David Brooks:
The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”

That means, first, moving beyond the Thatcherite tendency to put economics first.

In other words, their conservatives are becoming... liberals. Although, it's interesting to note that Brooks associates a concern for individual freedom with conservatives, not liberals. Of course, he's referring to economic freedom more than social freedom, but economic freedom is the key to a healthy democratic society. Thatcher was right, and both the U.K. and the U.S.A. could use more of it, not less.

While I think Brooks is correct in assuming that American conservatives would not accept the new British conservatism, he seems to ignore the fact that the Republican Party has already moved closer to the left. That's why so many real conservatives are dissatisfied with the Republicans.

Stefanie wrote:

David Brooks:
The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”

That means, first, moving beyond the Thatcherite tendency to put economics first.

In other words, their conservatives are becoming... liberals. Although, it's interesting to note that Brooks associates a concern for individual freedom with conservatives, not liberals. Of course, he's referring to economic freedom more than social freedom, but economic freedom is the key to a healthy democratic society. Thatcher was right, and both the U.K. and the U.S.A. could use more of it, not less.

While I think Brooks is correct in assuming that American conservatives would not accept the new British conservatism, he seems to ignore the fact that the Republican Party has already moved closer to the left. That's why so many real conservatives are dissatisfied with the Republicans.

what is regarded as conservative, liberal or socialist has morphed over the decades and centuries
describing any political position as "real" conservatism seems to me simply to indicate a relative idealogical position rather than an objective set of facts

the contempory British Conservative party has certainly moved it's rhetoric to the left and more to the perceived centerground of British politics mostly as a result of its perceived extremism -- failing dramatically electorally will do that -- and as a reflection of Tony Blair's success in moving the Labour Party to the perceived right equally as a result of electoral failure

in British politics first for the left then right there has been a marked shift away from clearly defined idealogical positions and towards pragmatics -- a shift which has caused levels of horror in both major parties -- what has resulted is a softer more amorphous idealogical vision from the ruling elites

it is a real danger for any political movement/philosophy/meme stack when arguments break out about "true" this or "real" that -- the great rallying cry of legitimacy -- the internal struggles within communist parties eg the Chinese; who particularly love these sort of labels with rightists, leftists and splittists; demonstrating a particular sequence almost like a dance sequence or to use a metaphor of something you're more familiar with than I am - chess.

on a personal note i think the assertion that "economic freedom is the key to a healthy democratic society" is dubious when stated as fact

a level of economic freedom goes hand in hand with democracy but the relative levels of economic freedom -- the economic merits of varying levels of unregulated markets and the social effects have been at the center of political discourse since before Adam Smith (1723-1790)(who formalised much of the thinking on the subject) and this discourse completely dominated the history of the 20th century

but there is no such thing as a purely unregulated market - pure economic freedom -- no contract law etc no property -- not much economics would take place in such an enviroment

regulation -- law and the stability it provides is a prerequisite but the optimum level of law and regulation is only provable by time: the success levels of different economic and political models as future and history unfolds
is the only judge

we can argue for different levels but it is a matter of discourse rather than objectivity

what is regarded as conservative, liberal or socialist has morphed over the decades and centuries
describing any political position as "real" conservatism seems to me simply to indicate a relative idealogical position rather than an objective set of facts

While things do change over time, including broad political categories and the definitions of specific words, the basic concepts of left and right, socialism and capitalism, and liberalism and conservatism still apply. Perhaps I should've chosen the word "traditional" instead of "real" in referring to conservatives, because there are varying degrees of conservatism and liberalism, and I certainly don't intend to imply that I'm the sole arbiter of what constitutes either. However, while a given political party might be shifting its general position, that doesn't necessarily constitute a change in conservative ideology itself. "Traditional" conservatives in this country aren't changing, but they are seeing the Republican Party change.

on a personal note i think the assertion that "economic freedom is the key to a healthy democratic society" is dubious when stated as fact

It was stated as my opinion, and that's how it should be taken. Naturally, if I didn't believe it to be true, it would cease to be my opinion. :)

but there is no such thing as a purely unregulated market - pure economic freedom -- no contract law etc no property -- not much economics would take place in such an enviroment

regulation -- law and the stability it provides is a prerequisite...

On that, we agree. There's a difference between capitalism and anarchy, and I want no part of the latter. Regulation of markets and industries is a legitimate and necessary function of government, and capitalism couldn't thrive without it. Direct interference on the part of government is another matter.

