Skip to main content

Home/ Dole Group/ Group items tagged conservatism

Rss Feed Group items tagged

John West

Week 7: Romney's demographic bind - CNN.com - 0 views

shared by John West on 10 Oct 12 - No Cached
  •  
    This article describes Romney's "demographic bind," which has him falling seriously behind in the non-white vote. The Latino and black electorate, the author describes, have begun the process of making strictly red states (like Georgia) into possibly competitive areas of the country in the future. The author points to the 2008 election, when McCain won a safe majority of America's white vote while Obama won 66% of the Latino vote and a whopping 95% of the black vote, as a signal for two different strategies for Romney. On the one hand, he can and is trying to woo thee Latino vote in states like Nevada and Florida (the RNC had really concrete evidence of this in its choice of speakers). Second, and a little more frightening, he can concentrate his efforts on winning an even greater majority of the white electorate. This is a significant challenge, because it would mean a serious effort at reconciling the generally more socially liberal views of white youth with the social conservatism of the Republican Party's. In the case of immigration reform, embracing a more liberal position would be a win-win for Romney: he could win a greater share of the Latino electorate, among which immigration is a serious concern, and a greater percentage of the younger, more socially liberal white vote that has traditionally voted Democrat. This would almost certainly come with consequences among older and less educated white voters, who would see immigration reform like this as a threat to legitimate control of illegal immigration in the future. Of the two, trying to expand the portion of the white vote seems like the losing option. While the example of immigration reform I mentioned could be a place for compromise, I have trouble seeing how Romney or a future Republican candidate could champion a pro-life and pro-choice stance at the same time, for instance. Rather than focusing on incredibly divisive issues, trying to appeal to the Latino electorate seems like a wiser choice. For Romn
Jonah Schacter

Why I Am Pro-Life - NYTimes.com - 2 views

  •  
    Here is a piece around abortion issues and the problem with the term "pro-life". The author states "Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected - not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life.". We have talked about the terrible applications of terms pro-life and pro-choice, it should be pro-choice or no-choice. The problem with the conservatives and tea party is that on one hand they want as small as government as possible, but on the other hand they want to take away or our basic right to freedom of choice. 
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    This definitely feels like a war of words to me. I agree with what you're saying about a certain contradiction in which areas of our lives the parties want to see freedom, and I personally have the same trouble you have with reconciling these differences. I was interested to see the quotes that the author chose for the first paragraph: news outlets have been treating the Todd Akin debacle like the only ignorant thing politicians have been saying about the topic of abortion, and the author shows us that we have plenty to choose from. While I agree with you about the inequality of terms, I don't necessarily think "pro-choice or no-choice" would be any more fair: some pro-lifers could feasibly argue that "no-choice" is inaccurate because it doesn't account for the needs/"choice" of a fetus. I think any change in naming that isn't insane (anti-abortion vs. anti-anti-abortion) would have the same inherent inaccuracies.
  •  
    Okay nothing against you, Jonah, but I saw this article earlier this week and I really dislike it. I think it's such a silly argument - this guy is saying that conservatives don't deserve to call themselves pro-life because they don't support gun regulations and support a larger military? They would say the exact same thing about him because he supports gun regulations and stopping wars but doesn't believe in (in their opinion) stopping the murder of a fetus. I agree that there is something paradoxical about the conservative philosophies on social vs. economic matters, but I think this article goes about exploring that paradox in a really condescending, unproductive way.
  •  
    It's amazing to me how labeling a complex issue can give it powerful meaning. People have been doing this for a long time. The original "family values" were in response to changing views about the LGBTQ community. It was easy for people to think that of course they cared about "family values" without exploring what was exactly behind that movement. I think Friedman does a good job of exploring the use of the term "pro-life'" because really, who isn't pro-life?
  •  
    While I agree with Cody that Friedman's cockiness can be difficult to read, I personally agree with what he is saying. I think there is a problem in the this country with respecting the scientific community. How can people still doubt climate change? The data is there. How can people really think it is a good thing to allow people to carry weapons? The murders are there. While I think this is a potentially divisive way of stating the issue, some of the far right opinions on abortion, gun rights, and climate change seem equally as absurd to me. There is a lot of good that can come out of conservatism, but the conservatism around rights, I don't think is very productive and people will eventually look back on it and scoff.
  •  
    I am also interested in the role of language here, both within the actual issue and in this piece, and what you mentioned, Eli, about how people maintain their viewpoints that are continually in opposition to almost undeniable facts. With both issues it seems that unspoken rules and assumptions carry such weight. It mostly just confuses me.
Jonah Schacter

Sandy and Chris Christie: Lessons from Hurricane Betsy in 1965. - Slate Magazine - 4 views

