View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Bruce Walker |
March 9th, 2006
There is a reason why, outside of Vermont, no one campaigns as a liberal.
Should President Bush be working to shore up support with his conservative base, or will he be helped in polls more by moving to the middle? The Battleground Poll released on March 2, 2006 confirms what I have written about in a number of past articles. This intensive, bipartisan and very accurate poll covers a lot of questions that really do not matter. Then it asks, in Question D3, the one question that does matter: “When thinking about politics and government do you consider yourself…”
What follows are precisely six options: very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, very liberal and no answer (or refused to answer.) The Battleground Poll is only published about once every ten months or so. The results are intended to reflect a solid and consistent American opinion.
The answers to that question, again in the latest Battleground Poll, have shown what every single Battleground Poll has shown: the overwhelming majority of Americans are conservative. If the Republican nominee in 2008 got only the votes of American conservatives, if every single moderate and if every single fence sitter voted for the Democrat nominee, then the Republican would win fifty-nine percent of the popular vote, a landslide whose proportions have only been equaled three times since the Civil War.
If the Republican nominee received the votes of American conservatives and the moderates and no answer voters either broke evenly or stayed at home, then that nominee would receive about sixty-two percent of the popular vote, a landslide of historic proportions which would almost certainly include every state except, perhaps, Vermont.
Is this news? It should not be. My first article noting the overwhelmingly conservative self-identification of American voters was based upon the June 2002 Battleground Poll: exactly fifty-nine percent of Americans considered themselves very conservative or somewhat conservative, while only thirty-five percent of Americans considered themselves very liberal or somewhat liberal. The Battleground Poll of March 2006 showed exactly the same percentage of very conservative or somewhat conservative voters, while the number of very liberal or somewhat liberal voters was thirty-six percent.
The September 2003 Battleground Poll showed fifty-nine percent of Americans considered themselves very conservative or somewhat conservative, while thirty-five percent of Americans considered themselves very liberal or somewhat liberal. The April 2004 Battleground Poll showed that sixty percent of Americans considered themselves conservative or very conservative, while thirty-seven percent of Americans considered themselves somewhat liberal or very liberal. The September 2004 Battleground Poll showed sixty percent of Americans considered themselves very conservative or somewhat conservative, while thirty-four percent of Americans considered themselves very liberal or somewhat liberal.
Five months ago, in October 2005, sixty-one percent of Americans considered themselves very conservative or somewhat conservative, while thirty-five percent of Americans considered themselves somewhat liberal or very liberal. In the last four years, in five different Battleground Polls spread over a wide period of time, the number of Americans who consider themselves conservative has never been less than fifty-nine percent of the popular vote and the number of Americans who consider themselves liberal has never been more than thirty-seven percent. The gap between conservatives and liberals, in percentage points, in the last seven Battleground Polls has been, starting from April 2002: 23%, 22%, 24%, 23%, 26%, 26% and 23%. The ideological division of America has remained remarkably stable, with the current 23% being the most common difference.
Even if we cherry pick, and have liberals at their high-water mark and conservatives at their low-water mark in these seven polls, in head to head competition (excluding or splitting the moderates or no answer voters) the conservative candidate receives sixty-one percent of the popular vote, or more than Ronald Reagan received in 1984.
And even this does not factor in the fact that conservative voters tend to be more likely to vote than liberal or apathetic voters. It does not factor in that when these percentages are translated into numbers of states (and potential Senate seats) that about eighty percent of the Senate would be conservative.
All of this is great news. It has been great news for the last four years. All we need to do is transform that underlying reality of American politics into an unstoppable force in electoral politics. There is a reason why, outside of Vermont, no one campaigns as a liberal. There is a reason why we have every incentive to make the ideological lines in elections as bright as possible, and take the strategy of Ronald Reagan in the Cold War: “How about this? We win. They lose.”
bwalker2004@cox.net
Visit their website at: http://www.amazon.com/Sinisterism-Secular-Religion-Revised-Updated/dp/1432705466
Responses to "The Battleground Poll and the Key to Victory"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
We really don't need more conservatives, we need more conservatives who will not wither at the slightest hint of criticism. We need more conservatives who are willing to stand up for their principles no matter the political cost. We need conservatives who can succinctly state conservative beliefs and cut through the demogoguing and vapid anti-intellectualism of the political left.
We need conservatives who are willing to make the changes necessary to dismantle the welfare state and return it to the wonderful natural forces that govern capitalism. We need conservatives who are willing to stand up for their faith and stem the flow of immorality masquerading as liberty and privacy.
The present crop of Republicans by and large are indistinguishable from their leftist colleagues. Time to hold their feet the fire, or vote them out.
Comment by Rich Sherlock | March 9, 2006
gee - that map looks pretty red. i wonder what a map based on population would look like? you see, in that those little seemingly miniscule blue splotches represent around 50% of the population, it kind of makes the whole map meaningless, unless you want to study how misrepresentation of information + ideologically bent readers + ignorance of geographical projections = a lie.
i remember when i was a little tyke looking at a map of greenland and thinking "wow - those guys must be awesome - look how big they are!" but then later, when i learned a few facts about the world and map projection/population density, i realized it did not necc. mean we had to start worrying about invasion from greenland. i think i was about 10 or so.
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 9, 2006
The author makes a good case for renaming the "Republican Party" to the "Conservative Party."
Comment by G of Sedona | March 9, 2006
ibbleblibble ,
That's why the electoral college is so important. If we relied on the popular vote, anyone running for President would only have to pick up half a dozen major urban areas to win the election. I know you feel different, but I thank God that the course of our country isn't being dictated by New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, San Franciso, and Boston.
Comment by Mike McGill | March 9, 2006
Interesting point. These people questioned regard themselves as conservatives, based on their knowledge of conservatism and liberalism. However, things are rarely so black and white. For example, many of them may disapprove of homosexuality. Yet, many would know a homosexual friend or relative, and tolerate it. Many would consider themselves deeply religious - yet again, however, many would not. There are many liberal Democrats who also share many conservative viewpoints. It does not necessarily mean all these people will vote Republican (or all the liberals Democrat).
Comment by alex | March 9, 2006
alex - good point… i'm not a big fan of abortion-as-the-nukulear-option birth control…think its a sign of civilizational decadence…also a firm believer that "democratization" of education (considering it to be a "right" to be expected rather than a privilidge to be earned/duty for citizens of a representative system) ultimately cheapens education and has led to slothful dumbing down rather than uplifting enabling of greater potential. that said, how could a supposed conservative president even hyporitically sponsor such a hollow initiative as "no child left behind"…jeez - talk about liberal sophistry and simpering educababble from that useless excuse of an obstructionist "union", the nea…
Comment by ibbleblibble | March 9, 2006
Ideas and beliefs need to be sold, or explained, in the same manner we sell, or explain to a potential
consumer, the benefits of Colgate Vs. Crest. That does not cheapen the poltical process or the
process of engaging in the battle of ideas, but rather points out that we (conservatives) must be
doing a pretty poor job of explaining our positions around election time if we narrowly won the last
2 Presidential Elections and hold a very small majority in both popularly elected Houses. We have
Rush & Co., sites like this, an occasional segment on Fox that presents us in a semi-flaterring light,
but there must be a new voice or venue that can convert the %'s in Bruce's article into solid majorities
in future elctions.
Bruce—what is needed in your opinion?
Comment by Stephen Graham | March 9, 2006
Mr. Graham,
Our(conservatives) future lies in blogs that have something to say, comparable to this one. This will absolutely be the venue of the 21st century. Take a look at the plummeting subscription rate of the major newspapers. That says it all.
Comment by rainwolf | March 9, 2006
To reiterate my previous post, the link shows that at least some are indulging in the blog…
http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_03_05.PHP#005340
Comment by rainwolf | March 9, 2006
I am delighted to read how most of the posts here believe the focus of our elections needs to be voting in conservatives. With the title of the article I feared this was going to be a liberal bash post. I strongly believe the reason the GOP has not recieved votes that parallel this poll, is that most of the Republican choices are not conservatives. We must present who we are and what we represent, we must never become the party of what we are not, (an actual strategy being played out by Dems currently because of a non-agenda for the last decade) and always try to strive to what we may become. In my mind Bush has not representated Conservatives well at all, if he did he would have a approval rating that reflects the number of conservatives in this country. If I was polled I would give him low marks, and I am as Conservative as a person can be. His failure domestically has resulted in this lowmark in his administration. His two successes are fighting terrorism, and his re-haul of the Supreme Court. Back to my point, Conservatives will be very difficult to beat when they run as such. Both sides seem almost embarrassed to show voters what they truly think, conservatives need to end this hide an seek game of beliefs and show the American people the difference.
Comment by Honker | March 10, 2006
Sir:
I wonder about how acurate self identification is. For example, I have a very good friend that considers himself a moderate. I asked him to name a moderate that had achieved greatness; his answer was LBJ. He states that there is no sanctity of life, and abortion is a good thing. He just got back from a visit to Cuba, and thinks that inspite of the widespread lack of wealth, it is good because everyone is relatively equally deprived.
He is an honest person, and trully thinks he is moderate. If there are many like him, then self identification has systematic flaws.
Comment by Tom Dykers | March 10, 2006
Tom:
I agree and was thinking the same thing. (Disclosure point coming) I consider myself a liberal. I have friends who claim to be be moderates, but when you boil down the issues, I think most would agree they are actually liberals. If you looking at polls on specific issues (choice, minimum wage laws, health care, etc.), they paint things a bit more to the left than the self-identification study does (admittedly, some of these polls may suffer from other potential flaws).
I wonder if the demonization of the term "liberal" has anything to do with the percentages.
Comment by HMan23 | March 10, 2006
HMan23,
Good morning, HMan.
I took one of those self-identification studies once. I fell in to the right of Ronald Reagan, but just left of Ghengis Khan.
Comment by Mike McGill | March 10, 2006
Just so I get this straight Hman23 and Tom, the reason this polled is flawed is because true liberals do not know what a liberal is? I can accept that. Generically speaking most liberals are so because of emotions, not policies. Given this trend, its hard to identify with an emotion consistently. A poll question like the one given doesnt rile up the question of "Am I good person?"" or "Am I a bad person?". Both sides phrase "issue" questions like this, but given a straight-foward question like the one polled the truth comes out. If there is any doubt please see election results since 1980. Clinton is the Libs shining star, but he only won because a neo-conservative like Perot allowed it. The 43 percent of the vote he recieved isn't much different than the poll results here.
I can't accept the "demonization of the word" excuse however; because if defining a liberal is demonizing, than the problem lies with the liberal in the first place.
Comment by Honker | March 10, 2006
Honker, I am not surprised you cannot accept the demonization of the word "liberal" - becasue conservatives have been trying to twist the mere mention of it in a negative light for years. From your response I take it you have never heard a Republican campaign speech or watched the news too much in the last 25 years.
Before relying too heavily on the "liberals are ruled by emotion" nonsense, I suggest you go look up some polls regarding how Americans feel about some ACTUAL policies like the right to choose, gun control, civil rights, minimum wage, and even the idea of universal health care if it means taxes. The results do not square too well with The Battleground Poll self-identification results, now do they?
Gee, all this time I thought liberals who were the arrogant ones throwing their "superior intellect" around.
I look forward to discussing the "policies" with you on this board and dispelling your preconceptions.
See you around.
Comment by HMan23 | March 10, 2006
Honker,
I take exception to the phrase, " a neo-conservative like Perot allowed it."
Perot was a nutcase, not a neo-con.
Bush is a Neocon. Neocons are NOT conservatives.
Except for social issues, Bush is not a conservative at all. He is a cronyistic Neocon radical.
When a real conservative runs, I will consider voting for him. Til then I will keep an eye on the third parties.
Comment by Malcontent | March 10, 2006
HMan 23, people who consider themselves conservatives in the broader sense of the word won't have the "conservative" veiwpoint on everysingle issue. For example, someone could be a classical conservative wanting limited government, fiscal restraint, abortion, etc. and still be in favor of gay marriage. No group of people who are generally like minded will agree across the board. So logically we would expect the percentage of people who consider themselves conservative to be higher than the percentage of people who take the conservative position on a given issue. Also, conservative demonize the word "liberal," but no more than liberals demonize conservatives with the way they say "neo-con" and their use of words like "hate-monger," "intolerant," "bigot," etc. They just don't demonize a single word as much because they use a greater variety of inflammatory language against us. And they become enraged about our demonization of a word as mundane as "liberal." For all the demonizing liberals do, people still win elections running as conservatives, while, as the article stated, people don't try to run as liberals with much success. (See John Kerry desperately trying to avoid the label last election as a case in point.) So I feel that a more realistic assertion is that the populace has drawn its own conclusions about the policies associated with the word "liberals" and has taken a dis-liking to them. The conservative demonization of the word liberal is then simply a response to capitalize on the views of the public. I'm amused by the supposition that people call themselves conservatives when they really aren't and that this is why the numbers fall where they do. Hate to break it to you, but I have also have talked to people who think they're one way when they're the other, and these folks thought they were liberal when their views on the issues were actually conservative. So this thing flows both ways, probably not to a significant advantage of either side. The theory is also enlightening in that it provides an insight into the way liberals think. Follow me on this…. people are misinformed, don't know the issues, think they're conservatrive when they are liberal, etc…..dangerous to have these uninformed people govern themselves…….we need big government. You see, I think this insulting theory directly enforces the liberal idea that people don't know what is best for themselves and need the government to solve their problems.
Comment by Shane Atwood | March 11, 2006
I meant to say a classical conservative on the issue of abortion, not a classical conservative wanting abortion. Sorry fellas
Comment by Shane Atwood | March 11, 2006
Hman, I believe your association with conservatives twisting the word liberal is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the 60's and 70's liberal meant what? What does it mean now? I will accept that conservatives find dismay and all that is wrong with the causes of liberals, but to turn the term itself to a politically liability needed those self-proclaimed liberals to fail. That is the only real change in the way America views the politics of a "liberal." Conservatives DO remind people about the policies of famous liberals (LBJ mind ) and re-inforce what a liberal stance means for the individuals who vote. If this method of laying out your oppenets policies and labeling them as liberal is demonizing, whose fault is that? Putting forth true liberal policies and discussing them would be political sabotage for Dems, not because conservatives would criticize the policies, but because most of America would criticize.
Comment by Honker | March 13, 2006
We could argue all day about who is to "blame" for the demonization of the term. In the end, it is probably a little of both. Conservatives have been successful in tactics and some liberals have run away from the word. However, I still think this goes a long way to explain the problems with these self-identification surveys. Especially when you consider the larger support many liberal policies have than the pure labels would indicate. Here is list of some liberal policy achievements: the minimum wage, 40 hour work week, labor safety laws, consumer protection laws and the CPSC, the GI Bill, Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, FDIC, Securities Acts of 1933, rural electric power, the Fair Housing Act, the 19th Amendment, federal student loan programs, Medicare/Medicaid, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, the EPA and other environmental protection laws, reproductive freedom, laws aimed to protect privacy rights, OSHA, and Head Start.
Conservatives may nibble at the margins, but they have been largely unsuccessful in changing the liberal character of this country. Name any significant conservative legislative achievement during the Bush administration or in the last 25 years for that matter. Even though liberals were only in control of the government for brief periods of the 20th Century, they still won. By nature of these liberal victories, conservatives today are operating in a liberal world whether they admit it or not. All they can do is try and halt the flow, they cannot reverse it. Liberals and progressives will continue to get their victories, and as history shows, one they do those policies are here to stay.
Comment by HMan23 | March 13, 2006
I agree with you analysis virtually point by point. The difference is I believe conservatives can and will reverse many liberal policies. Bush has done few things well for conservatives in his presidency, but one thing he has done is stack the Supreme Court. The four youngest members of the court are also its most conservative (I believe, may need fact check here). Abortion is going to be restricted if not banned in the next 3 years in a number of states. Is this not a reversal in in policy? I believe the income tax laws will be heavily scrutunized, made legal by the Supreme Court interpretation of the Commerce Clause, may be outlawed by the same instrument. The liberal/socialist domestic fiscal policy will evaporate if and when a flat tax/usage tax takes the place of our current system. This may be a dream for conservatives, but in no time in last 50 years have we had a vehicle (Supreme Court) which would allow such goals to be achieved. Kelo is a case (Eminent Domain) that 80 percent of the country is against, and only extreme left or socialist believe is acceptable, but the Supreme Court was OK with it. I hate the fact that 5 like-minded people can decide this issue for millions of people, but it is the only way liberals allowed policies to become law, and appears to be the only way conservatives can once again get them banned. Abortion would never have passed legislatively, so rights were created. Rights which will be revoked.
If you (Hman) believe that conservatives will be satisfied with simply slowing liberalism, you are sadly mistaken. All the fears that MoveOn tells its members are, to a point, true. Conservatives have slowly been taking this country over from its liberal counter parts over the last 25 years. I couldn't be happier. Those reversals you believe are impossible are but an eyelash away. I am somewhat amused by your "success list, not because many of them were bi-partisan ( especially the Civil- Rights Act, where was Gore Sr.and Byrd on that), or OSHA, passed in 1971 under Nixon who signed it into law, but because you believe they were all successes. It stands to reason that conservatives would not have pro- active legislation to brag about. The primary position of a conservative is small government. Conservatives believe that when government takes control, government will eventually fail. The only thing conservatives truly want from government is protection from its enemies foreign and domestic. No legislation,unless to limit government or protect its citizens, is a success for conservatives. I guarantee the Patriot Act is an overwhelming difficult issue for conservatives to support. Conservatives fear not what the law is being used for today ( protecting us from enemies), but what it may be used for in the future. I believe this is the true reason its passage wasn't permanent two weeks ago. An interesting direction of this country will take place when the current Wal-Mart mandatory insurance provison cases hit the supreme court. We will once again be able to moitor the direction of this country. I believe the court will rule for Wal-mart, what do you think? I am not going to argue the case here, but the victories of conservatives will be counted on what doesn't become law in most cases.
Comment by Honker | March 13, 2006
Hman23,
It is only natural to cast one's opponent in the most unfavorable light possible. Leftists have been very successful with the help of the antique media) to cast conservatives as haters, bigots, homophobes, and subjugators of women.
But why do liberals run from the word, preferring instead to describe themselves as "progressives" or"mainstream?" Clearly if it weren't for conservatives, liberals would still be able to hide behind their pretence of caring and compassion without challenge. Let's get all the cards on the table, baby.
You suggest that liberals have been in power only a short time and have great achievements despite that. Aside from the fact that Democrats had controlled congress for decades prior to the Republican revolution of 1994 (thanks in no small part to hero Clinton), let's not forget about the Supreme court, which has bowed the knee at liberal policies for decades. That is why the fight is so bitter when it comes to confirmation of new justices.
Your list of liberal achievements reads by and large as the "Big Government Hall of Shame." None of the spending programs have succeeded in eradicating any of the problems they were created for. Regarding the 19th amendment, it amended no existing provision of the Constitution. The practices of society and the courst up until that time were executed counter to the Constitution. The 19th amendment was unnecessary.
The liberal legacy has yet to manifest a single success.
Comment by Rich S | March 13, 2006
Rich S.:
Liberals have not had to cast conservatives as anything - they showed their colors by opposing most if not all of the achievements I listed. I'll also add that current self-identification polls looked pretty much the same as they did in the liberal heydays of the 1960's.
I have a poll - go ask Americans if they agree that those achievements are in the "Hall of Shame," as you put it. If they are so plainly awful, go try run a candidate who pledges to reverse those measures or eliminate those programs and see how he/she does. On that note, the conservative hero Reagan did not eliminate one single federal program or agency in eight years, did he? These are not "failed" policies, but are firmly entrenched and accepted by the public. The country is not shifting to the right, the right has been forced by liberals and their successes to play ball on the left's side of the field. Just look at where the debate is on prescription drug benefits, welfare reform, Social Security, and the like – conservatives are only left with nibbling at the edges.
I give a laundry list of liberal achievements and you claim liberalism is a failure because it hasn't "eradicated" all of society's ills. Wow - that is quite a benchmark. I guess you are right, the world is not perfect yet, but those measures sure go a long way to helping. Since you set the criteria, name a problem that conservativism has somehow eradicated. Good luck - I see you did not even bother to take me up on my challenge to name one conservative legislative achievement that helped average Americans in the last 25 years.
And finally, the Supreme Court provides a great example of how entrenched liberalism is. Look at some of the recent opinions from the Republican-dominated court - upholding privacy rights for homosexuals and affirmative action. See, you guys are just playing games on our side of the field. The greatest example will come after the court rejects South Dakota's challenge to Roe v. Wade.
The fact is, even if conservatives win elections in the short term, they will still lose in the long run, because they have no hope to reverse the liberal victories in the past and will not stop the ones yet to come.
Comment by HMan23 | March 13, 2006
C'mon where are all you conservatives?
Not one significant legislative achievement in the last 25 years?
Comment by HMan23 | March 14, 2006
HMan23,
It's a false test based on a leftist world view. I don't accept your premise that there even ought to legislative achievements, let alone conservative ones. There has been no governance according to conservative principles in the last 50 years, anyway. There is a large difference between Republican governance and conservative governance.
One little exception is Newt Gingrich's Contract With America. He was able to push through several conservative items, but they didn't stick. Liberalism is entrenched like a cancer in healthy cells, and the limited good that Newt was able to accomplish was soon overcome. Greedy legislators intoxicated with the power to spend other peoples' money and somehow call that compassion, soon did away with it.
I did not write that liberalism had to solve all of society's ills. I used the word "any." Liberalism has failed to solve any problem of society. Good intentions are not enough, sir, results matter. You have no results. Granted, you will be able to point out to me that some welfare recipient somewhere was able to survive on the meager government handout and now is a successful business person, or something like that. But I could use the same criteria for someone who won the lottery. A bunch of people put in a ton of money and there are a few success stories. But a triumph of liberalism? C'mon.
Liberalism is based on a single principle, that life isn't fair and it's government's job to fix it. Take from the haves, by force if necessary, and give it to those who did not earn it. Talk about a recipe for failure! And that is the legacy of liberalism, failure.
Your challenge to conservatives rings hollow. America hasn't been governed by conservative principles in my lifetime. But Liberalism has had its chance, and deserves only to be relegated to the trash heap of failed ideas.
Comment by Rich S | March 14, 2006
Rich S:
Rather than diverting into an all-out debate on liberal v. conservative philosophy, which you seem to want to do, I want to bring this back to the subject of this article - the self-identification polls. I think much of what you say reinforces my initial point - these self-identification polls are meaningless and do not paint an accurate portrait of American's political views.
You said there has been "no governance according to conservative principles in the last 50 years." You reinforce my point - some conservatives incorrectly deceive themselves into thinking conservatives are winning the battle. But, you admit our government is operating under liberal principles, and has been doing so even under our current Republican Congress (you compare liberalism to cancer, but admit it is indeed entrenched in our society - exactly what I was saying). Now if you look at polls like the Battleground Poll, self-identified conservatives outnumber liberals almost 2 to 1. If you go back through recent history to as far back as the 1960's, you basically will see the same figures. With such a seemingly large advantage for conservatives, how was it possible to get to the point where liberalism was entrenched? A group of Democratic legislators were somehow able to hijack our government to impose a minority philosophy rejected at home by an overwhelmingly conservative public? And, even though conservatives are twice as numerous as liberals, they somehow have been unable to change this course, even with a Republican-dominated Congress and president (and a majority of Supreme Court justices selected by Republicans)?
So, in my mind, there are two possible conclusions:
1. Polls like the Battleground Poll are accurate, but conservatives somehow have been unable to run government according to their philosophy even though almost double the number of Americans identify themselves with those views rather than liberal philosophy).
2. Polls like the Battleground Poll are inaccurate. Americans are more liberal than the study reflects.
Comment by HMan23 | March 14, 2006
I should have added that I favor conclusion #2, but you may have guessed that.
Comment by HMan23 | March 14, 2006
I have never been fond of polls. They are the lazy journalists' news generation mechanism.
People often vote contrary to their values. Blacks are by and large conservative in the way they lead their lives, but they vote overwhelmingly democrat. Blacks continually return the same people to office that have largely destroyed the black family unit with feel-good welfare programs. Here's a statistic: In the 1950s, before affirmative action, before civil rights, 70% of blacks came from two parent families. Today, after all the wonderful things that democrats have done for blacks, that figure now stands at 20%.
I'd like to propose a third alternative: Americans are indeed conservative in the way they lead their lives, the way they view the world, and the way they view government as a whole. The problem is that the our elected representatives govern contrary to the way most Americans would want them to. These representatives get sucked into the machine (which has been constructed by previous generations of liberals) and cannot make the needed changes, or become part of the D.C. culture.
Most liberalism has been imposed on society undemocratically. For example, what was your vote when abortion was on the ballot in 1973? Well, it wasn't on the ballot, was it? Or how about welfare? The American people didn't vote for that either, did they? Or how about the thousands of other wealth redistibution plans in place. No vote there, either.
The problem isn't America, or Americans. Never has been. The problem is and always will be that government has too much power, because it has access to too much money via taxes.
By the way, it was you who issued the challenge, and I answered. You did not respond to my points, but simply diverted back to the "original intent" of the thread. Oh, if only the Constitution was held in similar high regard by the Left!
Comment by Rich S | March 14, 2006
Rich S.
I've got to cut out, but I enjoyed our dialogue (and the comments from some of the other posters).
I like this site and appreciate the debate when I can get it - I wish there was a bit more - is this a new site?
All this talk about conservative philosophy is enlightening (seriously). And it is refreshing to visit a site where all the conservatives are not GW Bush robots.
Comment by HMan23 | March 14, 2006