...but the optimum level of law and regulation is only provable by time: the success levels of different economic and political models as future and history unfolds is the only judge

Can that judgment be made objectively and accurately? Do we not already have enough history by which to judge modern economic models?

Stefanie wrote:

...but the optimum level of law and regulation is only provable by time: the success levels of different economic and political models as future and history unfolds is the only judge

Can that judgment be made objectively and accurately? Do we not already have enough history by which to judge modern economic models?

i'm not sure it can be made objectively but i believe through the process of democracy and debate and by trying different models -- one model emerges -- just as I believe that democracy is proving itself by experience a better political model from the point of view of producing better governance -- as a system of solving social problems and dealing with the the stresses and strains produced by evolving societies -- my view of democracy is that it is like Trotsky's permanent revolution -- every few years we overturn the elements of the established order -- get rid of one executive and choose another -- democracy provides a model for the cascade of power down generations -- I would argue it is with struttering steps relentlessly taking over the planet -- 500 years ago there was only dynastic dictatorships across the planet and human history had only seen glimpses of democracy but the model took hold in Britain and stuck after the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when parliament became supreme -- it has spread in various guises across large swathes of the planet

i certainly think we have enough history to show that democracy is not only morally better but better from a utilitarian point of view and whilst we are broadly winning it is still a long road

regarding judging economic models -- certainly the command economies of marxist-lenism have demonstrably failed but despite US broad planetary economic dominance I'm not convinced that it has proved best so far. There has been a huge social price and looking at the current state of the US economy it strikes me that the dominance of a low taxation low social safety net high inequality model (compared with much of Europe [I'm sure you don't consider your taxes low]} remains a model among models. The US economy has vast powers of creativity and rejuvination -- Microsoft Google and much of the 21st century demonstrate that but society pays a price. So basically I think that no we don't have enough history but I think we're on the way. I think in time say a few hundred years people will look back at our age and wonder why we were blind to certain things.

i think we will converge on the best model -- I don't believe anybody has all the answers -- I don't think our models are there yet but it is an ongoing experiment with new challenges like climate change and promoting economic development across the world without destroying the planet -- as a species I think we're moving forward but there's a long way to go -- for the first time in human history the species might be said to have a single leader -- ie the the leader of the most militarily and economically powerful country -- yet it has always been a white male millionaire yet after jan 2009 things might change -- to me thats progress -- it's less than 100 years since women achieved the vote in the US and less than 150 years since the end of slavery -- i like the long view and whilst the personal circumstances for billions of our fellow human beings are hellish our species has developed fast and at an accelerating pace from hominid to me writing this and discussing it across the Atlantic with you. It's taken 13.7 billion years from Big Bang to here but only a couple of million from hominid to now and only a few hundred years since printing by Guttenberg and Columbus to here etc etc

i know that's a little off topic but i still marvel at it and maybe i'm being too pessimistic about converging on the best economic model but i'm fasinated by the process

i certainly think we have enough history to show that democracy is not only morally better but better from a utilitarian point of view and whilst we are broadly winning it is still a long road

i know that's a little off topic but i still marvel at it and maybe i'm being too pessimistic about converging on the best economic model but i'm fasinated by the process

I agree on both counts. I think most individuals agree that democracy is preferable to fascism, communism, or anarchy, but the details concerning what specific factors constitute a successful democracy will always be debated.

i think we will converge on the best model -- I don't believe anybody has all the answers -- I don't think our models are there yet but it is an ongoing experiment with new challenges

The problem with working toward the "best" model is that different cultures and individuals have different core values. I want to live in a society in which individuals are in control of their own lives (financially and otherwise), and to me, that's more important than guaranteeing that everyone's needs will be met. There are those who disagree with me, and they will obviously have different concepts of what constitutes the best economic model for a society. What I consider failure, they consider success, and vice versa.

There has been a huge social price...

Such as?

Stefanie wrote:

There has been a huge social price...

Such as?

