From Scott Sumner

by on November 7, 2012 at 6:09 am in Current Affairs, Uncategorized | Permalink

In this election Romney destroyed Obama in West Virginia, winning by around 27 points, his biggest margin east of the Mississippi.  A swing of 42 points from the 1996 election.  And Romney didn’t just win West Virginia, he swept the entire Appalachian region.  Meanwhile Obama won Virginia for the second time in a row.

West Virginia symbolizes the future of the GOP, while Virginia symbolizes the future of the Democratic Party.  Which party has a brighter future?

PS.  Thank God for the voters of Colorado.  For the first time in American history a state voted to legalize marijuana, and not just “for medicinal purposes.”  Maybe I should retire there, instead of California.

The link is here.  Scott and I are both market liberals, and we both basically know that the GOP needs to start all over again.  That process could start with a recognition of demographics.  I don’t however expect our point of view to have any more influence in the short run.  Someone should elevate Reihan Salaam to something or other, as soon as possible.

GMOs won handily in California, a victory for science and common sense.  In how many races last night did “demonization” win?  Bad night for the demons, or good night perhaps, depending on your point of view.  Like Gideon Rachmann, I still think Romney would have been fine as a President, but the broader array of interest groups, to support the real Romney, comes from another time and place.  In any case America still has the most enviable set of problems in the world and let’s build on that.  Now that the election is over, maybe the quality of discourse in the blogosphere will rise a bit too.

I am looking forward to the year to come, and as always thank you all for reading.

Hugh November 7, 2012 at 7:51 am

“Scott and I are both market liberals, and we both basically know that the GOP needs to start all over again”

What would the start over look like? The Dems seem to have done very well without the market – should the GOP follow suit?

Todd November 7, 2012 at 8:42 am

I think that Rand Paul and Paul Ryan would be a decent start in the right direction. If the future Republican party has them as the right-wing nutjobs while libertarians occupy the new GOP center, I think that party will be fine.

guest November 7, 2012 at 12:03 pm

While I agree with what you say as libertarians being the new GOP center, I think you’ll find there are many more striations of libertarian than you suggest.

I think Reps will have to put a lot of work into figuring out what an electable libertarian is, exactly.

gabe November 7, 2012 at 1:03 pm

I wouldn’t vote for either of those two guys. Sorry GOP they both seem like neo-cons to me.

If I’m going to vote for a republican he’d have to have proven he will not cave to neo-cons at the first opportunity.

DocMerlin November 7, 2012 at 2:44 pm

The guy trying to end foreign aid and cut military funding (Rand Paul) is a neo-con?
LOL.
You are sooo out of touch.

john personna November 8, 2012 at 5:06 pm

That would be kind of a home run, wouldn’t it? I think too many people on too many points of the political compass are winding up to swing for the fences. When what we need is some teamwork, and some base hits.

gabe November 7, 2012 at 10:35 am

Very happy to see the GOP lose after ignoring and ridiculing free market principles and peaceful foreign policies.

How is that drug war support going for you GOP?

Stephen November 7, 2012 at 10:36 am

Dems aren’t drug warriors? Obama isn’t?

Gabe November 7, 2012 at 11:51 am

Of course they are drug warriors too. Do you understand how people are manipulated by dialectics? I dislike both parties and I don’t assume the two parties are representatives of opposing views. I assume they are used to controlt he masses…just like religons are.

Ryan November 7, 2012 at 10:38 am

Is it just me, or is Tyler referring to the “political market” here. In the sense that the changes that the GOP incur, should be driven by the political market; hence his follow-up comment on demographics. It may be just me as many commentators below interpret him as referring to the economic market.

Slocum November 7, 2012 at 7:55 am

The Colorado result is wonderful — if it really is the beginning of the end of the drug war, it’ll the best thing that happened last night. But given what the Feds have been doing to medical marijuana dispensary operators, I can’t believe they’re going to leave marijuana sellers in Colorado alone. My guess is that what’s going to happen is that it become effectively legal to possess and use pot in Colorado, but smokers will probably have to keep buying it from black-market dealers (because the risks of federal prosecution from openly operating a shop will be too high).

charlie November 7, 2012 at 10:58 am

Grow your own.

Claudia November 7, 2012 at 8:04 am

“I am looking forward to the year to come, and as always thank you all for reading.”

Were you running for something? Or do you just like giving concession speeches? Good post.

Ranjit Suresh November 7, 2012 at 8:15 am

Are Mexicans and single women going to vote for market liberals after this election? Nah.

They’re going to vote for amnesty, endless unemployment, and free birth control every single time.

Indian person November 7, 2012 at 12:12 pm

Look, if you’re going to be utterly contemptible, would you mind doing it while not posting under an Indian name? You’re bringing me down.

msgkings November 7, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Outstanding comment.

Matt November 7, 2012 at 12:45 pm

Are you saying that they will not vote for amnesty, unemployment benefits, and birth control “access”? Because pretty much all democrats think they will. Is it contemptible then?

Willitts November 7, 2012 at 1:53 pm

Mexicans DO vote for amnesty.

Women DO vote for zero marginal cost birth control.

Both groups DO vote for higher minimum wages and a plethora of job killing policies. Women and minorities routinely vote for policies that are pro THEM at the expense of everyone else. I don’t see Caucasians or men or Christians voting as a monolith for any particular cause that benefits them personally.

What part of THE TRUTH do you find contemptible?

As for his name, if he is Indian he may use it if he wishes. Since you seem beholden to political correctness over truth, it is you who bring Indians down.

If that’s not his real name and he’s not Indian, just remember that this is the internet and you can be anything you want to be.

Indian person November 7, 2012 at 2:42 pm

@Matt,
Do democrats think that? I’m a democrat, and I try not to generalize about people. I also know a lot of democrats, and I don’t think I know a single one who would agree with your statement.

I’m sitting next to a single woman now, and she voted Republican, despite dems’ attempts to buy her off with free birth control. Some of the hardest-working people I know are Hispanic (…though not all are ‘Mexican’, so maybe I’m wrong…), and would take serious umbrage at a suggestion that they would need unemployment benefits, let alone amnesty. I think they sympathize with being a not-white person in this country, and so are liberal, but their vote wasn’t bought. They used their brains to think through the issues.

I’ll stick by ‘contemptible’. I would say that a suggestion that all the people who fit Rajit’s very general buckets voted based on a handful of marginal issues, as a group, is not only very incorrect, it carries with it an insulting connotation that they can’t think through the gestalt as well as you and Rajit *clearly* can.

@Willitts,
Generalize much? Do you also think that all white people agree that you can only become pregnant from rape if you wanted to be raped? Oh, no, clearly you don’t. Only Mexicans and Women can be the subject of generalizations. Here are a few fun little charts if you actually wanted to get knowledgeable before you spoke. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls

By the by, I don’t find THE TRUTH contemptible. I find BASELESS INSULTING OVERGENERALIZATIONS contemptible. I don’t use

Your last two sentences barely made sense, but because I’m feeling strangely generous today, I’ll try to reply in-line.
“As for his name, if he is Indian he may use it if he wishes. Since you seem beholden to political correctness over truth, it is you who bring Indians down.” No, the truth is I’m afraid of people without nuance (you, in case that wasn’t clear) thinking all Indian people are contemptible.