  •  
    This article shows that in times of need the federal government can really help states. With hurricane Sandy the majority of New Jersey was destroyed and the republican governor Chris Christie was welcome to the federal aid that was given. If Romney was president at the time of the hurricane he would have left it up to the states to rebuild themselves. Sandy is a clear example of how the federal government is for the benefit of the country its inhabitants. The author also brings up Hurricane Betsy, which took place in 1965 and how the governor of Louisiana (who once thought about seceding from the country) realized how the federal government is a necessity in this country. 
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    The whole Chris Christie response has been fascinating to me during the Sandy aftermath. The way he completely shifted on Obama was really clear on the news clip I saw, where his agressive attack on Obama's ability to lead the country was superimposed with his really profound praise for him during FEMA. I agree with what you're saying about Sandy saying something real about the rhetoric of government spending. It's one thing to criticize government programs like FEMA during a period of calm, and much, much harder when they are being implemented effectively right in front of you. In the end, though, Christie's switch might not have been much of a switch at all. As someone mentioned in class, FEMA is already in large part state run and in large part private. He was likely showing a better understanding of it.
  •  
    This is an interesting article. You could (for fun, not really as a legitimate exercise) expand this as a metaphor for the problem with conservatism: it works for the rich, or the people unaffected by the hurricane, but to the poor and the hurricane-affected liberal philosophy is clearly superior. I wonder how much Sandy and Christie actually helped Obama - I read somewhere that Obama jumped a whole percentage point the day after Christie praised him, though who really can ever explain a poll bounce with any certainty.
  •  
    It is important to keep in mind the difference between FEMA's response to Katrina during the Bush Administration when it was led by someone who had little disaster experience and FEMA's response to Sandy. This article shows that when political rhetoric is dropped, people do want government to help with disasters. It would seem that government organizations during administrations that take government roles seriously are more likely to have strong government services. I guess that might be wishful thinking.
  •  
    I pretty much agree with what all you guys are saying. I think Hurricane Sandy has been a good reminder of the need for government services and problem we have with climate change. Hopefully, people will learn from this horrific storm.
mabel taylor

America's Leftward Tilt? - 4 views

  •  
    This is a really thorough opinion piece about how American politics drift left or right. The mention of how both candidates this election have gained more support whenever they did something left-leaning, like "not until [Obama] began talking like a populist did he begin picking up steam in the polls" and Romney " taking back his promise of tax cuts for the rich and proposing instead to let people choose which tax deductions they wanted to take," is especially interesting and makes the idea that politics are likely to continue to drift rightward even more unsettling. I really enjoy this type of political writing where they talk about how each candidate's win would affect future politics, and this article does it well.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    This is a really compelling piece: I particularly like the early line that suggests American's want solutions "whether that means a more active or a more passive government." This is how I feel, and sums up what I think is the easiest way to get past polar politics. I hope to see some of this attitude in Obama's second term: now that his hope for re-election can't be trounced, I hope we'll see less gridlock in our political machine. This is a really good article to re-read now that we know the results. The basic premise of the article, however, is confusing to me: I know this author is referring to philosophy a lot, but I always think of America as leaning far to the right on more concrete issues. In healthcare, for instance, we hang on to a free-market solution while most of the industrial world has taken on a universal option. The strength and funding of national defense is another example. I am curious how this more "populist" philosophy will interact with the practical right-ness in the future, like you mention.
  •  
    I think you could just attribute this to a correction for the rightward drift of both candidates. Obama is largely a centrist and Romney has somewhat aligned himself with the radical right, so both of them moving left helps them come back towards the "middle" of their party. I, personally, hope the leftward correction in the Republican party will continue into Obama's second term and, like John says, dissipate some of the gridlock in Congress.
  •  
    The writer of this article actually seems to think that despite the drift to the right that Obama and more particularly Romney and the Republican party were making is not a good idea. He ends the piece suggesting that whichever candidate wins the election must move away from old Reagan era positions. I agree with him.
  •  
    I found this piece fascinating. It seems to me like America is moving rightward fiscally, and leftward socially. I wonder how that will look in the future. I agree with what John said about healthcare and defense spending. I think that kind of backs up my point about our fiscal conservatism. The article doesn't talk too much about social issues, but the country really voted liberally on social issues in this election.
Eli Melrod