The US has the most unequal society on Earth when looked at from a certain point of view. Yes it is very much the land of opportunity. You can become very rich in America but it has huge income inequalities. Being born into a particular socio economic group is the largest determinate of your future income. America has a class system. Something Americans hate to hear but who honestly thinks George W Bush is a self made man. I am not suggesting there are easy solutions. I don't suggest an inheritance tax to give babies a reason to cry.
The social inequalities created by financial inequalities leads to better education, better health care etc for some; and some lead desperate lives. Crime is certainly not entirely determined by social deprivation but it is a factor. There is a conservative belief that economic inequality is the engine of capitalism. That is quite possibly true but is not I would argue moral. Yet as I said I do not have a simple solution but I do believe in a more European tradition of ameliorating the excesses of the market and in certain areas attempting to level the playing field. Education is one field. Ensuring a quality education for the greatest number is a traditional goal of liberalism. Of course we argue and make mistakes about the best method of achieving that but it is a central idea. Health care is another plank. That health care should be determined by ability to pay is not a widely held view in Europe and it seems elements in the US main stream appear to be edging in that direction.
I would argue that it is about looking beyond purely economic concerns to social and moral ones. There are questions of fairness and justice (which are clearly open to debate yet worth considering) and the idea of looking beyond individualism and asking what is good for society and the community. I would argue that US levels of economic inequality are a social evil and by regulating the market some of that can be alleviated however too much regulation kills the goose that lays the golden egg. We need a vibrant economy to pay for defense, education and health care for the good of society. It is in the interests of individuals sometimes to forgo certain liberties for the greater good, for society, hence we accept the boundary of law and lend power to government to make laws and govern. It is the duty of government to protect and serve. There has been a discourse between the supposed rights of the individual and the supposed rights of society at the heart of the political debate since the 17th century. Ultimately I believe in the process. Unrestrained individualism is anarchy and certain individuals claiming to rule only in the interests of society is authoritarian (fascism or communism). The only proper arbiter of the social good is the expressed wishes of the people at the b... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

ubernoir wrote:
The US has the most unequal society on Earth when looked at from a certain point of view. Yes it is very much the land of opportunity. You can become very rich in America but it has huge income inequalities.

Yes, that's where we differ... I have no problem with economic inequality. In fact, I prefer it. I also disagree that there is an American class system (your quote, below). Yes, every society has those who can't help themselves, because of physical or mental handicaps, and that's why charity is important. However, most of us can help ourselves, and most of us are exactly where we have put ourselves. We have the freedom to do something to change our financial positions if we have the drive to do so. Financially, we can move up or down at will, but it takes work and a sense of responsibility to improve one's position, and some don't like to hear that.

ubernoir wrote:
Being born into a particular socio economic group is the largest determinate of your future income. America has a class system. Something Americans hate to hear but who honestly thinks George W Bush is a self made man.

George Bush might not have been a self made man, but what about Bill Clinton? One doesn't have to be born into a wealthy and/or influential family in order to succeed in this country. It's an advantage, but not a necessity.

ubernoir wrote:
I would argue that it is about looking beyond purely economic concerns to social and moral ones. There are questions of fairness and justice...

I don't believe that success should or can be guaranteed. Each of us has different talents, we want different things, we have different lifestyles, we measure success differently, and we have different levels of motivation for achieving our desired goals. We should all have the freedom to pursue what we want, but it's not society's place to ensure equal outcomes in the lives of all individuals. Opportunity should be about fairness, but outcome should be about merit.

ubernoir wrote:
To be a Star Trek nerd for a second I believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one but it is also true that the liberty of the many arises out of the liberty of the one or the few.

I'm a big fan of the 1960s series, but I never cared for the movies or the spin-offs. As for "the liberty of the many arises out of the liberty of the one or the few," that's a good point. I understand your argument about moral obligation to humanity, but I don't think it's in a society's best interest to condition individuals to feel entitled to a certain level of success. The old concept of teaching a man to fish instead of giving him a fish is still relevant.

Stefanie wrote:
The Republican Party has already moved closer to the left. That's why so many real conservatives are dissatisfied with the Republicans.

Has the Republican party moved left?

There was a lot of yammering in 2006 about Republicans loosing because they weren't Republican enough, but I never felt that made any sense. It just seemed like pundits selling their continued relevancy. I don't think people picked Democrats because they thought they'd be more conservative!

There was the immigration debate, but frankly the "round up all the brown people" policy preferences that conservative pundits have managed to sow are absolute non-starters. I don't think that disagreement was as much the product of a leftward shift by the politicians as a rigid radicalism in the party's base hitting the real world like bird flying into a plate glass window.

What about the dislike for McCain? It seems to be driven out of the same quarters and seems to have more to do with his willingness to negotiate with Democrats than any actual policy preference that he might have. They hate him because they hate half of the people who live in this country and see themselves at war with them. They hate anyone who will so much as talk to people left of center. You are either with the right wing or you are against them.

You can count me among those who deeply dislikes McCain Feingold, but I don't think it makes sense to view him entirely through it's prism. I'm certainly not mad enough about it to refuse to vote for him. Something in me suspects that those who really hate him for it might have lost more in that bill than the anonymity of their political donations.