“If that’s not his real name and he’s not Indian, just remember that this is the internet and you can be anything you want to be.” Yes, good point. Did you *just* hear that comment about anyone on the internet potentially being a dog? Because it was clever like 10 years ago.

Matt November 7, 2012 at 5:47 pm

I don’t really know what anyone in any group votes for. I’m inclined to think most people vote based on political advertising, basically the equivalent of the beer commercial with exciting music and hot babes.

But aside from that, the Democrats as an entity obviously think that “access” to birth control is a “women’s issue”. They made a big deal of it back during the whole “War on Women” silliness. And “access” to birth control almost always means that the cost is subsidized in some manner. Sandra Fluke wasn’t complaining that she was not allowed to buy birth control, she was complaining that no one was buying it for her.

Similarly, “immigration reform” is always put forward as an issue, arguably the issue, important to Hispanics, and is almost always comprised of some sort of amnesty. It’s taken for granted, in fact, that Hispanics will not vote for anyone who opposes some kind of amnesty. I don’t know if Hispanics really care about amnesty, but it’s clear that the democrats think they do.

Unemployment benefits are less tied to a specific group, but democrats consider them part of a “safety net” that the unemployed or those that fear being unemployed are interested in maintaining or even expanding. Presumably they might even cast a vote based on the issue.

I don’t know why it should be “contemptible” to notice this, although I guess that the denunciation is more because Ranjit Suresh obviously doesn’t approve of such preferences whereas the democrats do.

Peter Schaeffer November 8, 2012 at 1:02 am

Matt,

The polling data shows that ordinary Hispanics are not obsessed with Amnesty. However, Hispanic leaders (and Democrats in general) are obsessed with Amnesty. Why not? Amnesty means a vast increase in political power, identity politics and welfare dependency.

From a Hispanic politico (or general Democratic) standpoint, what’s there not to like?

Floccina November 8, 2012 at 10:32 pm

I think that this is the key:
I think they sympathize with being a not-white person in this country, and so are liberal, but their vote wasn’t bought. They used their brains to think through the issues.

I would not call it sympathy but I think many people voted for Obama because he is not white and so is a great symbol. I was tempted to vote for the first black president for that reason but his rhetoric was too horrific for me, so I voted for Johnson. If he were white and said the same things I would for Romney in an attempt to block him.

peerreviewedbymyneurons November 7, 2012 at 5:51 pm

“I don’t see Caucasians or men or Christians voting as a monolith for any particular cause that benefits them personally.”
Wow! The attributed altruism has a few points of fallacy:
1. Segregation- separate but equal might have been the biggest monolith of all time. Dare you not drink from that fountain! Colonialism, imperialism-pick a chapter from the history book. Charity or selfishness knows no creed or gender. Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Dr. King, Mandela-what binds them? Not race.

2. The said demo’s love of lax gun control as tradition harms the rampages that automatics bestow on people not sharing the philosophy. Through the lens of a skeptic, the fact that one doesn’t need an ID for gun purchase, but you sure as hell have one if you wanna vote is comic if the fallout was not so tragic.

2a. Voter fraud-that transcendent issue of our times! The imposition of voter ID laws by the said demo amounts to a poll tax and what some disaffected, bemused free marketers could possibly see as an ‘intimidation in search of justification’ to perpetuate majority control. Ahh the FL lines! Here is prime rent seeking behavior to ensure monoliths last: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

3. I am not going to attack faith ( any faith). However, the Dixie map survives- as Sullivan lucidly pointed out. Plot a contour map of intensity of held ideological faith based belief sets and the total conviction that they are superior to those of any other faith or atheists. Take away IA and NH, and it would be hard to tell the South from a belief plot. As usual, the imposition on the minority is an obvious overlooked inconvenience. The Huckster may believe that the Bible rules above the constitution, and one state may just have enough ayes. Where would that state be?

4. This is the libertarianism I’m proud to be associated with: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/10/caplan_on_immig.html.
Winning a genetic lottery is one thing. Strutting it about quite another. America is a nation fundamentally built on immigrants. American exceptionalism was not built on a sense of entitlement but rather one of aspiration.

4a. Votes for the Virgil Goode and Joe Arpaios of the world ( and they are many) so that the lottery entitles one to limited/no competition is fundamentally Un-American and an example of monolith voting for utilitarian ends to the nth degree.

NAMEREDACTED November 7, 2012 at 2:46 pm

Now you are the one ignoring reality. Look at the commercials that the dem party targeted to each group.

Here’s the commercial made by the Obama campaign and targeted towards women.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/25/is_obama_taking_ad_ideas_from_vladimir_putin

Now sarcastic Indian Person November 7, 2012 at 2:59 pm

…I don’t understand. They’re offering free birth control, shouldn’t the ad have just said in all caps ‘FREE BIRTH CONTROL IF OBAMA WINS!’? Because, that should be enough to convince all those women to vote Obama, right? Because they vote for free birth control every time, right? Every. Single. Time?

Now Indian Person November 7, 2012 at 3:02 pm

…Or was the ad a minute long because there was a lot to say to convince hip single women to vote for Obama

Andrew M November 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm

Free birth control will only appeal to a small group: single women aged 18-40. Given that the elderly are more likely to vote, and the elderly tend to harbor more conservative views, it hardly seems an obvious choice.

In general though democracies will tend towards redistributionist policies. If the richest 1% own the bulk of the wealth, then the other 99% of voters will vote to tax and spend their wealth.

Peter Schaeffer November 7, 2012 at 5:53 pm

“Are Mexicans and single women going to vote for market liberals after this election?”

Of course not. But the Republicans can make it up on volume with Amnesty. More that 50% of Hispanic births are out-of-wedlock. That makes Amnesty the perfect solution for increasing the number of people who vote against the Republican party.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 8:17 am

Scott and I are both market liberals, and we both basically know that the GOP needs to start all over again.

According to what I’ve seen one significant factor was the lack of working-class support in Ohio and elsewhere in the non-diverse midwest. It seems that these Obama voters like the auto bailout and are afraid of free markets and anti-union measures.

Another factor was the “marriage gap” and the inchoate loathing of Romney and Ryan by the unmarried (both male and female). For these voters candidates with a more libertarian personalities may have had slightly more appeal..

Do people under 40 even care about markets?

Slocum November 7, 2012 at 9:00 am

“It seems that these Obama voters like the auto bailout and are afraid of free markets and anti-union measures.”

It’s a mixed bag. Obama won Michigan, but at the same time, the union-backed proposal 2 (that would have blocked any limits on collective bargaining), went down in flames (by a 58-42 margin):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/michigan-proposal-2-results-2012_n_2080767.html

msgkings November 7, 2012 at 12:17 pm

Because centrism holds, usually, thank goodness. The auto bailout was a good and reasonably centrist idea. Unfettered, overpowerful unions are not.

Millian November 7, 2012 at 4:55 pm

In my experience, hardly anyone over 24 cares about “markets” in the libertarian way.

Orange14 November 7, 2012 at 8:29 am

The vote in West Virginia as the vote in western VA and eastern KY was about preserving a dying industry, coal and I don’t think anyone can make any other political statement. If professor Sumner believes that W VA represents the future of the Republican party he is deluded and in need of a remedial political science class ASAP. White males are not the future of the Republican party if they intend to stay competitive. The fact remains that Obama is and has always been a mainstream (circa 1960 or so) Democrat/Republican in his political outlook with a slight tilt towards the D side of things.