Week 7: The South's Enduring Conservativism - 5 views

  •  
    This piece talks about why the South continues to be extremely conservative politically. I've never been to the South and have always wondered what's going on with the political conservative climate, because it seems to me that conservative economic policy actually hurts a lot of regions in the South. These "Room for Debate" pieces on the NY Times are awesome, because they provide a lot of different perspectives. I'd love to hear all your guys take on this: San Franciscans and Atlanta peeps alike.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    The question the author brings up about "solidarity across race lines" has always been in the back of my mind during elections like this, when poor or working class whites side with fiscal policies that simply aren't designed to benefit them. I'm pretty much on the same page as you, Eli, in that the extremely deep-running religious and class lines that the author uses to characterize Southern voters in general is pretty foreign to me. The idea that the author puts forth in the last paragraph, the bargain of working class Southern voters to remain "'real' whites" in exchange for losing economic clout, is a pretty compelling part of party politics that I wish the author elaborated on a little more. I'm also curious why, based on the religiousness that the author points to as such a large factor, these working class voters don't simply participate as fiscal liberals and social conservatives?
  •  
    I really liked this article, both because of the discussion of Southern demographics, like Eli, I wish I knew more about the political situation in the South, and the introduction to remaining racial lines (I also wish this piece had gone on longer) that go beyond open prejudice or discrimination but can be observed in voting patterns and political allegiances. I think the power of tradition here is fascinating and I'd be interested to understand specifically what is sacrificed to remain within this balance of "morality, class and race" or how they play out beyond the South somewhere like San Francisco.
  •  
    I think this article brings up important ideas. I'd like to know more about how affluent whites used whiteness in the 1940s to align lower class and middle class whites with their political views. I do know that cities like Atlanta have had famous black mayors who shared religious beliefs and economic goals with both black and white voters. It is definitely something I would like to know more about.
  •  
    Great post Eli. I think this article makes many valid points because in the south, the conservative history is very apparent. Being from Georgia especially during election, President Obama is not widely respected and people often criticize his policies harshly. I hate to say it but I do believe that racist southern ideals are partially the reason for some of the unpopularity of Obama in the south. Relating to the conservative tendencies in southern states, I believe the reason the south has remained predominantly right sided is because tradition is such a big part of southern culture, and with southern tradition comes conservative values.
  •  
    For me this brings up evidence to support people not being able to move past their moral compass even if it means progress in their socioeconomic outlook and progress in the nation. It makes sense to stay true to their self, but it is not justifiable to hurt yourself and your nation by preventing forward progress. In theory it makes sense to try and change their minds, but it is a lot easier said than done and would take a great amount of time and we have to be patient about it.
cody s

Why George W. Bush Will Decide the 2012 Election - Newsweek and The Daily Beast - 3 views

  •  
    This article addresses the effect of George Bush's legacy on the current election and how it was reflected in the conventions. Clinton, in his speech at the DNC, compared the net job creation of the two parties. This article says that ultimately, not just this sentence but Clinton's entire speech came down to that point: evoking the successes of the Democrats while reminding voters of the many failures of George W. Bush. Clinton's presence, the article says, turned the race into Obama and Clinton vs. Romney and Bush. The article cites some interesting historical examples of presidents who were able to win despite the temporary unpopularity of their parties at the time, and how those candidates distanced themselves from the failed policies with concrete, factual differences in their philosophies. Romney, the article says, has failed to do so.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I'd also add that it's no coincidence, like Eli's article mentions, that Bush wasn't even at the Republican National Convention, contrasting Clinton's overwhelming presence at the DNC. In the same way that Obama is using Clinton to his benefit, I agree that Romney needs to distinguish himself from Bush in a deeper way than physical distance. For me, this comes down to his fiscal policy. He hasn't painted his plan for recovery (as a "fix-it man") in any terms other than blanket conservatism. One strategy I saw a little of in the Romney speech, like you mention, is the use of history. I'm wondering which would work better for his image: evoking situations where a fiscal conservative US thrived before Bush, or separating himself from Republican party of the past in any way he can. From what I can tell, creating his own distinct image seems like Romney's best bet.
  •  
    It is interesting how past presidents influence voting. At the DNC, Obama compared his deep doubts and controversy to those experienced by Lincoln. I doubt voters today have any idea that Lincoln was a Republican. I think I remember Romney quoting FDR in his speech even though his position about government's role in solving economic problems is in many ways the opposite of FDR. The article suggests that the only way for Romney to shake the ghost of Bush would be to define himself as a strong, distinct character like Eisenhower. Can a successful businessman do what a successful general did? It's hard to imagine how.
  •  
    Great post. I really enjoyed reading this article because I do believe that the legacy of the last elected party plays a major role in future elections. If a president from a particular party succeeds in his own term, his political party gains more credibility because people will connect a president's success with his party. For example(hypothetically speaking), If a democratic president successfully relieves the U.S from economic depression, in the future if depression occurs people would begin to think a democrat is the right candidate to fix the problem.
  •  
    I agree that the Republican's avoidance of anything too heavily Bush-related is not working in their favor, and like this article notes, whenever a political sensitivity makes a candidate vulnerable, ignoring it is certainly not the best course of action. But this article also shows how Romney is just not well-suited to actually addressing the past failures of Republicans, both because of the early failures in his campaign to sell himself as the type of economically-focused candidate voters want and his unclear values and opinions, and makes it clear that the Republican who will erase the legacy of Bush will not be Romney.
1 - 6 of 6
Showing 20 items per page