I don't perceive that the Republican party has moved left so much as I perceive that the ideology of the conservative movement has become more rigid, insular, and hostile than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Can you give me some counter examples?

Sorry for the delay. It's been a busy couple of weeks.

Decius wrote:
Has the Republican party moved left? Can you give me some counter examples?

Yes. Look no further than Bush and McCain, the two biggest names in the party. Bush has managed to increase spending (such as the Medicare prescription drug benefit plan) and expand government (Department of Homeland Security - $44.9 Billion annual budget) during his term in office. He even had a Republican legislature for most of his term, and they did nothing to fight him. Bush and McCain are both out of step with party conservatives on immigration, and many have concerns about McCain's potential judicial appointees (McCain stated that Sam Alito is "too conservative"). McCain has been back-and-forth on the Bush tax cuts, so conservatives don't trust him.

Decius wrote:
They hate him because they hate half of the people who live in this country and see themselves at war with them.

Are you talking about Republicans or Democrats?

Decius wrote:
There was the immigration debate, but frankly the "round up all the brown people" policy preferences that conservative pundits have managed to sow are absolute non-starters.

So, you perceive the conservative side of the immigration issue as being only about racism? You don't think that conservatives have any legitimate concerns regarding immigration law, or the negative social ramifications of having uncontrolled immigration from a third world country, regardless of skin color?

Stefanie wrote:
Bush has managed to increase spending (such as the Medicare prescription drug benefit plan) and expand government (Department of Homeland Security - $44.9 Billion annual budget) during his term in office.

I'll take that. I think most Conservative voters put homeland security before reducing the size of the federal budget on their priority lists, but I think you are generally correct that fiscal conservatives don't like the amount of spending that the Republicans have been doing.

Many have concerns about McCain's potential judicial appointees (McCain stated that Sam Alito is "too conservative").

This seems directly in line with my point, which is that the Conservative movement has become dominated by hardliners. In any situation where there are two choices, one choice is always going to be more conservative than the other. The right choice is always the most conservative one, regardless of context. Anyone who ever selects a less conservative choice in any context cannot be trusted with anything, ever again, and is no different from a communist.

There is a rumor that McCain liked Roberts but did not like Alito. Because that is less conservative than the choice of liking them both, McCain cannot be trusted and cannot be elected. No one who is throwing up their hands at this can articulate why a court with more people like Roberts and less people like Alito would be a bad thing, or what the difference between the two of them is in terms of their political philosophy. Its not about Roberts vs Alito. Its about blacklisting anyone who does not have their thinking aligned in the "correct" way in every single context.

Decius wrote:
They hate him because they hate half of the people who live in this country and see themselves at war with them.

Are you talking about Republicans or Democrats?

I am talking about Republicans. Provide an example of mainstream Democrats attacking Democratic politicans because they are willing to work with Republicans on policy issues...

Decius wrote:
There was the immigration debate, but frankly the "round up all the brown people" policy preferences that conservative pundits have managed to sow are absolute non-starters.

So, you perceive the conservative side of the immigration issue as being only about racism? You don't think that conservatives have any legitimate concerns regarding immigration law, or the negative social ramifications of having uncontrolled immigration from a third world country, regardless of skin color?

No, I don't perceive that its only about racism. The substantive difference between the policy positions of the Republican politicians and the conservative base with regard to illegal immigration is that the conservative base wants the issue dealt with by rounding up all of the illegal immigrants and throwing them out of the country by force, and the federal government cannot and will not do that. They cannot do it because it is usually not possible to prove where a person was born in a court of law, and they will not do it because it will create a long term homeless refugee problem that is several orders of magnitude worse than the Israel/Palestinian situation. What the conservative base wants in regard to immigration is simply not possible, and so using the Republican party's failure to deliver it as evidence that they are shifting left is not helpful.

Decius wrote:
The right choice is always the most conservative one, regardless of context. Anyone who ever selects a less conservative choice in any context cannot be trusted with anything, ever again, and is no different from a communist.

I don't think you're describing the majority of those who consider themselves true conservatives. There's a difference between being conservative and being reactionary, just as there's a difference between being liberal and being radical. I don't see anything wrong with conservatives wanting Republican candidates to be conservative or liberals wanting Democratic candidates to be liberal.

McCain, like Giuliani, does have some traditionally conservative positions, but compared to most Republican politicians, he's too far to the left on some key issues for many conservatives. Also, they aren't comfortable with his perceived tendency to seek compromise as a first resort. Obviously, there are enough Republicans who support McCain to get him nominated, but I don't see the conservatives rallying for McCain in the way the liberals will be supporting Obama.

