Thursday, September 17, 2009
Whistling in the Dark
In Kling's post he posits that the current instantiation of the conservative movement is the GOP's last stand, but also the last stand of the "progressive elites".
I come back to my view that this is white, small-town America making its last stand. However, I think, also, that the progressive elite is making a last stand. My guess is that doubts are mounting among many independent voters about whether they want such a highly-charged politics. I am sticking with my bet that the Democrats will hold onto their House and Senate majorities as well as the Presidency through the elections of 2016, but relative to six months ago I feel that I am depending more on Republican incompetence than overall political trends to win that bet.
Two things....it really is all about race, and has been since the South Carolina delegation forced Jefferson to excise a condemnation of slavery from the Declaration before they would join the union, and our country was concieved, designed, and implemented by elites.
The GOP simply has no traction without electable elites in their leadership.....we live in a democratic meritocracy.....so elites are always going to be with us.
So much of conservative intellectual product now seems to be just whistling in the dark.
Here is the Dark.....
Twenty years ago the electorate was 95% white. Last year, in 2008, the electorate was 75% white. At least a third of those whites consistantly vote democratic, Carter to Obama. So currently the white conservative vote is about 50%.
Then how did Obama get elected when the country wasn't really demographically ready for him?
A perfect storm of environmental voter influence is how.
The horrorshow of the Bush presidency, the market fail, and the unappealing alternative of a 72-year-old 4x melanoma survivor running with a replacement of a deeply unready ex-beauty pageant contestant combined to give Obama an advantage of more than 2:1 electoral college votes, 365 to 173.
The anger is real, but only partly anti-black.
It is really anti-everyone but "heartland" whites.
Joe Wilson's outburst was an example of the genuine frustration republicans feel....in his district, there is tension between whites and hispanics over a stressed and diminished labor market. Republicans know that they need to reach hispanic voters...but they are also keenly aware that their base will rage-log on them at the first sign of hispanic outreach.
In another 20 years the electorate will only be 40% white. If a third of those voters continue to vote democratic, then the GOP will be reduced to less than 30% of the electorate.
So Kling is correct about one thing....this is the GOP's last stand.
It only goes downhill from here.
This is simply the GOP's Alamo.
No one gets out alive.
// posted by Matoko Kusanagi @ 6:26 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
OK here's a scenario:
If your number trends are right, then I'd guess at some point, the Catholic hierarchy will decide that good conservative Catholic families should join the GOP and become major players - force through a proAmnesty vote.
What could stop them? It's already the largest single denomination in America.
It would be a cinch to redefine the GOP as a Christian Democrat party. They already don't like abortion.
If your number trends are right, then I'd guess at some point, the Catholic hierarchy will decide that good conservative Catholic families should join the GOP and become major players - force through a proAmnesty vote.
What could stop them? It's already the largest single denomination in America.
It would be a cinch to redefine the GOP as a Christian Democrat party. They already don't like abortion.
At some point they'll do a deal.
The Church will agree to come out in support of the GOP, to make it a joint, Christian Democrat style party, if the party agrees to support amnesty.
That will leave the Dems as a secular Social Democrat party.
The Church will agree to come out in support of the GOP, to make it a joint, Christian Democrat style party, if the party agrees to support amnesty.
That will leave the Dems as a secular Social Democrat party.
OT.
Despite the fact that I support the Manned Space Program, I am not in favor of an early manned mission to Mars.
I prefer to develop Space Industrialization on the Moon/Earth Orbit first.
One of the big reasons is because of the radiation problem.
If we used lunar raw materials, we could build O'Neill colonies with adequate radiation shielding to protect us from cosmic radiation.
We could also develop large, nuclear-powered spacecraft, with enough shielding and speed to get us to Mars, in a short time, safely.
With nuclear rockets, we could transport entire colonies to Mars orbit, to provide safe, comfortable habitats for arriving Mars astronauts. From there Mars could be explored by Virtual Reality Robots.
In time, manned laboratories could be built below the surface of Mars (or the Moon for that matter). There human explorers could live and work in safety. A few meters of soil covering would give equal protection to that provided by Earth's atmosphere.
Humans should not operate in the open on planets/moons without dense atmospheres. They should use well-shielded tracked vehicles to move around. Extended surface work should be carried out by VR Robots.
I believe the current approach is not safe enough for space colonization. It will have a severe impact on the health and well-being of astronauts. Including both physical and mental deterioration. Cosmic rays damage brain cells.
