Comments on: America The Liberal?

The New Republic: Obama's Victory Marks A Radical Realignment In American Politics. But What About An Enduring Dem. Majority?

[ausus-2009]

I am not sure if this article was poorly researched or just selective in its facts. It ignores the Republican lurch to the right that spelled disaster in 1964. This was followed by a move to the middle that helped to win the 1968 election.

The same happened with the 1972 lurch to the left by the Democratic Party that died out so that Jimmy Carter could win in 1976.

To say that Carter faced a strong Republican opposition also flies in the face of facts. The Democrats enjoyed a majority in Congress that had existed since the early 1950s. The Republicans were also demoralized after Nixon. Yet Carter still failed.

If Obama takes America too far from the center, he too will fail.

Of course there are other factors pressuring a move to the left that were mentioned by the author such as the huge influx of Democrat voting Latinos who are used to a more socialistic society.

Highly educated and successful people are an enigma. They tend to be not as loyal to one point of view as other groups. They could just as easily turn against Obama and his ideas.

[kansas1946]

Personally, I''''m looking for balance.

The US pendulum appears to always swing too far in one direction or the other.

Rabid anything, be it Conservatism or Liberalism or some other ism, serves no purpose except to alienate large portions of the populace at any given time.

Last I checked, we''''re all Americans and we all deserve to be heard and to be equitably served by our government.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by NativeWoman at 09:11 PM : Nov 05, 2008
+ report abuse
**********************************

Amen! That is exactly right. You want the largest percentage of American''s possible to feel that their beliefs are valued. And the only way you can do that is speak to the large middle, middle left, and middle right. Those folks that are out on the fringes either way are there by choice and their only purpose is to balance the big equation.

[smurfcrusher]

Liberal is a GOOD thing. Look it up!

[nativewoman]

Personally, I''m looking for balance.

The US pendulum appears to always swing too far in one direction or the other.

Rabid anything, be it Conservatism or Liberalism or some other ism, serves no purpose except to alienate large portions of the populace at any given time.

Last I checked, we''re all Americans and we all deserve to be heard and to be equitably served by our government.

[samthetvcat]

Two other groups that this article touches upon as evidence of a philosophical shift are the youth voters and those with college degrees.

I think if the next GOP candidate were to be somebody younger and maybe more say ''academic'' for lack of a better word, would it still be the case that these groups would necessarily be drawn to the leftist ideology per se, or was the draw a correlate of the candidates?

Like say Bobby Jindal becomes the GOP nominee to take on Barack in 2012, is there a particular reason the youth vote and suburban vote would still go in the same numbers for the Democrats for philosophical reasons?

I don''t know . . .

[samthetvcat]

---"And I believe people want balance too; not just a massive swing to the left. Just a balance."---
Posted by Hypnotoad72

Yeah, I think that''s probably more accurate . . .

Ultimately, I think people only care about philosophy to the extent that it achieves results. Like embedded in every election there''s also the element of merit . . .

[hypnotoad72]

And I believe people want balance too; not just a massive swing to the left. Just a balance.

[hypnotoad72]

Well, if offshoring jobs deprives hard working and educated Americans of opportunities cannot be called "redistribution of wealth", what can?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj-vIOMtVY0

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=6&threadID=179848&start=0

[samthetvcat]

---"it could become over the next four years "America the liberal." That''s what makes this election fundamentally different from 1976 or 1992."---

Essentially is the hypothesis that the desire for change wasn''t just a repudiation of Bush and GOP majorities for most of the last 8 years, it''s a repudiation of the entire philosophy of Conservatism, both social and economic?

If latinos routinely vote Democratic, and they''ve increased in population in specific States then perhaps that would be one strong indication that the shift might be permanent and might very well mean that States like New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona are now blue (only having gone red because McCain was on the ticket).

But how much does that depend on the economy being bad? Weren''t latinos as late as 2004 still voting for Bush? Is it because of the faith issues?

And for all the social conservatives who voted on economic concerns this time around, can it be said that Bush and the GOP have really acted like economic conservatives?

Finally, if people didn''t see Palin as qualified to take over office in the event that something happened to 72 year old McCain, then can it still be said that people were voting against the platform?

I don''t know that there''s sufficient evidence to conclude that a desire for liberalism to restore balance is necessarily a desire that will endure past the point of recalibration (?)

[centerfall93]

Rush Limbaugh.

Failed.

LOL!