Decius wrote:
I am talking about Republicans. Provide an example of mainstream Democrats attacking Democratic politicans because they are willing to work with Republicans on policy issues...

Joe Lieberman

Decius wrote:
The substantive difference between the policy positions of the Republican politicians and the conservative base with regard to illegal immigration is that the conservative base wants the issue dealt with by rounding up all of the illegal immigrants and throwing them out of the country by force, and the federal government cannot and will not do that.

You've always got a few who want to "round up" all illegal aliens, but most conservatives I know don't think it's even possible. Even if it were possible, most think we don't need to do that. They suggest that if we demagnetize (see the last three paragraphs) the country, most of those who are in the country illegally will go back home on their own.

Stefanie wrote:
I don't think you're describing the majority of those who consider themselves true conservatives.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine if Obama said that he wanted to nominate more justices like Breyer but he felt that Stevens was too liberal for him, and in response a large number of Democrats took the position that voting for Obama might be risky because his judicial nominations are likely to be too conservative... Judges like Breyer are too conservative for mainstream Democrats... As a conservative would you read that as reasonable or radical?

Last I heard Roberts was a pretty conservative judge and the sort of judge conservatives want. Now he is too liberal and a candidate who would nominate people like him is a risky person to elect. That seems to indicate a significant rightward shift by conservatives. The space of thought that is considered "conservative" is narrowing.

Joe Lieberman

Joe Lieberman was not outcast because he was willing to work with Republicans on policy issues nor because he was willing to compromise. He was outcast because he was a strong and vocal supporter of the Iraq war. No one is writing rants about how they won't vote for Lieberman because he works with Republicans and Republicans are the enemy... They don't agree with Lieberman's policy on Iraq.

If Republican misgivings about McCain were simply based on policy differences that would be reasonable. What makes it radical is because its not just about his likely policy choices, its about the fact that he is willing to work with the other party.

Politics is about compromise. There are vast numbers of people who live in this country who do not share your convictions. Politics is about trying to change their minds and trying to work out an agreement with them that you can all live with. When you set both of these things aside, you aren't talking politics anymore. When you talk about those other people as Limbaugh does, as another country, as the enemy, as someone you want to defeat, not work with, you are talking war, and that is radical.

Decius wrote:
You've always got a few who want to "round up" all illegal aliens, but most conservatives I know don't think it's even possible. Even if it were possible, most think we don't need to do that. They suggest that if we demagnetize (see the last three paragraphs) the country, most of those who are in the country illegally will go back home on their own.

I don't agree. Penalizing employers is the most popular response to illegal immigration and as a policy it has widespread support from the left particularly at the state level. Conservative responses are characteristically punitive toward the immigrants themselves and involve such measures as building a wall on the southern border.

Obviously, we'll just have to disagree on certain things.

One thing I do want to point out is that compromise, while certainly a fact of life, should be the last option, not the first, and even then, it doesn't necessarily need to be applied in all situations. If you can get enough votes to support your positions, you shouldn't want to compromise. Sometimes, even if you don't have the votes, you need to stand your ground and lose while maintaining your principles. It depends on the situation, and you have to know when to pick your battles.

If I'm a Senator, and I want a sales tax of $0.03/dollar, and my opponent wants a sales tax of $0.09, I shouldn't immediately agree on $0.06 for the sake of compromise. I should state my case and try to get enough votes to back my proposal, because I think it's better. If a $0.09 tax bill is up for a vote, obviously I'll vote against it. If a $0.06 tax bill is up for a vote, then I have a decision to make. I'd have to consider how likely it would be that I'd ever get my $0.03 tax approved if this one failed, or whether the failure of this compromise would mean that the other side might get its way on the next bill. Compromise should be viewed as a method of minimizing defeat, not as a goal in itself. Even then, I'd have to factor in whether my constituents would support such a compromise.

Then, there are some issues on which people on both side take a hard stand. In a different political environment, $0.06 might be completely unacceptable to both sides for whatever reasons, and the only way to solve the issue is by majority rule. Abortion, gun control, gay marriage, and the war in Iraq are issues on which most voters do not want their representatives to compromise. Anything other than a "yes" or "no" is unacceptable to most voters who care about those issues, and I don't see that as extremism, but simply standing up for what one believes in.

