Vast Independent Majority

[zsdersw]

While it may be more visceral (if politics can be "visceral" to you) to get caught up in wondering who these Tea Party people are and what they're all about, I think it's important to look beyond their sideshow and see the forest for the trees. I'm talking about generational changes that are in the not-so-distant future.. and how those changes will force changes on both the Democratic and Republican parties, lest they give birth to a truly viable third party.

First, let's consider some basic facts:

- A significant majority of Americans want less government intrusion, more freedom, and less government spending.

- Abortion, in general, should be safe, legal, and rare.. according to a majority of Americans.

- Nearly 75% of Americans say homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military.

- A majority believe homosexual couples should have the opportunity to have some or most of the legal benefits associated with marriage.

- Increasing numbers of people are dropping their religious affiliations (and remaining just "spiritual"), belonging to more than one religious faith, or identifying as agnostic/Atheist.

Generation X'ers and those of subsequent generations are clearly both more fiscally conservative and socially liberal than the Baby Boom generation. This odd juxtaposition of beliefs is not completely addressed by either the Democratic or Republican parties, and as the younger generations make up more and more of the voting population both the Dems and Reps stand to lose a great deal if they don't change their respective tunes.

No longer will "tax and spend" work, and no longer will "let's legislate the Bible". It's going to happen, so what do you think will be the end result?

 

[Rainsford]

The problem is that people, Gen Xers or otherwise, still think in terms of only two choices. Plenty of them vote Republican even though they disagree with the socially conservative aspects of the party, while another group votes Democratic even if they don't like Democratic fiscal policies.

They view it as picking the least bad choice, but the fact is that they are implicitly supporting ALL the policies they are voting for. Pro-gay rights, but fiscally conservative people voting Republican are voting against gay rights. It ultimately doesn't matter what their beliefs REALLY are, or what their intent is, they aren't doing any more for gay rights than the most gay-hating, socially conservative guy in the party.

The end result is an agenda that's driven by what the people controlling the party want, not what the people VOTING for the party support. Because as long as nobody jumps ship (which can be achieved through clever marketing), it ultimately doesn't matter if they vote for your party because they support your entire platform or just part of it.

It's also worth considering that people might be full of shit. Everyone says they want a less intrusive government, but often what they REALLY want is a government that butts out when they want and interferes when they want. When they say "small government" they mean government that just does the things they want it to do.

 

[sandorski]

I don't find Fiscal Conservative and Socially Liberal to be Odd at all. It's only Odd if one is totally caught up in the Right/Left Black/White mindset. Fiscal and Social Issue are not remotely the same thing, nor do they affect one another.

 

[zsdersw]

The problem is that people, Gen Xers or otherwise, still think in terms of only two choices. Plenty of them vote Republican even though they disagree with the socially conservative aspects of the party, while another group votes Democratic even if they don't like Democratic fiscal policies.

They view it as picking the least bad choice, but the fact is that they are implicitly supporting ALL the policies they are voting for. Pro-gay rights, but fiscally conservative people voting Republican are voting against gay rights. It ultimately doesn't matter what their beliefs REALLY are, or what their intent is, they aren't doing any more for gay rights than the most gay-hating, socially conservative guy in the party.

The end result is an agenda that's driven by what the people controlling the party want, not what the people VOTING for the party support. Because as long as nobody jumps ship (which can be achieved through clever marketing), it ultimately doesn't matter if they vote for your party because they support your entire platform or just part of it.

Yes, all of that is very true. I do also believe, though, that a shift is occurring in this direction anyway, and that the Democratic and Republican parties will, if they survive, look nothing like they do today... just like they've changed their appearances many times throughout history.

It's also worth considering that people might be full of shit. Everyone says they want a less intrusive government, but often what they REALLY want is a government that butts out when they want and interferes when they want. When they say "small government" they mean government that just does the things they want it to do.

Ah yes, the ultimate X-factor. True of this and so many other aspects of life.

 

[Rainsford]

Yes, all of that is very true. I do also believe, though, that a shift is occurring in this direction anyway, and that the Democratic and Republican parties will, if they survive, look nothing like they do today... just like they've changed their appearances many times throughout history.
...