Eorr November 7, 2012 at 10:06 am

West Virginia represents the current base of the Republican electorate, angry white men. Virginia becoming blue is all about immigration (from other states and countries). I grew up in Fairfax County and the only friend I can think of who was born in VA was the youngest in a family from Goa, India.

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 11:31 am

It has nothing to do with the 2 trillion dollar money pit on the border?

explain? November 7, 2012 at 12:18 pm

I’m not sure I understand your point, Andy’.

sourcreamus November 7, 2012 at 12:25 pm

This is the sad truth. Virginia is growing because of proximity to power. Tyler is correct that Virginia is the future of the Democrat party and probably the future of the country. More and more resources and brains going toward rent-seeking and lobbying and less towards innovation. Sounds like a recipe for another great stagnation.
I know alot of West Virginia jokes, but at least they work hard to produce a useful commodity. The growth industry in Virginia is trying to get congress to redistribute other people’s money to those with access to power.
Sad epitaph for a once great state.

James November 8, 2012 at 12:26 pm

The Democrats did best among high-school dropouts, while the GOP did best among college graduates. The GOP won all white groups, including white college graduates, white women, whites 18-29 years. So the myth that Republicans are now the party of downscale old white men is just that: a myth. Look up Andrew Gelman’s excellent book “Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State”. Democrats tend to win high-income states and regions, while Republican win high-income individuals. Composition fallacy.

Thomas November 8, 2012 at 7:05 pm

James,don’t confuse this wth facts.

Brian Donohue November 7, 2012 at 8:34 am

“we both basically know that the GOP needs to start all over again.”

Look, it was a close race and a mixed result. Demographics have ALWAYS favored Democrats seemingly. As recently as 2004, Bush polled something like 44% of Latinos, right? Virtually every battleground state fell to Obama by a close margin. So, kudos on artful deployment of resources to the Obama team.

I think the immediate reaction has more to do with Repbublicans torturing polling data to create the image of a “Romney surge” that in fact petered out after the second debate. Add in Democrats being a bit chary about counting chickens after the 2000 imbroglio, and what happened last night was akin to an “earnings miss” vs. recent expectations rather than any kind of seismic event.

msgkings November 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm

Somewhat agree, but even Charles Krauthammer, in the middle of a ridiculous bit of post-election Obama-bashing, admitted the Reps have to find a way to connect with Latinos. Larry Kudlow and others echoed it, the demographics are inexorable. Bush was fairly ‘liberal’ re immigration, and spoke Spanish. This year’s Rep primary was almost a KKK rally.

Look for the only major shift to be a softening of anti-immigration rhetoric and policies. Which should make the libertarians here happy and the racist dicks like lol and R Suresh mad. But then, they’re always mad.

Ranjit Suresh November 7, 2012 at 12:45 pm

In 2004, Latinos were 6% of the electorate.

In 2012 – 10%. At some point, even a Bush strategy is non-viable. There’s only so much Republicans can do to pander to the Mestizo vote. Unless they foresee someday contesting for a majority of the Hispanic electorate, it makes no sense to double down on open borders. It will only eke out a present electoral victory at the expense of long-term political viability. Of course, they’ll do it anyway at the insistence of the neocons, who have their eyes much more on the Levant than the heartland.

As far as Indians go, to respond to another comment above, like other Asians they’re basically faux Jews in terms of political orientation and socio-economic status and will vote Democratic for the foreseeable future. For example, almost 40% of Indian Americans have advanced degrees, and anything beyond a bachelor’s correlates with social liberalism.

Ultimately, the only hope for conservatism in the U.S. is the decline of fertility rates in Latin America. Immigration from South of the border has peaked. Yet by the time it subsides this country will be substantially bilingual.

Brian Donohue November 7, 2012 at 12:59 pm

Guh. Immigrants have been pouring into this country for more than 100 years, and they’ve always been overwhelmingly Democratic.

Same with young people. How many ‘flower power’ types from the ’60s pulled the lever for Romney now that they’re old? I’m guessing quite a few.

As far as Latinos, it has everything to do with immigration. Gray Davis in Calfiornia started this ball of stupidity rolling a couple decades ago. Just stop pandering to whitey on immigration rhetoric- it’s not like he’s gonna turn Democrat.

Peter Schaeffer November 7, 2012 at 6:04 pm

BD,

Check out the actual data. Hispanics voted overwhelmingly Democratic before Pete Wilson (presumably you meant Wilson, not Davis) and continues to do so after Pete Wilson. Wilson’s highly successful opposition to illegal immigration (he won by a landslide) didn’t cause any long-term in Hispanic voting.

However, immigration did, over time, transform the Demographics of California making it dark blue and very hostile toward market-friendly ideas.

Conversely, there is no evidence that Hispanics can be lured into the Republican party with Amnesty. McCain lost 67% of the Hispanic vote (including in Arizona) after personally sponsoring the McCain / Kennedy Amnesty. Polling data supports this. Immigration just isn’t that large an issue in the Hispanic community (Hispanic leaders are obsessed with it).

As for whitey turning Democratic, you bet it can happen. Romney lost all of the battleground states even though they have small numbers of immigrants. Why? Libertarian ideas about the virtues of Open Borders and “free” trade don’t play well with people trying to earn a living. An ideology that amounts “outsource everything that can be outsourced and import cheap labor for the rest” doesn’t go over real well with the victims. They vote for Obama.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 6:17 pm

As for whitey turning Democratic, you bet it can happen. Romney lost all of the battleground states even though they have small numbers of immigrants. Why? Libertarian ideas about the virtues of Open Borders and “free” trade don’t play well with people trying to earn a living.

The auto bailouts were supported and Wisconsin union-busting was feared in these states (Romney did not support open borders BTW).

The market forces against the unions and GM are not resistable, but O benefited by making a big payment to delay the day of reckoning.

DocMerlin November 7, 2012 at 2:48 pm

“Bush polled something like 44% of Latinos, right”
This is why he won. Romney was polling ~20% with latinos.

Ranjit Suresh November 7, 2012 at 3:47 pm

Bush was running against another white man. Do you suppose he would have gotten the same percentage against an incumbent half black president?

Popeye November 7, 2012 at 11:00 pm

Bush wasn’t advocating self-deportation either.

Peter Schaeffer November 7, 2012 at 5:50 pm

BD,

Bush got 39-40% of the Latino vote in 2004. See http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/2004vote.pdf for a paper on the Hispanic vote in 2004. Other sources such as http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/48.pdf agree. That’s the apogee under unique circumstances. Long-term the Latino vote is consistently 65-70% Democratic going back decades. Why? The list of reasons is long but includes family instability, majority out-of-wedlock pregnancy, low wages, educational failure, high crime rates, irredentism, historical claims against the United States, linguistic isolation, etc. To state this directly, any group that demands (and needs) racial quotas is never going to vote for the Republicans.

Moreover, there is little evidence that Republicans can gain Hispanic votes with Amnesty. First, Hispanics who can vote don’t care that much about Amnesty. Romney did only slightly worse than McCain (the author of Kennedy / McCain). Beyond that the Democrats will always claim and get credit.