If I help elect someone to office to fight for gay marriage and against gun control, I expect him to do just that. If he comes back to me with "civil unions" and "reasonable gun control," I'll help toss him out. If I wanted him to work with the other side on those issues, I'd eliminate the middle man and vote for the other party. There are other, less divisive issues, on which I don't mind a bit of compromise, as long as "compromise" doesn't mean "selling out." However, I'm much more likely to vote for a known fighter who agrees with my positions than a known compromiser.

Stefanie wrote:
Obviously, we'll just have to disagree on certain things.

Certainly. I have some concern that this debate is going too far. Its not really my intent to drag you into a fight.

One thing I do want to point out is that compromise, while certainly a fact of life, should be the last option, not the first, and even then, it doesn't necessarily need to be applied in all situations.

I guess thats at the heart of where we disagree. I think... I KNOW that the political parties encourage these diametric positions in order to present voters with black and white choices. Rove's strategy has clearly been about using wedge issues to bring out the base instead of courting the center. Razor thin majorities are then used to impose policies which are completely unacceptable to the rest of the country.

The views of that other 49% aren't completely irrelevant just because they mustered a few thousand fewer votes. Those people don't go away just because of a simple electoral victory, and I think its both irresponsible and unpatriotic to govern as if thin majorities represented a mandate for hard line policies.

This isn't a war, this is a country, and if we're more interested in imposing our views upon eachother than we are in figuring out how to live together in spite of our differences I think a Constitutional crisis is inevitable.

Decius wrote:
I have some concern that this debate is going too far. Its not really my intent to drag you into a fight.

I didn't take it that way, and I hope I haven't given that impression. We do tend to spiral away from the main topic, but I don't consider that unhealthy... until we start whipping dead horses. :)

Decius wrote:
Razor thin majorities are then used to impose policies which are completely unacceptable to the rest of the country. The views of that other 49% aren't completely irrelevant just because they mustered a few thousand fewer votes. Those people don't go away just because of a simple electoral victory, and I think its both irresponsible and unpatriotic to govern as if thin majorities represented a mandate for hard line policies.

I really don't disagree with anything there. I believe that the rights of the minority should always be protected form the tyranny of the majority, but when it comes to policymaking, we do have to make some decisions that leave half the country dissatisfied. If abortion, for example, were a 90/10% issue either way, the debate would go away, but when our society is split down the middle on an issue, and there's no room for compromise (and how can there be with abortion?), majority rule makes policy, even if it's 51/49%. Many Supreme Court rulings are decided by 4-3 votes, but those rulings must still be observed as the law of the land... until they're overturned by a future court or superseded by a constitutional amendment... or until we reach the point of civil war or revolution.

*checking my horse's pulse*

I don't think you can expect a series of compromises on important, yet divisive ("wedge") issues to make everyone content all of the time. When there's not a clear majority and there's room to compromise, we should; but sometimes, those of us in the 49% group have to accept that we lost, at least for the time being. Having said that, I'm much more concerned with the increasing power of government than I am with the other half of the country that disagrees with me on any given issue. At least I can argue with the latter.

Decius wrote:
This isn't a war, this is a country, and if we're more interested in imposing our views upon each other than we are in figuring out how to live together in spite of our differences I think a Constitutional crisis is inevitable.

You might be correct.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.

The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

O.K., now I'm way off topic.

ubernoir wrote:

For years, American and British politics were in sync. Reagan came in roughly the same time as Thatcher, and Clinton’s Third Way approach mirrored Blair’s. But the British conservatives never had a Gingrich revolution in the 1990s or the Bush victories thereafter. They got their losing in early, and, in the wilderness, they rethought modern conservatism while their American counterparts were clinging to power.

And now, we're being subjugated, like the British people have been SINCE we won our Freedom from a Tyrannical Empire. With the REAL ID act, the FBI's pressure to get ISP's to track our every move online, and the new methods that states are getting around our 2nd amendment rights, we're being subjugated again.

dc0de wrote:
And now, we're being subjugated, like the British people have been SINCE we won our Freedom from a Tyrannical Empire. With the REAL ID act, the FBI's pressure to get ISP's to track our every move online, and the new methods that states are getting around our 2nd amendment rights, we're being subjugated again.

It's going to get worse.

Barack Obama:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

I drive a large truck (it might as well be as SUV, for political purposes) because it's comfortable, safe, and handy; I cook and eat what I want; and I keep my home's temperature in the mid-to-low 60s, because I'm hot natured. I also use 100 and 150-watt incandescent light bulbs throughout my home.

Don't even get me started on the 2nd Amendment.