The real question is how STRONGLY people feel about these beliefs. If you support gay marriage, but not enough to stop voting for politicians who don't support it, then they won't change their views (or be replaced by people who think differently). And this is doubly true as long as people who oppose gay marriage WILL change their votes based on the issue. This goes for every issue, really, gay marriage is just an example.

The change will really only come when the vocal minority is too small a minority to matter.

 

[StageLeft]

A significant majority of Americans want less government intrusion, more freedom, and less government spending.

I would like just to respond to this. I think it's a lie, or more accurately a knee-jerk response without thinking it through. I'm sure that when really given the choices a lot of people would have far less conviction on this because they find out that, for example with the spending, they get less and they can't make the tough choice. I see it in how they vote; nobody actually gives a sh*t about the deficit, not really, not when it counts. Because it can be put off much like their credit card debt, smoking habit, obesity.

If you asked the question: Who wants to be leaner, fitter, healthier? Everyone would say yes but not as many care to do what's necessary to achieve it and it is not free of effort or pain.

 

[zsdersw]

I would like just to respond to this. I think it's a lie, or more accurately a knee-jerk response without thinking it through. I'm sure that when really given the choices a lot of people would have far less conviction on this because they find out that, for example with the spending, they get less and they can't make the tough choice. I see it in how they vote; nobody actually gives a sh*t about the deficit, not really, not when it counts. Because it can be put off much like their credit card debt, smoking habit, obesity.

If you asked the question: Who wants to be leaner, fitter, healthier? Everyone would say yes but not as many care to do what's necessary to achieve it and it is not free of effort or pain.

Perhaps, but there's a tipping point. Things will come to a head at some point in the future. Maybe it will be precipitated by the *mountain* of debt, or maybe a major disaster, or a huge war, or maybe a combination of this and other factors. The status quo will not continue unchanged, though. That much is certain.

 

[woolfe9999]

I agree with several comments above about people's very conflicted view of the role of government.

I also want to address the OP's point about how we are supposedly moving in a direction of more fiscal and economic conservatism and more social liberalism. There is a huge roadblock to any such movement, and that is the two party system and the fact that it is 230 years old and is very entrenched here. You can talk about changing the two major political parties, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Why? Because each party has its base and neither party can abandon its base without committing political suicide.

This is true especially with the repubs and their evangelical base. They'd lose every election if they dropped their socially conservative stance. Evangelicals actually care more about the social issue than they do about other issues. They are about 20-25% of the US population, and they vote solidly republican.

The dems have a more diverse base, but look at each component. Ideological liberals are part of the base - they believe largely in government solutions to problems. African Americans are another part - interestingly this group is actually conservative on social issues, but they strongly back social welfare programs and the like. Union members are another important component. This is another group that is for the most part to the left on fiscal and economic issues, but is moderate, or across the board, on social issues.

In sum, the base for each party lies in the part of its platform which goes against what the OP says is the societal trend.

Any movement that is right on fiscal and economic issues and left on social issues would have to be a "centrist" third party aimed at capturing independent voters, plus moderates in the two major political parties. Which also isn't going to be viable any time soon.

- wolf

 

[Robor]

I don't find Fiscal Conservative and Socially Liberal to be Odd at all. It's only Odd if one is totally caught up in the Right/Left Black/White mindset. Fiscal and Social Issue are not remotely the same thing, nor do they affect one another.

When they create a fiscally conservative / socially liberal party you can sign me up! Until then I'll stick with the (D)'s because I think I like their version of freedumb more than the (R)'s version of freedumb. :biggrin:

 

[MotF Bane]

And again, there is no difference between the parties. One side is a bunch of morons, the other is a bunch of idiots.

 

[Lemon law]

Face the facts, the great non ideological voter votes his wallet. If the economy stinks, the party in power is in trouble, if the economy is good, it bodes well for the party in power. Or so in goes in normal times and it may somewhat explain the current GOP gridlock strategy that retards economic improvement and any needed reforms.

But the point being, 2010 is not normal times, and the conventional wisdom may not apply. Certainly 2008 was similar to the entire nation giving a dope slap to Hoover and the GOP in 1932, but come the mid-term election of 1934, when the economy did not improve,
the average voter still remembered who broke the economy in 1929. And that lasting memory endured throwout the depression and WW2, and it was a full two decades before the nation was willing to trust a Republican with the Presidency.