The pro-Amnesty line amounts to

“Yes, we are always going to massively lose the Hispanic vote, but we can make it up on volume”

Note that Obama won the battleground states by large margins. Only Ohio and Florida were even close. Even with Bush’s 2004 share of the Hispanic vote, Romney would have still lost Ohio. Only Florida would have tipped his way. Of course, that assumes that a pro-Amnesty Romney would not have lost white and black voters as a consequence.

In real life, Romney’s gains with black voters (0.26%) were almost as large as his losses with Hispanics (0.4%).

TA November 7, 2012 at 8:40 am

Comments above parallel my skepticism about market liberalism as a winning ideology. I’ll add this proposition: Most people with graduate degrees are sort of anti-market liberalism.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 8:48 am

For those who remember the Reagan revolution, the fall of the Eastern bloc, and the market triumphalism of the 90s this is a strange thing to see.

timing November 7, 2012 at 12:34 pm

For those that went to school from 2000 – 2009, however…

As a younger person, I’ve always felt people have over-reacted to government intervention in markets. I’ve seen two pretty big boom/busts due partly to market deregulation, partly to government action, but mostly to market overexuberance.

Meanwhile, the middle class has completely stagnated while the upper has flourished (no thanks to tax cuts/trickle down), the environment is getting noticeably worse (and market liberals seem to be climate skeptics(i.e. willfully ignorant), making it even harder to agree with market liberalism), and the free market took all my neighbors’ jobs to Mexico, then China and India.

To the young, all those people afraid of socialism/hyper-inflation are tilting at windmills. They’re afraid of demons from a different era. I don’t think those problems will come back, unless the current deregulated situation gets so bad it over-corrects.

Why must it be binary?

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 3:38 pm

the middle class has completely stagnated while the upper has flourished (no thanks to tax cuts/trickle down), the environment is getting noticeably worse (and market liberals seem to be climate skeptics(i.e. willfully ignorant), making it even harder to agree with market liberalism), and the free market took all my neighbors’ jobs to Mexico, then China and India.

That’s a rather cartoonish account of what is going on (you might want to read TC’s book).

Outsourcing has affecting me personally – it’s efficient for the economy and consumer but can be devastating to certain individuals with developed skillsets. Obama has demogogued the issue but has offered no real solution because there is really no point in trying to stop it thru tariffs or moral suasion. The economy needs to grow in new directions, and when there is a regulatory burden many ideas are not worth trying (or are only worth trying abroad).

The past 4 years of govt-supported green tech boondoggle has been a horrendously expensive failure that made some Democratic-support businessmen like Al Gore and George Kaiser even more rich. And it’s nothing new. Exactly the same happened to the govt corporations in Canada and the UK in the 70s, or Japan’s 5th-gen computing project in the early 90s.

dirk November 7, 2012 at 3:12 pm

The Reagan revolution worked because a generation of people had been raised to believe that central planning doesn’t work and that the American Way is better than the Soviet Way. Now what are people raised to believe? How many people who voted for Obama yesterday believe that “socialism” is a dirty word?

Reagan was a product of his times. Remember that Carter was also a deregulator.

Old-school welfare-state liberals believed in the notion of “Ask not what your country can do for you…” I.e., they weren’t looking for handouts for *themselves*, but instead operated with the sentimental ideal of helping others. They started the Peace Corps, etc.

Now liberals are interested in what the government can do for *them*. Is market liberalism going to ever win over someone with that mentality? It isn’t enough to convince such people that market liberalism may be for the greater good of society. They don’t care about society, they care about themselves first and even believe that caring about themselves first at the ballot-box is a virtue. (They are closer to Ayn Rand than they think.)

As for the GOP: hasn’t market liberalism eroded significantly since the Reagan era? Isn’t that why the GOP today needs social conservatives so badly — because there aren’t enough market liberals to go around in even one party?

jh November 7, 2012 at 8:45 am

“…America still has the most enviable set of problems in the world…”

+1

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 8:51 am

Yay! “We” get to not know if more roundup is on our soybeans. It may (or may not be) fine. But it’s not a step change.

Eric November 7, 2012 at 9:53 am

“We get to not know if [a billion other things are] on our soybeans.”

FYP

Eorr November 7, 2012 at 10:08 am

Bah, the thing we need to worry about with soybeans is the massive amount of Estrogen and other hormones it contains.

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 10:40 am

Again, are you against all labeling? For molecular labeling? Just pro-GMO qua GMO? I perceive a lot of fuzzy thinking here.

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 10:41 am

GMOs, btw, don’t de-fund soybeans.

A step change would not be marginal tweaks to DNA of monculture crops. It may or may not be fine, but like embryonic stem cells or hydrogen economy or corn ethanol, it does not (yet) get me excited.

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 8:55 am

Again, I’m not sure if you were starting a battle in California for common sense and against labeling, I’m not sure how it is obviously common sense to start with the part where we use viruses to change DNA of food so it can be ensconced in our insane patent debacle.

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 9:06 am

And how do you say Republicans should recognize “demographics” with a straight face? I don’t fully agree with their views or methods, but that’s what they’ve been doing for a decade. Now what, give the demographics what they want by undoing the Republican principles? Why not just vote Democrat?

Jared November 7, 2012 at 11:54 am

Well, at the very least the demographic shift to a majority women electorate means they need to really quickly get some party discipline on rape. They’ve got to attack it from a law and order perspective or something, but this issue counts a lot toward why they don’t have a majority in the senate. To tackle that requires owning up to the fact that the GOP has a lot of older white men that like to speak with horrible insensitivity to women. That just won’t work any more. They don’t have to become pro-choice or anything, they just have to rethink what women voters want to hear.

msgkings November 7, 2012 at 12:27 pm

Precisely. This centrist wants to vote for a non-embarassing Republican party. Still waiting for one.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 12:30 pm

So you seem to be saying that “embarrassment” over some old white midwestern guys would lead you to vote for a more highly regulated economy, naive and often incompetent foreign policy, disastrous healthcare plan etc.

msgkings November 7, 2012 at 12:37 pm

The current president is doing quite well on the foreign policy front, and isn’t that leftist when it comes to his economic policies.

I’m just saying like a lot of moderates I’d like a party of intelligence, liberal social values, and pragmatic economic ones. That’s actually my view of Obama, although not the Dem party as a whole. I’m glad the Reps control the House, and wish they’d taken the Senate, so we’d have a ‘2nd Clinton term’ redux.

Thanks Akin and Mourdock!

Most of America November 7, 2012 at 12:38 pm

@Engineer.

…good idea!

Most of America2 November 7, 2012 at 12:41 pm

@Engineer

In all seriousness, why would I trust someone to be a good representative of my views when they are:

a) unscientific,
b) ignorant, and
c) uncompromising?

Most of America November 7, 2012 at 12:36 pm

“Why not just vote Democrat?”

…good idea!

Claudia November 7, 2012 at 8:55 am

I like markets too. I was raised in a Republican business-owning family but I cannot get past the social policy and the blindness to market failures (and thus role of government). In four years, I could see myself casting a ballot for Christie over Hillary, but only if the Republican platform is cleaned up. I cannot vote for a party that tolerates sub-human rhetoric and policies toward women (or immigrants or other minorities). Next time I hear a politician say that raped women should carry those babies full term. I would like him to also say that the rapists should castrated when caught. I wonder which intervention would do more to lower rape and abortions? There is so little empathy and sharing of pain that it’s dispiriting. Given how bad times have been in the last four years (for many, many reasons) it’s kind of shocking how this all turned out.

