bush). He was and still is a great diplomat and humanitarian. I can understand criticizing him on the economy. What that doesn't explain, and what I have a problem with, is the level of vitriolic hatred conservatives have for him.

People will honestly say he's one of the worst Presidents in history. How can you compare economic incompitance to covering up illegal activities (Nixon), war crimes (Bush, Jackson, no doubt others), shredding the Constitution (Bush and Wilson and hell, probably just about all of them). I'd rather have an honest man than a thief and lier, however compitant. Besides, he has done a lot of good in other areas to balance out any harm he inadvertently did to the economy.

Bottom line, Carter is the only x-President alive for whom I retain any respect.
Statistics may show currently that the economy Bush had under his term was better than under Carter's term, but the economy is also about the kinda economic legacy and problems you leave behind after you leave office.

I don't think the impact of Bush's economic policy will be truly felt hard until he is well out of office, the sheer staggering amount of debt incurred by Bush in Iraq is catastrophic, and it's going to be the next generation stuck paying it off.

Wow, Andaras made a post I agree with.:eek:

Yes, my generation will be bearing the brunt of George's stupidity, greed, and incompitance for a long time to come.

It was doomed when the Great Prophet of the Conservative God kicked it. And that's a good thing.

Wow, Andaras made a post I agree with.:eek:

Yes, my generation will be bearing the brunt of George's stupidity, greed, and incompitance for a long time to come.

I agree as well, sir. It just angers me how he has completely ignored the libertarians in the Republican party. Lets see, he stomped on the constitution (need I mention to you the Patriot Act), he has made the presidency more despotic (something that I though could not possible occur again, since FDR almost made us a kingdom), ran the most secretive administration ever, and to top it all off, pretty much ignores habeas corpus.

But to be fair to him, he did sacrifice golf in order to support the troops :rolleyes: