Check out this article from a couple of Brits who write for the economist. They think the GOP and conservative future in the U.S. is very bright.
Here's an excerpt:
It is true that, since those glory days, the Republican Party has lost some of its discipline. Once-loyal members of Congress have defied a threat of a presidential veto on both highway spending and stem-cell research. It is also true that the liberal wing of the party is enjoying an Indian Summer. Opinion polls suggest that John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are the two favorites for the Republican nomination in 2008.
But is this loss of steam really all that remarkable? All second-term presidents face restlessness in the ranks. And the noise is arguably a sign of strength. The Democrats would give a lot to have a big-tent party as capacious as the Republicans'. One of the reasons the GOP manages to contain Southern theocrats as well as Western libertarians is that it encourages arguments rather than suppressing them. Go to a meeting of young conservatives in Washington and the atmosphere crackles with ideas, much as it did in London in the heyday of the Thatcher revolution. The Democrats barely know what a debate is.
4 comments:
I think I have to both agree and disagree. The Republican party is definitely a "big tent" in some respects. It is an alliance of -isms unified by their interest in "free market" capitalism. They're willing to foster debate so long as it doesn't splinter the coalition or veer from their economic goals.
Neocons and theocons are natural allies, despite their different emphases. Libertarians tend to be selfish anarchists and dillholes, so the mentality of the Republican party suits them well, as does its economic agenda.
They've had forty years of thinking and debates. That time is over, for the most part.
If libertarians are dillholes, then liberals are wacktards.
So there.
" If libertarians are dillholes, then liberals are wacktards."
You get mad points for a term like wacktards, even if it isn't yours.
Tlaloc: He said "selfish anarchists", not "anarchists".
Post a Comment