Sure we can say that FDR just had far better PR than Obama, but Obama and the dems still have a full eight months to turn around their image. And if the dems can show they are improving things against total GOP unpatriotic opposition, the GOP could well find they played you bet your life and lost.

 

[daishi5]

I agree with several comments above about people's very conflicted view of the role of government.

I also want to address the OP's point about how we are supposedly moving in a direction of more fiscal and economic conservatism and more social liberalism. There is a huge roadblock to any such movement, and that is the two party system and the fact that it is 230 years old and is very entrenched here. You can talk about changing the two major political parties, but that is not going to happen any time soon. Why? Because each party has its base and neither party can abandon its base without committing political suicide.

This is true especially with the repubs and their evangelical base. They'd lose every election if they dropped their socially conservative stance. Evangelicals actually care more about the social issue than they do about other issues. They are about 20-25% of the US population, and they vote solidly republican.

The dems have a more diverse base, but look at each component. Ideological liberals are part of the base - they believe largely in government solutions to problems. African Americans are another part - interestingly this group is actually conservative on social issues, but they strongly back social welfare programs and the like. Union members are another important component. This is another group that is for the most part to the left on fiscal and economic issues, but is moderate, or across the board, on social issues.

In sum, the base for each party lies in the part of its platform which goes against what the OP says is the societal trend.

Any movement that is right on fiscal and economic issues and left on social issues would have to be a "centrist" third party aimed at capturing independent voters, plus moderates in the two major political parties. Which also isn't going to be viable any time soon.

- wolf

We have had major party changes before, the system may be entrenched as two party, but there is no reason to believe the parties that exist now will continue to exist in the future. Even if the parties maintain the same names, remember the democrats used to be the party of racists. Fiscally conservative may finally become a platform that can win, as the financial state becomes worse and worse, it becomes more and more important. We will probably never become truly responsible, but America has some sense of belief that it is a nation built on hard working responsible people, and I think a politician could appeal to that to get support for some spending cuts that people don't like.

 

[theeedude]

"Government hands off my Medicare" pretty much describes your average American.

 

[Craig234]

While it may be more visceral (if politics can be "visceral" to you) to get caught up in wondering who these Tea Party people are and what they're all about, I think it's important to look beyond their sideshow and see the forest for the trees. I'm talking about generational changes that are in the not-so-distant future.. and how those changes will force changes on both the Democratic and Republican parties, lest they give birth to a truly viable third party.

First, let's consider some basic facts:

- A significant majority of Americans want less government intrusion, more freedom, and less government spending.

- Abortion, in general, should be safe, legal, and rare.. according to a majority of Americans.

- Nearly 75% of Americans say homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military.

- A majority believe homosexual couples should have the opportunity to have some or most of the legal benefits associated with marriage.

- Increasing numbers of people are dropping their religious affiliations (and remaining just "spiritual"), belonging to more than one religious faith, or identifying as agnostic/Atheist.

Generation X'ers and those of subsequent generations are clearly both more fiscally conservative and socially liberal than the Baby Boom generation. This odd juxtaposition of beliefs is not completely addressed by either the Democratic or Republican parties, and as the younger generations make up more and more of the voting population both the Dems and Reps stand to lose a great deal if they don't change their respective tunes.

No longer will "tax and spend" work, and no longer will "let's legislate the Bible". It's going to happen, so what do you think will be the end result?

I'm concerned that what will result is based on the issue missing in your post - the increasing power of the few rich. Politics is based on them IMO.

The rest of the issues are unimportant to them - they can put up with all kinds of things on 'social issues' and other policies as long as they are protected financially.

What I'm concerned will happen, to answer your question, is that there will be a bargain with the devil struck at some point - giving 'the people' exactly what they want on every OTHER issue in exchange for the people giving up their power to reglate the wealthy's accumulation of wealth. For a long time, the wealthy haven't wanted those issues anyway - they just come with the domination of the political system on wealth, 'politicians, do whatever you need on other issues to keep power'.

THis is somewhat analogous to they way the Chinese government kept power in a 'bargain' with its people, to give them economic prosperity in exchange for not challenging the government politically. SO you end up with more prosperous, not free, people. But concentratin of wealth ultimately leads to tyranny and the poverty of the masses - and there won't be any ability of the people to stand up for their interests, just as there hasn't been for most of human history.

