I can certainly agree with the bulk of this one. Insightful.

If you ask me, I think it is a response to localised Democratic power taking too much power in the Federal government througout the end of the last century. It didn't matter if the majority of the nation was conservative, the liberal strongholds had enough clout to lord over "fly-over America"

The system of state's rights doesn't seem to be powerful enough to prevent a "strong Federal government" party from imposint their will. The response is centralizing power in the Federal government to prevent that.

I've been thinking of writing something on the subject. It seems like an oxymoron to have Conservatives promoting a strong Federal government, but how would it work out if we left the Federal government to the Democrats, trusting only in the Constitution to prevent them from imposing their will?

one thing about facts people don't want to admit: you can damn near chant them 24/7 and all youll accomplish is losing your voice (or numbing your fingers). your assertions are correct. i'd like to think your message will penetrate the 'headphones of partisan identity' with enough force to cause those who consider themselves conservatives to begin to wonder how and why they find themselves supporting this nonsense, but i'm not optimistic.

" i'd like to think your message will penetrate the 'headphones of partisan identity' with enough force to cause those who consider themselves conservatives to begin to wonder how and why they find themselves supporting this nonsense, but i'm not optimistic."

i'd like to think that you'd read my post above, and realize that MAYBE Democratic abuse of Federal power might have provoked Republicans to consider leaning more in that direction. Maybe, just maybe, fly-over America got tired of isolated pockets of Liberalism lording Federal mandates over them?

If you go back and look at the "great strides" made by Liberal activists in the mid-late 20th century, it proves just how reasonable it is to promote small government and rely on "states rights" to keep the minority from lording over the majority...

Thanks guys, for commenting.

Sometime in the late 1960's or early 1970's, I guess during the Nixon years, the Democratic party became the "Liberal" party and the Republican party became the "Conservative" party. Prior to this, you had Liberal Republicans and Conservative Republicans, Liberal Democrats and Conservative Democrats, etc. The political litmus test then was the Vietnam War , but has continued with a series of "single issues." The result of this is that we, as Americans, have less choices. Perhaps a secondary result has been the rise of third parties, although I won't really count them as a factor until a third-party candidate wins a major election.

Frankly I think some of the "waffling" on the part of Democratic candidates is due to their trying to embrace positions that they don't really believe in.

i'd like to think that you'd read my post above, and realize that MAYBE Democratic abuse of Federal power might have provoked Republicans to consider leaning more in that direction. Maybe, just maybe, fly-over America got tired of isolated pockets of Liberalism lording Federal mandates over them?

we musta posted at the same time. i hadnt seen yours when i posted mine.

abuse of federal power as in? establishing (or re-establishing) citizen's rights to equal representation, protection and access granted by the constitution but denied by the states?

in almost every other aspect, reagan conservatives seem to have been determined to revive the immediate post-war era rather than a rollback to pre-new deal status quo. if you compare budgets and executive initiatives, you'll be hard-pressed to make an argument that the democrats spent more or did more to empower the federal government than nixon, reagan or the current bush administration which has continually and very cynically done both.

The bulk of government spending always seems to go to the military, and Conservatives have generally favored a strong military. I'll grant you corporate subsidies and such do fly in the face of textbook Conservatism, but hey, that's politics. A Republican candidate running on the promise to deny Corporate America their gravy has about as much chance as a Democrat running on the promise of across-the-board tax hikes.

As for "establishing (or re-establishing) citizen's rights to equal representation, protection and access granted by the constitution but denied by the states? " you know better than that. We ran out of literally spelled-out rights a long time ago. Since, we've relied on "interpretation", and "the spirit of the Constitution" to determine whether things are "rights" or not. Democrats have been far, far more effective imposing those interpretations on states than Republicans have been preserving the rights of states to decide for themselves.

I agree that many Conservatives have a lot to be disgruntled about given the present tack. I don't think it is nearly as illogical as many make it out to be, though. Idealism on either end is always gonna be secondary in politics.

Ahh....a civilized discussion of politics! Am I dreaming?

shhh... yes, don't screw it up. The swimsuit models will be here soon...

Good post. Bush pandered to conservatives, but will never deliver on:

Gun control reform

Abortion reform

and of course,

Fiscal Conservativism.

Things mentioned during last year's election, but to no avail. Bush's centralizing of power above state level and preference of Federal power over state's rights (see: Marijuana Law in California as a superb example) shows just how much of a "conservative" he really is.

i wasnt sure if you were referring to the conflict between the federal government and states over the implementation of civil rights legislation (easily the most dramatic incursion on states' rights since reconstruction, yet one that seems to have been unavoidable considering the fact the states were not prepared to correct their own errors in denying citizens those rights to which i alluded).

the fiscal strategy isn't so much illogical as it is cynical. only the most reckless members of congress would be rash enough to openly propose dismantling social security knowing they couldn't garner enough votes to make the gamble worthwhile. spending the country into a place where it could no longer afford social security is a much more viable means to the same end. perhaps i'm seeing stuff that really isnt there. on the other hand, according to the law of averages i cant be wrong alla time

The swimsuit models will be here soon...

i hope marvin don't find out.

Good post. Bush pandered to conservatives, but will never deliver on: Gun control reform

Sorry misread your post.

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree.

Let me be clear: I agree with your starting point: that Bush is, in fact, a Liberal. Okay, I don't really agree with it, but as a conservative, I find a large number of his policies distrubingly liberal. To oversimplify, I voted for Bush because I believed that Kerry would be even more liberal than Bush--plus, he'd fuck up the war on terror (which is kind of a key issue for me).

Hrm. Is that any clearer? Let me try again:

I don't agree with your conclusion, for two different possible reasons. On the one hand, the vast majority of liberals disagree with you. They count this second Bush term as a loss for Liberals. If a Bush presidency really meant significant gains for Liberals, wouldn't they be smart enough (or at least wise enough) to see it? Assuming Liberals are smart (and wise), then I think we have to take them at their word. They said it themselves: Liberals lost the election.

On the other hand, what if a Bush presidency really is a win for Liberals? In that case, we have to assume that Liberals are too stupid (or foolish) to see it. And that makes them even bigger losers than if they'd just lost the election.

Either way, the fact that Liberals everywhere agree on the loss makes them losers.

Insightful post, Larry.

What's interesting is, both sides have stolen heavily from socialist principles (NCLB and the US Patriot Act for the Republicans, Federal entitlements for Democrats).