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 9:09 am

I should just let it go, but what are you talking about? It sounds to me like you just drank the blue Kool-Aid on the women thing. It’s not Republicans who are easy on rapists, you know, right?

The reason people don’t want to abort rape babies is because people don’t want to abort babies. The rape is irrelevant from that standpoint.

KLO November 7, 2012 at 9:20 am

It isn’t so much that Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin were against abortion that sunk them, and, given the attention they received, perhaps Mitt Romney. It is that both men come across as complete and total a-holes in service to the cause. Claudia picks up on this when she writes, “There is so little empathy and sharing of pain that it’s dispiriting.” The Republican Party may or may not need to find a new ideology to find success in upcoming elections. It will, however, need to weed out the jerks and looney tunes candidates (e.g. Rick Perry) that all too frequently rise to the top of the party.

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 9:34 am

Politicians are goofballs. This isn’t news.

What you guys don’t seem to see is that Warren, Biden, et. al. are just as nutty. They just use the “I feel your pain” and “they are going to put you back in chains” to great effect.

alib November 7, 2012 at 12:46 pm

… we don’t not see it.

It’s the difference between electing someone who cares about you and someone who doesn’t. It’s quite fundamental and obvious.

Brian Donohue November 7, 2012 at 1:02 pm

oh ‘alib’, you are adorable! Let’s just rename the office “Uncle” or better yet “Big Brother”.

alib November 7, 2012 at 2:13 pm

@Brian

Or, we could do it your way, let’s call it “Ef the people, brought to you by Marie Antoinette with a little help from Uncle Stalin” (working title).

alib November 7, 2012 at 2:49 pm

Great news, the ghost of Chairman Mao just signed on as well. I’m trying to seance Pol Pot and George Wallace, too. Will follow up.

Millian November 7, 2012 at 5:05 pm

But it seems like a very large number of people disagree with you about who is nuttier, since your counter-examples actually won elections whereas rape-talking Senate candidates didn’t, so maybe you should revise your beliefs.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 6:07 pm

So Millian try to explain why your people are so upset about Mourdock but don’t care about Warren lying about her ethnicity to get ahead (and then posing as a moral crusader while working for grimy corporate clients on the side).

Obviously it’s not something objective. Probably it’s that Warren is an “SWPL”, one of “us” for Dems. Whereas Mourdock seems to be sincerely religious … so he’s one of “them”.

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 9:32 am

I could be convinced we should execute known rapists. However, I don’t trust the government with the death penalty, so I would agree in principle. And just keeping them in prison pretty much takes them out of the gene pool, so I’m not sure why we need the cruel and unusual punishment.

msgkings November 7, 2012 at 12:32 pm

The average rapist gets about 2-3 years in prison. Then back in the gene pool. Which the anti-abortion idiots cement by wanting rape embryos all to be carried to term. Oh, and then the poor victim better not leech off any government programs to help raise the kid, the deadbeat.

And just for giggles, in 31 states rapists have parental rights to their offspring.

Claudia, a site full of Aspie libertarians is hardly a place to expect ‘empathy and sharing of pain’

Ranjit Suresh November 7, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Wait, are you admitting there might be genetic propensity to rape?

Cliff November 7, 2012 at 9:27 am

What sub-human rhetoric and policies towards women and immigrants are you referring to?

hello November 7, 2012 at 12:47 pm

Welcome back from under your rock.

Just fyi, the year is 2012 and we just had a Presidential election.

dirk November 7, 2012 at 4:12 pm

I think Andrew is right about the blue Kool-aid. A few wingnuts on the right make some retarded comments and that reflects on the entire party because why? There are plenty of wingnuts within the Democratic Party too. Reasonable thinking people ignore the wingnuts on both sides.

The Democrats have succeeded into turning comments by wingnuts on the right into outrage on the Left. It’s a smart strategy, I guess, because it lowers the discourse and blunts rational thought. But I took voting for the Democrats off this time around specifically because I don’t want to have anything to do with that angry mob.

If you are waiting for all the wingnuts to disappear you will be waiting the rest of your life.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 4:30 pm

A few wingnuts on the right make some retarded comments and that reflects on the entire party because why? There are plenty of wingnuts within the Democratic Party too. Reasonable thinking people ignore the wingnuts on both sides.

Indeed. Somehow the idiocy from Biden and Pelosi doesn’t bother people as much as Akin.

A lot of that is simply due to double standards. But as these comments show, for the left sensitivity, empathy, and choice or words are as important or more important than content. So even if Mourdock’s statement wasn’t unreasonable as an honest examination of his beliefs it really disturbs people in a way that Pelosi’s “Are they serious?” does not.

Millian November 7, 2012 at 5:09 pm

“There are plenty of wingnuts within the Democratic Party too.”

No, this is false equivalence. Nobody on the Democratic Party said that the rape of women is ordained by God – or anything equally heinous.

Of course, if you are one of those people who thinks that taxation is like rape, then you are untouchable by rational analysis (and we probably shouldn’t listen to your insights about the median voter’s beliefs, either).

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 6:09 pm

Nobody on the Democratic Party said that the rape of women is ordained by God

Nor did any Republican.

Claudia November 7, 2012 at 8:26 pm

“U.S. Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri — who set off a firestorm after using the phrase “legitimate rape” — and Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock — who said, “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen” — were projected to lose their Senate races, NBC News reported on Tuesday.” from the article I linked to this morning. Don’t you think s candidate for the US Senate should be a statesman, the best of the best?

Engineer November 8, 2012 at 5:53 am

Richard Mourdock — who said, “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen”

The full quote is: “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen,” Yahoo news said he was “choking up” when he said that – you can see the video yourself.

Sorry, but that’s not saying that “rape of women is ordained by God”. Paraphrasing it that way is deceitful.

You might as well say that Obama’s Lena Dunham commercial told young women go sleep with every guy in the frat house but only after losing her virginity. It’s the same level of deceit.

Also: http://news.yahoo.com/gop-senate-candidate-god-intended-pregnancies-rape-061057785–abc-news-politics.html

After the debate, Mourdock further explained his comment.

“Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don’t think that,” said Mourdock, according to The Associated Press. “Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that’s not even close to what I said.”

Claudia November 7, 2012 at 8:42 pm

dirk and Andrew’ my drink of choice is tequila not Kool Aid (though my comments here are fueled solely by diet Coke and coffee). I was just sharing my struggle with the Republican party. I am not a representative or median voter (male or female) and I don’t pretend to be. Decency, respect, and pragmatism are more important to me than rationality, efficiency, and tradition…though all have substantial merit. And dirk, I don’t plan on waiting around for the world to change and I don’t mind a challenge.

Floccina November 8, 2012 at 10:43 pm

And what do you feel about Democrats who want to force anti-abortion people to pay for them? Or anti-birth control people to pay for birth control.

Chris November 7, 2012 at 8:57 am

Incumbency advantage won Ds the Presidency, Rs the House, and Ds the Senate.

The general public has barely shifted over the past 4 presidential elections.

