The Grand New Party

Could you please explain how the environmental issues are not a concern? Why are we one of what, 2 civilized countries who haven't ratified the KP? It is time for a new Kyoto Protocol, though I haven't reviewed any new version, so I'll have to look into that.

The difference between the U.S. ratifying a treaty and France or China doing likewise is that we would probably endeavour to live up to it.

The question concerning global warming is do you want to stifle an already struggling economy with rules that under the best scenario would have a marginal impact on global warming(assuming global warming is real)? I would prefer to keep the economy going and try to adapt to any changes that occurr with our climate through other means. Even if we did everything Al Gore wants right now, they tell us we're still screwed.

I believe that global warming is merely a rationale from the left to impose policies they've been in favor of since before anyone ever noticed global warming. Capitalism just works better, so they've latched onto a quasi-religious movement to even the playing field. If the data suggested global cooling, they would offer exactly the same solutions they're giving us now.

When the other side has the ball, you wait for them to fumble. The Democrats didn't get back on top through arduous debate and self reflection. They did it by waiting, and waiting, and waiting until Conservative Republicanism shot itself in the foot. Hell, the reason Conservatism was so strong since 1978 was because the Liberal Democrats themselves ran out of gas. It's a pendulum. So there is nothing to do now but wait. The Dems have the ball, let's see what they do with it.

That's a pretty simple, yet pretty accurate way to state it, I think. And I agree with FRPLG and TTE on the direction the "definition" of conservatism has swung.

I believe that global warming is merely a rationale from the left to impose policies they've been in favor of since before anyone ever noticed global warming. Capitalism just works better, so they've latched onto a quasi-religious movement to even the playing field. If the data suggested global cooling, they would offer exactly the same solutions they're giving us now.I agree with you. Here's a little more info on Kyoto:

Ten Second Response: The Cost of Kyoto (http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR021405.html)

That's a pretty simple, yet pretty accurate way to state it, I think. And I agree with FRPLG and TTE on the direction the "definition" of conservatism has swung.

I was thinking about this on the way home tonight. It seems to me that, somehow, the litmus test for conservatism became abortion and opposing gay marriage. Essentially, the tail started wagging the dog. The religious right knew that the limited government conservatives could not get elected without their votes while they didn't care about being elected... they just wanted to be right. Doctrine became more important than governing.

While Reaganism gave lip service to the religious right and first courted the movement as part of Reagan's America First type program, Reagan was, philosophically (if not in practice) a small government kind of guy. Bush 1 was never a fan of the religious right nor they of him. During the Clinton years, middle and center right folks fell into his "third way". It was during this time that the religious right really started coming into its own and organizing on a grass roots level. During Bush II, the social conservatives essentially cut out the fiscal conservatives.

There already is a party devoted to fiscal conservatism and is liberal on social issues -- it's called the Libertarian Party. They're able to get about 1% in a typical election.

The sad reality for limited government conservatives is that voters today actually do want bigger government. They want government to take care of them if they become unemployed, they want prescription drug coverage, health care, they want gov't to handle their retirement, they want their kids educated by government . . . it just goes on and on.

What makes matters worse is that capitalism is under attack and everybody is just fine with it. People are okay with CEOs having their salaries and bonuses dictated by Congress, government taking over businesses, oil company execs have to go before House and Senate committees to answer for their "windfall profits". Ugh.

Call me a pessimist, but this is a chain of events that may never get turned around.

The difference between the U.S. ratifying a treaty and France or China doing likewise is that we would probably endeavour to live up to it.

The question concerning global warming is do you want to stifle an already struggling economy with rules that under the best scenario would have a marginal impact on global warming(assuming global warming is real)? I would prefer to keep the economy going and try to adapt to any changes that occurr with our climate through other means. Even if we did everything Al Gore wants right now, they tell us we're still screwed.

I believe that global warming is merely a rationale from the left to impose policies they've been in favor of since before anyone ever noticed global warming. Capitalism just works better, so they've latched onto a quasi-religious movement to even the playing field. If the data suggested global cooling, they would offer exactly the same solutions they're giving us now.

Well without global cooling we really don't have that leg to stand on. The Kyoto treaty was not brought up in a time like now, the economy was much better, but I do agree that it could have a major economic impact. It's not so much that we need to ratify a treaty, just we need to take better steps towards preserving the environment.

People call talk about skewered facts or whatever they'd like, but the huge emission of pollutants teamed with deforestation can certainly not be helping or neutral.

Even aside from all of this, whether global warming be a scare tactic or not, it is pushing innovation in some stagnant industries and helping speed along the development and research of more efficient energy and processes to help us. In turn that is helping create jobs and technologies from which we can benefit.

Global warming is real -- it's just debated whether man has anything to do with it or not. I'd be inclined to say yes, it's just to what level we are.

I was thinking about this on the way home tonight. It seems to me that, somehow, the litmus test for conservatism became abortion and opposing gay marriage. Essentially, the tail started wagging the dog. The religious right knew that the limited government conservatives could not get elected without their votes while they didn't care about being elected... they just wanted to be right. Doctrine became more important than governing.

While Reaganism gave lip service to the religious right and first courted the movement as part of Reagan's America First type program, Reagan was, philosophically (if not in practice) a small government kind of guy. Bush 1 was never a fan of the religious right nor they of him. During the Clinton years, middle and center right folks fell into his "third way". It was during this time that the religious right really started coming into its own and organizing on a grass roots level. During Bush II, the social conservatives essentially cut out the fiscal conservatives.

No American politician has ever spoken more eloquently against abortion than Ronald Reagan. He couldn't, for instance, ban partial birth abortion because the Democrats always controlled the house. But he said things that Bush 43 would never have dreamed of. As for gay marriage, it did not emerge as an issue until the late 1990s, so it's not really valid to use it as sign of the right's increasing influence. Also, to suggest that the religious right "came into it's own" in the 1990s is a misreading of history. It came into it's own as a movement in the 1970s. People who try to seperate Reagan from the evangelicals are revisionists.

Now that's Conservativism. Why is it that when someone says conservative people think of Bibles, abortion, or homosexual special interest?

Because those are the people that jump on TV at any point that they can. The two groups aren't completely exclusive either, there's a lil Venn Diagram action going on there.

No American politician has ever spoken more eloquently against abortion than Ronald Reagan. He couldn't, for instance, ban partial birth abortion because the Democrats always controlled the house. But he said things that Bush 43 would never have dreamed of. As for gay marriage, it did not emerge as an issue until the late 1990s, so it's not really valid to use it as sign of the right's increasing influence. Also, to suggest that the religious right "came into it's own" in the 1990s is a misreading of history. It came into it's own as a movement in the 1970s. People who try to seperate Reagan from the evangelicals are revisionists.

It's amazing how Reagan has achieved a god-like status among conservatives today.

We forget how much help he had from Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale.

There already is a party devoted to fiscal conservatism and is liberal on social issues -- it's called the Libertarian Party. They're able to get about 1% in a typical election.

The sad reality for limited government conservatives is that voters today actually do want bigger government. They want government to take care of them if they become unemployed, they want prescription drug coverage, health care, they want gov't to handle their retirement, they want their kids educated by government . . . it just goes on and on.

What makes matters worse is that capitalism is under attack and everybody is just fine with it. People are okay with CEOs having their salaries and bonuses dictated by Congress, government taking over businesses, oil company execs have to go before House and Senate committees to answer for their "windfall profits". Ugh.

Call me a pessimist, but this is a chain of events that may never get turned around.
I find myself agreeing with you on this unfortunately.