The political failure of this generation to exercise its political power to restrain the explosion of the rich's wealth and power paves the way for disaster.

People ultimately will trade their unused politcial power for short-term gains, IMO. THe debasement and corruption of the political culture, as we see today, is the middle step to undoing America.

 

[woolfe9999]

We have had major party changes before, the system may be entrenched as two party, but there is no reason to believe the parties that exist now will continue to exist in the future. Even if the parties maintain the same names, remember the democrats used to be the party of racists. Fiscally conservative may finally become a platform that can win, as the financial state becomes worse and worse, it becomes more and more important. We will probably never become truly responsible, but America has some sense of belief that it is a nation built on hard working responsible people, and I think a politician could appeal to that to get support for some spending cuts that people don't like.

Indeed, the GOP was the party of "big" (in terms relative to that time) government, while the dems (then called the republicans) were the party of states rights. And the repubs freed the slaves. And their base was in the north while the dems base was in the south. And so on. But those changes were largely due to cultural changes over time which had impacts on the base for each party. The composition of a party follows culture and demographics, not the other way around. If we want the parties to look different, we are going to first have to look different. If, for example, evangelicals become a smaller bloc, that could obviously change the nature of either or both political parties. But those kind of changes would happen gradually over time. It's not going to change any time soon.

- wolf

 

[jhu]

I say we bring back the Whig party. At least they had some success in getting people in office.

 

[Throckmorton]

From what I have seen over the past few years, I think the largest and most powerful party of the near future will be the Independent Moron Party Of Confused Extremism. IMPOCE

 

[Craig234]

I say we bring back the Whig party. At least they had some success in getting people in office.

It's far simpler. Elect progressives - make them the majority instead of the '30% who vote right but lose'.

We'd have big business corruption reigned in, campaigns cleaned up, and public economic benefit for a start.

There's a reason the Whigs disappeared.

 

[dammitgibs]

It's far simpler. Elect progressives.

I think you missed the point /facepalm

 

[werepossum]

The problem is that people, Gen Xers or otherwise, still think in terms of only two choices. Plenty of them vote Republican even though they disagree with the socially conservative aspects of the party, while another group votes Democratic even if they don't like Democratic fiscal policies.

They view it as picking the least bad choice, but the fact is that they are implicitly supporting ALL the policies they are voting for. Pro-gay rights, but fiscally conservative people voting Republican are voting against gay rights. It ultimately doesn't matter what their beliefs REALLY are, or what their intent is, they aren't doing any more for gay rights than the most gay-hating, socially conservative guy in the party.

The end result is an agenda that's driven by what the people controlling the party want, not what the people VOTING for the party support. Because as long as nobody jumps ship (which can be achieved through clever marketing), it ultimately doesn't matter if they vote for your party because they support your entire platform or just part of it.

It's also worth considering that people might be full of shit. Everyone says they want a less intrusive government, but often what they REALLY want is a government that butts out when they want and interferes when they want. When they say "small government" they mean government that just does the things they want it to do.

This (bolded) exactly. I no longer have much faith that Americans want smaller less intrusive government. They just want to cut out the programs that they personally don't value.

 

[Craig234]

I think you missed the point /facepalm

In the unlikely event there's any truth to your opinion, it's probably a point better missed.

 

[Robor]

And again, there is no difference between the parties. One side is a bunch of morons, the other is a bunch of idiots.

If there was no difference between the parties this country wouldn't be so polarized over politics.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

When they create a fiscally conservative / socially liberal party you can sign me up! Until then I'll stick with the (D)'s because I think I like their version of freedumb more than the (R)'s version of freedumb. :biggrin:

Libertarian.

 

[Craig234]

Libertarian.

He didn't say nuts who want to remove the power of the people to stand up to concentrated power and to ruin the country with dysfunctional utopian ideology resulting a return to plutocratic tyranny.

 

[Craig234]

If there was no difference between the parties this country wouldn't be so polarized over politics.

There's some truth to this, but there's also truth to the two sides - especially the right - having 'differences' hyped up by demonizing the other side, the way two rabid sports team fans think they're 'different'.