I remember Tyler predicted a landslide when Bin Laden was killed. In the end Obama won by about 2%.

athEIst November 7, 2012 at 9:03 am

In early 2000 Karl Rove blanketed W. Virginia with gun-nut propaganda which did not mention any candidates’ names. He then let those Hillbillys’ native intelligence take over. Result:: W. Virginia which for 80 years had only voted Republican in Republican landslide years (’28 ’56 ’72 ’84) voted Republican. Once you fool a Hillbilly he stays fooled. Four elections later they’re still voting >60% Republican.
P.S. Virginia didn’t really lose the Civil War…they got rid of western Virginia.

Go Back To Reddit November 7, 2012 at 9:51 am

So brave. Uptokes to the left.

Tom West November 7, 2012 at 10:34 am

This so parallels the right-wing caricature of a liberal leftist jerk that I just have to wonder…

JWatts November 7, 2012 at 10:47 am

“This so parallels the right-wing caricature of a liberal leftist jerk that I just have to wonder…”

The problem is that no one can really tell if this is a caricature or not, hence this is less a caricature and more of a stereotype. Some (a lot of) ‘liberal leftist jerks’ do indeed meet the stereotype.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 9:05 am

I could see myself casting a ballot for Christie over Hillary, but only if the Republican platform is cleaned up. I cannot vote for a party that tolerates sub-human rhetoric and policies toward women (or immigrants or other minorities). Next time I hear a politician say that raped women should carry those babies full term.

I keep seeing this kind of thing on the internet but it perplexes me. Presumably you are not saying this just because you heard it on MSNBC. You wouldn’t vote for Romney because of something Akin said? Mourdock’s statement was not what the MSM made it out to be, and anyway his Dem opponent also claimed to oppose abortion.

I would like to hear some examples of “subhuman rhetoric” from Republicans let alone “subhuman policies” toward immigrants or other minorities.

Claudia November 7, 2012 at 9:17 am

NBC news: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/07/14980822-rape-remarks-sink-two-republican-senate-hopefuls?lite

The Mourdock comments especially pained me. I am from Indiana (though I don’t vote there now) and Dick Lugar is my image of true statesman. How could this be what reaches a pinnacle of politics? My gripe is not the view on abortion…I can see the merits of the opposing views…my complaint is who bears the burden and who gets called out as the problem. Women are not a dumping ground for men’s problems.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 9:26 am

Thanks for answering because I see these kinds of remarks often and don’t understand them.

What about Republican “subhuman rhetoric toward immigrants or other minorities”?

KLO November 7, 2012 at 9:39 am

See, e.g. Sharron Angle’s campaign from two years ago or Mitt Romney’s self-deport rhetoric from the primary. It isn’t the positions that are causing the problem here, but rather the obnoxious, condescending and mean-spirited way in which prominent Republican politicans address immigration.

I strongly support immigration restrictions, but I also understand that we are talking about real, living, breathing people. It pays to be magnanimous in disagreement.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 9:53 am

Really? Is that it?

Romney seems to always be magnanimous (contrast to Obama and “bitter clingers”, “revenge”, Henry Louis Gates incident etc.)

It can’t be that failed crazies like Angle can really shape your impression of the GOP.

It must be either:

a) too much exposure to propaganda from NPR, MSNBC

b) a bias towards religious people and social conservatives in general

Maybe I’m offbase, but I think that urban women see/hear Romney or Ryan and are repulsed by the “traditional” family structure (they are probably judgmental), respect for religious traditions and those barbarian sexist scriptures, and similar things.

Tom West November 7, 2012 at 10:47 am

Maybe I’m offbase, but I think that urban women see/hear Romney or Ryan and are repulsed by the “traditional” family structure…

You’re offbase.

Okay, glibness aside, the “traditional” family structure was neither a good deal for (most) women and is pretty much unobtainable (tried being a one income family lately?) now for almost anyone below the upper middle class.

I think the R’s have a major problem in appeal in that this sort of “vague feeling of traditionalism” is their primary appeal to the uninformed voter and it’s growing less desirable and relevant with time. The D’s may not be able to actually do much more, but at least their rhetoric sounds more empathic. Of course, to counter this trend, with the massive negative advertising, being “for” something isn’t really all that viable. You mostly have to have less surface to attack, which means I anticipate results being fairly close for a long time to come.

(In a different country where you could get a third party, I think the USA might be ripe for a dangerous populist.)

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 10:55 am

The D’s may not be able to actually do much more, but at least their rhetoric sounds more empathic.

Empathy ….there’s that word again.

Contemplationist November 7, 2012 at 4:05 pm

Self-deportation seems to me, to be the most humane policy if you are for immigration restrictions.

Cliff November 7, 2012 at 9:31 am

Why did that pain you? How are women being dumped on or called out as the problem? I don’t really get it.

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 9:41 am

We have TC suggesting (I don’t want to put words in his mouth) that the Republicans now need to pander to hispanics. Pander how? By walking back market liberalism?

Is it really subhuman to say “these guys left their country because it is better here (not to mention they reverse flow at the drop of a recession), so how ’bout we ask them to not change here to be like there.”

Now, the moderate Republican, and they are the moderates by the way, confuse some racism into the mix, and then the politicians walk a line pandering to that racism because simple logic doesn’t get voters mobilized.

But, if TC says the only way for R’s to respond to illegal immigrants who we can’t even keep from voting is to pander to them, then why is it subhuman to just humbly ask (or not so humbly) that these people be legal, don’t vote, or go home?

If we were to get back to The Constitution then open-borders would be no problem at all.

JWatts November 7, 2012 at 10:54 am

“We have TC suggesting (I don’t want to put words in his mouth) that the Republicans now need to pander to hispanics. Pander how? By walking back market liberalism?”

I can’t speak for hispanics, but President Obama is consistently offering more ‘free stuff’. The appeal of ‘free stuff’ buys votes. The Republican’s are offering less, the Democrat’s are offering more. Voter’s are responding to ‘Bread and Circuses’. The whole War on Women was about providing more ‘free’ stuff to women.

Med November 16, 2012 at 1:19 pm

Jennifer S – Go Avery #17. This was her one year old photo session. This is also the ptiucre Kimberly put on the back of her Birthday Invitations. Isn’t this some amazing work!!!

Dale November 7, 2012 at 11:39 am

Curiously, my university HR department just sent me a note that I MUST attend a 1.5 hour bi-annual sexual harassment training seminar – mandated by our insurance company. I resented the last one I did and find this even more offensive. But after reading Cliff’s (and others’) comment, maybe this is a good idea after all.

lords of lies November 7, 2012 at 4:21 pm

“Women are not a dumping ground for men’s problems.”

you must not read any feminist blogs, for whom men are a dumping ground for every problem under the sun, no matter how tangentially the problem pings women’s self-esteems.

or, more likely, you do read them but choose not to grasp the obvious.

Claudia November 7, 2012 at 7:41 pm

Of course the converse is true…no one should be a dumping ground.

Oh and I also think that insulting people with views different than yours is a losing strategy. I “grasp” way more than the obvious.

Peter Schaeffer November 7, 2012 at 6:16 pm

Claudia,

I am from Indiana and have knowledge of the place. Lugar was corporatist, country-club Republican down to his toes. His philosophy amounted to “outsource every job that can be shipped abroad and import cheap labor for the rest”. He loved illegals as docile, exploitable labor. His extreme views were tolerated in Washington because Open Borders and “free” trade are the gods of our time for the elite establishment. Not so much in Indiana.