Despite the fact that I support the Manned Space Program, I am not in favor of an early manned mission to Mars.
I prefer to develop Space Industrialization on the Moon/Earth Orbit first.
One of the big reasons is because of the radiation problem.
If we used lunar raw materials, we could build O'Neill colonies with adequate radiation shielding to protect us from cosmic radiation.
We could also develop large, nuclear-powered spacecraft, with enough shielding and speed to get us to Mars, in a short time, safely.
With nuclear rockets, we could transport entire colonies to Mars orbit, to provide safe, comfortable habitats for arriving Mars astronauts. From there Mars could be explored by Virtual Reality Robots.
In time, manned laboratories could be built below the surface of Mars (or the Moon for that matter). There human explorers could live and work in safety. A few meters of soil covering would give equal protection to that provided by Earth's atmosphere.
Humans should not operate in the open on planets/moons without dense atmospheres. They should use well-shielded tracked vehicles to move around. Extended surface work should be carried out by VR Robots.
I believe the current approach is not safe enough for space colonization. It will have a severe impact on the health and well-being of astronauts. Including both physical and mental deterioration. Cosmic rays damage brain cells.
I don't think they can work that deal, Spock.
The evangelicals will rage-log at the first mention odf an amnesty deal.
They are 80% of what is left of the GOP.
Obama already has the catholic vote too.
That is why he has softpeddled abortion and SSM.
So as not to stab his allies in the back.
The evangelicals will rage-log at the first mention odf an amnesty deal.
They are 80% of what is left of the GOP.
Obama already has the catholic vote too.
That is why he has softpeddled abortion and SSM.
So as not to stab his allies in the back.
I think in time they will see the light or face growing irrelevance, exactly for the reasons you describe.
Remember though, I am talking about trends. In the short term the Dems could lose the next election if they seriously screw up the economic situation over the next few years. This is a real possibility.
Remember though, I am talking about trends. In the short term the Dems could lose the next election if they seriously screw up the economic situation over the next few years. This is a real possibility.
Sorry posted this on the wrong thread. Reposted here:
I've been playing around a little bit with the population data from that demographics website.
The regional database only goes from 1950 to 2050, but it's reasonable to project the trends in the population ratio a little outside those ranges.
I'm using logarithmic trends. The coefficient of determination, R squared, for a loglinear trend is
0.9985 so it's a pretty good model.
What I find is that the population ratio between the Americas and the Continent of Europe, was 1:2 probably sometime in the mid-1930s. Just before WWII, at the height of European imperialism.
The Americas caught up with Europe around 1990 when the ratio reached 1:1.
The ratio is projected to pass 2:1 around 2050.
So what we are seeing here is a gradual process of the New World passing the Old.
My conclusion again: The future of Western Civilization is in the New World.
This can only be accentuated if young Europeans, confronted by a declining, ageing Europe, and a dynamic, younger New World, choose to emigrate in the coming decades.
I've been playing around a little bit with the population data from that demographics website.
The regional database only goes from 1950 to 2050, but it's reasonable to project the trends in the population ratio a little outside those ranges.
I'm using logarithmic trends. The coefficient of determination, R squared, for a loglinear trend is
0.9985 so it's a pretty good model.
What I find is that the population ratio between the Americas and the Continent of Europe, was 1:2 probably sometime in the mid-1930s. Just before WWII, at the height of European imperialism.
The Americas caught up with Europe around 1990 when the ratio reached 1:1.
The ratio is projected to pass 2:1 around 2050.
So what we are seeing here is a gradual process of the New World passing the Old.
My conclusion again: The future of Western Civilization is in the New World.
This can only be accentuated if young Europeans, confronted by a declining, ageing Europe, and a dynamic, younger New World, choose to emigrate in the coming decades.
Trying to see the big picture:
I think it's possible to think of the transitional period we are in as "The Atlantic Century".
This is the century, say from 1940 to ~2040, when the most successful civilization up to that point - Western Civilization - straddled the Atlantic Ocean, with more or less, similar power on both sides.
In the centuries before the Atlantic Century, Western Civ had been an overwhelming European culture, with growing, increasingly independent, overseas colonies, after the Portuguese explorations of the 15th century.
In the centuries after the transitional Atlantic Century, Western Civ will be a Western Hemisphere, largely Anglo-Hispanic culture, with a declining ancestral source culture in Europe.