His Democratic replacement has very sane views on immigration and is a big step up.

More broadly, there is nothing humane and decent about trade and immigration policies that ravage the lives of 10s of millions of Americans so that 0.1% of the population can profit and racial activists can expand the ranks of the alienated.

Claudia November 7, 2012 at 7:53 pm

I was not commenting on the outcome of the race. What impressed me the most about Lugar was his bipartisan work. I see a real need for those who can reach across the aisle. It made the party look flat floored and mismanaged to not have a decent replacement in the wings. Not inspiring confidence in their governing potential either.

Peter Schaeffer November 8, 2012 at 12:54 am

Was Lugar bipartisan. Sure he was… When he was pursuing an Open Borders, cheap labor, outsourcing agenda that the Democratic leadership applauded (along with the Washington establishment and the media).

The sad truth is the ‘bipartisanship’ is overrated. Many of Washington’s worst ideas were ‘bipartisan’. The IRCA Amnesty of 1986 was supported by both parties. It completely failed. NAFTA was going to expand export opportunities. In real life the trade deficit soared and the economy was hollowed out. Same for the WTO. Should I mention NCLB and the invasion of Iraq? Medicare Plan D (with no funding of course).

Have their been ‘bipartisan’ success stories? Sure. Welfare reform stands out. However, just because both parties support something doesn’t make it virtuous… As America has bitterly learned.

Thomas November 8, 2012 at 7:04 pm

It pained you that Mourdock believes that every single human being is created by God and thereby has equal rights? When did that become offensive? (And: Do you have a better basis for the moral equality of each human being? Because I haven’t seen one.) What other instances of pluralism pain you? (Must the Republican party become the party who are pained by pluralism? I thought that was their problem now, but maybe I’m not understanding.) How does Donnelly’s position make you feel? As I understand it, his view is that every single human being is created by God and thereby has equal rights, except those human beings who result from rape, who do not have any rights. (You do know that Donnelly is at least nominally pro-life, right? That he voted, as Obama and others would have it, to “re-define rape”? Does that bother you?) Given that there are in fact people–women and men–walking among us who are human beings whose conception resulted from rape, I think that’s horribly offensive to suggest that they don’t have any rights. Why doesn’t that bother you?

David November 7, 2012 at 9:23 am

I imagine it’s hard for some to be in the same tent as Akin because a vote for a party that could contain people like him vindicates such attitudes and gives political capital for his beliefs, even if the leadership is good at dog whistling. I don’t believe for a moment that there aren’t others like him in the party, but they are going to have less influence in light of the election results.

Before this election, the GOP thought it better to court the vote of people who thought Obama was an ‘muslim atheist communist’. The GOP is going to move left, give or take a failed hardlime experiment.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 9:28 am

Remarks like this one make me think that the real problem for the GOP is the dominance of the MSM.

msgkings November 7, 2012 at 12:46 pm

No, their real problem is having all their info coming from their anti-MSM outlet (Fox) which gets them to think very untrue things (like Obama is toast).

Above you’re going on about why should the rhetoric of 2 idiots sour one on the Reps…well that’s the biggest critique of Obama from the right as far as I can tell. His policies aren’t AT ALL anticapitalist, antiwealth, antisuccess…but his tone is less than slobbery about rich folks so they think he’s a commie. And if you just watch Fox you think like that.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 9:26 am

Thanks for answering because I see these kinds of remarks often and don’t understand them.

What about Republican “subhuman rhetoric toward immigrants or other minorities”?

Chris November 7, 2012 at 9:52 am

Engineer – Romney’s comments about self-deportation did not help, but I think it is the tone of the GOP immigration message rather than the content. It is cruel and unreasonable to punish children of illegal immigrants (brought to US at a young age) by not allowing them access to higher ed resources, and even the job market. You can disagree with this, but the reality is that the majority of Americans see this as mean-spirited. Further, the voting rule games played by republicans this year were incredibly transparent in their intended impact (even coming from the mouths of those making the decisions). Republicans were painted, rightfully or not, as forgoing an opportunity to appeal to a broader coalition and simply playing the cynical game of voter suppression. Similarly, the vitriolic attacks on Sandra Fluke by prominent republican/conservative figures did rub off on Romney and the republican party in general. This may be unfair, but as Michael Gerson said of Mitt’s 47% remarks: “The worst gaffes confirm stereotypes.”

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 10:27 am

So “subhuman rhetoric” doesn’t actually mean calling people dogs or implying that they aren’t worthy of full human rights, but rather making a defensible argument without enough empathy.

And “immigrants and other minorities” doesn’t mean actual minorities, but rather a legal status.

Tom West November 7, 2012 at 10:51 am

So “subhuman rhetoric” doesn’t actually mean calling people dogs or implying that they aren’t worthy of full human rights, but rather making a defensible argument without enough empathy.

Yes. But most (many?) of us believe that humans should be treated with empathy, you should be able to see how this can be viewed as “subhuman rhetoric”.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 10:59 am

most (many?) of us believe that humans should be treated with empathy, you should be able to see how this can be viewed as “subhuman rhetoric”.

Maybe a GOP candidate could come up with a snappy slogan like “compassionate conservatism.

msgkings November 7, 2012 at 12:49 pm

Engineer, the guy who came up with that snappy slogan was actually quite liberal on immigration. And he won 2 elections. So, yeah. If the Reps don’t go back to that kind of policy and rhetoric, they stay screwed.

Claudia November 7, 2012 at 10:57 am

There is no empathy unless you first recognize the other person as having hopes and dreams and responsibilities that are just as legitimate as your own. Subhuman was a strong word (too little coffee and reports of 19th amendment haters fueled that), but this is the not the den of soft words. Also I have no aversion to conservative religious values, but it blows my mind that government intrusions into my economic life are the ultimate evil, but intrusions into my religious, moral life are desirable. We are all a study in internal inconsistency but I have limits of what I can process in a political party.

Engineer November 7, 2012 at 11:08 am

Also I have no aversion to conservative religious values, but it blows my mind that government intrusions into my economic life are the ultimate evil, but intrusions into my religious, moral life are desirable.

Once again I am very interested. It’s the liberals who are intruding into people’s moral and religious lives (and also their diet choices and healthcare choices and whatever else they are convinced they know better than you)..

Which conservatives (esp. at the Federal level) want to intrude into your religious and moral life?

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 11:34 am

“There is no empathy unless you first recognize the other person as having hopes and dreams and responsibilities that are just as legitimate as your own.”

Do you see how the “you didn’t build that” ideology is equal and opposite?

I have a handful of friends who absolutely built the $#it out of it, and I would never believe that taking something off the top of theirs is a legitimate way to acknowledge hopes and dreams of those who don’t respect that they built it.

Ted Craig November 7, 2012 at 9:54 am

“Now that the election is over, maybe the quality of discourse in the blogosphere will rise a bit too.”

Wasn’t the same said in 2008. And Orange is right, W. Va. was about coal. They voted for Democrats for Governor and Senator. In both states, folks were voting for their jobs.

Jack November 7, 2012 at 9:55 am

That process could start with a recognition of demographics. 

So the GOP should become a party of market illiberalism, anti-white resentment, and race-based handouts, too? Wouldn’t it be easier to just abolish the party, so that the US can become a one-party nation, Soviet-style?

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 10:49 am

+1, my question too.