Eurasia itself will be increasingly dominated by the Great Asian civilizations. China will be dominant by the mid-21st century, and probably India will catch up towards the end of the century.
So that is the World that I foresee: Three great civilizations by the end of the century. The West in the Western Hemisphere. China and India competing for Eurasia and Africa. All three civilizations will have around 1 to 2 Billion people.
The greatest potential for conflict is between China and India because of their proximity.
The West is pretty much isolated from the rest by the two oceans. Consequently, the West could withdraw from the wider world, if it chose, and I truly believe that in the long run, that will be the wisest choice.
The West should return to isolationism in the
Western Hemisphere, and concentrate on its own individualistic traditions, based on its own rich history.
The Age of meddling is over. Asia is rapidly becoming too powerful to influence. We must look to our own best interests in future.
This is why I favor the USA gradually withdrawing from the Eastern Hemisphere. I think there in no long-term strategic purpose in interfering in Eurasian affairs. The West is only provoking the locals, when we could go our way and let them go theirs. Safer. Less provocative. Less burdensome militarily & economically.
So I advocate a phased return to isolationism and the Monroe doctrine. It needs to be phased, because a rapid collapse would cause instability. But the trend needs to be there.
I think it's possible to think of the transitional period we are in as "The Atlantic Century".
This is the century, say from 1940 to ~2040, when the most successful civilization up to that point - Western Civilization - straddled the Atlantic Ocean, with more or less, similar power on both sides.
In the centuries before the Atlantic Century, Western Civ had been an overwhelming European culture, with growing, increasingly independent, overseas colonies, after the Portuguese explorations of the 15th century.
In the centuries after the transitional Atlantic Century, Western Civ will be a Western Hemisphere, largely Anglo-Hispanic culture, with a declining ancestral source culture in Europe.
Eurasia itself will be increasingly dominated by the Great Asian civilizations. China will be dominant by the mid-21st century, and probably India will catch up towards the end of the century.
So that is the World that I foresee: Three great civilizations by the end of the century. The West in the Western Hemisphere. China and India competing for Eurasia and Africa. All three civilizations will have around 1 to 2 Billion people.
The greatest potential for conflict is between China and India because of their proximity.
The West is pretty much isolated from the rest by the two oceans. Consequently, the West could withdraw from the wider world, if it chose, and I truly believe that in the long run, that will be the wisest choice.
The West should return to isolationism in the
Western Hemisphere, and concentrate on its own individualistic traditions, based on its own rich history.
The Age of meddling is over. Asia is rapidly becoming too powerful to influence. We must look to our own best interests in future.
This is why I favor the USA gradually withdrawing from the Eastern Hemisphere. I think there in no long-term strategic purpose in interfering in Eurasian affairs. The West is only provoking the locals, when we could go our way and let them go theirs. Safer. Less provocative. Less burdensome militarily & economically.
So I advocate a phased return to isolationism and the Monroe doctrine. It needs to be phased, because a rapid collapse would cause instability. But the trend needs to be there.
The Age of Meddling.....sounds so innocuous.
When you think about it, I guess we built our own Reavers.
:(
When you think about it, I guess we built our own Reavers.
:(
Looks like it really might not be a good idea to start drinking too early.
Interesting. My bias is that it is good for young people to be exposed to responsible alcohol use in the home.
I wonder what the safe limits are.
This kind of research might be suggesting that teetotal lifestyles could be the best choice for families with children.
Interesting. My bias is that it is good for young people to be exposed to responsible alcohol use in the home.
I wonder what the safe limits are.
This kind of research might be suggesting that teetotal lifestyles could be the best choice for families with children.
Shams, I read your comment on the other blog:
I believe he plans to execute on immigration reform in 2010, where we liberals will be vastly entertained by the Epic Spectacle of the GOP trying to hispander the demographic timer on non-hispanic caucs while the base chews them a new asshole.
If I may say so, that is a clever scenario. It would undoubtedly place the GOP leadership in a tight corner.
But I still think that the real concern of the Dems in 2012 must be the economy. Beside that, all else fades to insignificance.
Post a Comment
I believe he plans to execute on immigration reform in 2010, where we liberals will be vastly entertained by the Epic Spectacle of the GOP trying to hispander the demographic timer on non-hispanic caucs while the base chews them a new asshole.
If I may say so, that is a clever scenario. It would undoubtedly place the GOP leadership in a tight corner.
But I still think that the real concern of the Dems in 2012 must be the economy. Beside that, all else fades to insignificance.
<< Home