What does it mean? What if we were inundated by Islamists (if such a thing existed, as a thought experiment), would we just throw up our hands and acquiesce to demographics?

We don’t eve tolerate Islamists in their own countries half the world away, so that answer has to be ‘no.’

Brian Donohue November 7, 2012 at 11:06 am

Purists may reject the idea, but the GOP needs to tend to its “brand”- they have been successfully branded, correctly or not, as the party of white guys.

Get a black, Latino or woman (more Thatcher, less Palin) on top of the ticket and a lot of these issue go away.

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 11:14 am

Gotcha. But can you be “pro woman” or “pro hispanic” or “pro gay” for that matter without giving away freebies you take from the white guys who happen to have a lot of the goodies.

So, let’s say you have a model where voter utility = X + Y. X is negative liberty and Y is positive liberty. Even if you offer all the negative liberty there is, you will still lose every time to the party offering positive liberty in addition. So, what then?

What? November 7, 2012 at 3:07 pm

marriage rights are a freebie?

vali1005 November 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Susana Martinez: Woman, Latino, Republican, Governor of New Mexico

JWatts November 7, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Republican Governor of Louisiana – Piyush “Bobby” Jindal
Republican Governor of Sout Carolina – Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley

Rahul November 7, 2012 at 3:16 pm

Maybe what it means is that you’ve got to lose some battles to win the war…..

D November 7, 2012 at 10:14 am

“Remarks like this one make me think that the real problem for the GOP is the dominance of the MSM.”

Bingo.

Ranjit Suresh November 7, 2012 at 10:20 am

Along with the changed electorate, it pays to note the demographics of the media.

Rahul November 7, 2012 at 3:35 pm

I did’t get that aspersion you cast: What demographic is dominating the media now?

TheAJ November 7, 2012 at 10:39 am

I for one, hope that Republicans continue to blame everyone but themselves for their failures. It will mean another set of terms for the next Democratic president.

Andrew' November 7, 2012 at 10:52 am

Not likely. They just managed to lose to a weak candidate by putting up candidate Frankenweakie.

Who is on the bench for the Dems? Hilary? Not going to happen. Paul Ryan needs about 10 years, but it might be sooner unless the Dems come up with another Obama circa 2004/8.

GIVCO November 7, 2012 at 1:22 pm

The GOP can make zero changes and win 2016 if the economy tanks (and the Japanese don’t attack).

Party On, Tea Party November 7, 2012 at 3:23 pm

+1. Let them eat shawarma, I say.

Andrew’. The Dems’ bench is surprisingly strong. You should be terrified of Julián Castro right now.

GIVCO. I think we missed the boat on the double-dip, buddy. Households are deleveraged and more confident now, we’re in a mini-internet bubble, and got a huge off-the-books stimulus from cheap nat gas/abundant oil. Corporations are sitting on piles of cash, and the Great Stagnation seems like it may die under pressure of increasing artificial intelligence abilities and better hardware. Probably time to take the Pass Line bet.

Rich Berger November 7, 2012 at 10:43 am

Tyler-

Which of Obama’s prospective policies do you believe will help restore the economy to health?

Givco November 7, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Allow me the response: Mitt Romney will take us backward and you want to go forward, don’t you? Look! Jay-Z, Matt Damon and a Nobel Prize!

guest November 7, 2012 at 4:01 pm

Should have let Tyler answer…

DocMerlin November 7, 2012 at 2:51 pm

Silly you. As if politics is about policy. Politics is a sporting event.

msgkings November 7, 2012 at 3:41 pm

To me it’s more like a reality show, complete with a public vote for the winner.

FC November 7, 2012 at 3:11 pm

The better question is why Prof. Cowen is so sucessful as an academic but so jejeune as a commentator on current events.

Jack November 7, 2012 at 3:37 pm

I don’t know if Cowen is a successful academic, but I think his jejunity is the key to his success as a commentator.

Anonymous November 7, 2012 at 5:12 pm

If you are an academic you are required to spend time deriding the Republicans

Thor November 7, 2012 at 5:16 pm

Are you kidding? He’s insightful and smart. Perhaps you are confused because he’s reserved, circumspect and fairly non-ideological? I don’t find him jejune.

Millian November 7, 2012 at 5:17 pm

I remember when this blog was not primarily read by authoritarian-type men who resent women, but there you go.

mw November 7, 2012 at 8:35 pm

Perhaps when the Republican party wasn’t primarily that either?

Ranjit Suresh November 7, 2012 at 9:12 pm

You’re confusing a resentment of those who deny gender roles with resentment of women.

Saturos November 8, 2012 at 4:22 am

So election day is the last day of the blogging year? Figures.

FE November 8, 2012 at 1:33 pm

West Virginia is a poor state and anti-coal policies are making it poorer. Northern Virginia is one of the wealthiest parts of the country and govenment spending is making it wealthier. The implication that there is something progressive about shifting wealth from a poor state to a rich one is either wrong, or reveals the wrongness of progressivism.

yi November 8, 2012 at 4:37 pm

The progressive trash ruling class triumphed due to fraud, lies, and an aggressively racial campaign.

The Democrats are only united by two things – love of abortion, and hatred of white people.

An evil, but effective, campaign.

john personna November 8, 2012 at 5:11 pm

“Neither Jordi and I knew anything more about drones than what we found online, yet in three years he and the team he assembled at 3D Robotics, who are mostly Mexican and Mexican/American engineers in their early 20s, built something amazing: two state-of-the art drone factories (one in San Diego and one in Tijuana).” – http://tinyurl.com/bzwjfb3

Chuck Currie November 8, 2012 at 7:23 pm

Don’t plan on retiring in California unless you are rich, very rich, or dirt poor. Everyone in between gets screwed.

Cheers

Thomas November 8, 2012 at 7:34 pm

I suspect we’ll see a variety of reactions from the GOP in response to the loss, including some new strategies. We will see the socially liberal/fiscally liberal Rockefeller/Snowe wing re-assert itself, with the thought that a party of respectable rich people might appeal to people who dream of being respectable rich people. That will get the support of all the liberals in the party plus Bloomberg and will get a lot of nice press, so, no, it’ll never work. Tyler will note that it doesn’t grapple with the hard demographic facts, or, to the extent it does, it answers incorrectly. We will see the libertarians try their spiel, with the accurate recognition that young people find it more attractive politically and with the thought that it will help the party run up vote totals among the educated class. It will bring all of Gary Johnson’s vote back, and chase the former Jacksonian Democrats out, along with a good number of social conservatives. It will be moderately more successful than the Rockefeller wing, but will get much worse press. Tyler will like it both more and less–better policies, but not realistic enough about the appeal. We will see a populist economic response, socially conservative and economically liberal. Late Buchananism, essentially. I can hear the lines now: Right now, business gets a tax break not just for shipping your job to China, they get a break for union busting, and for coming up with strategies for tax dodging, and for planning to eliminate jobs. We’ve got to put an end to these practices! We’ve got to raise the minimum wage whenever unemployment rises above 7%, because people are hurting! (Think Obama and move it one click toward the absurd.) This will be much more successful, in an electoral sense, and will not be much loved by respectable rich people or by the press. Tyler will hate it.

Floccina November 8, 2012 at 10:11 pm

Politics is not about policy the repbs need to nominate Mia Love and Marko Rubio.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: