• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Grand Strategy for a Divided America

The Democrat Party today is not the same as under Kennedy or LBJ.There are no conservatives left because they became Republicans or at least vote that way.The south used to be a solid Democrat voting block.Now its almost solid Republican.Only the left coast and northeast remain Democrat bastions.
 
tomahawk6 said:
The Democrat Party today is not the same as under Kennedy or LBJ.There are no conservatives left because they became Republicans or at least vote that way.The south used to be a solid Democrat voting block.Now its almost solid Republican.Only the left coast and northeast remain Democrat bastions.


I agree with all that, but the Democratic/liberal states are big ... California, New York, Florida, etc. Those three have 113 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House.

But my main point is about the growing influence of the left and it has to do with two essentials: fund raising and getting out the vote.

The GOP has advantages in both. It has far "deeper pockets" and the GOP vote is more committed ... not more votes, just easier to get to the polls.

The Democrats will need to 'reach out' to the political left for both money and, especially, for votes. And the left will respond and, my guess (if an election were held today) is that Clinton will win. The left will demand repayment ~ of course they won't get Treasury or Commerce or even Defence, but I'll wager, now, that Clinton's Secretary of State will be someone with a noted antipathy towards Israel and the next head of the NSA will not be a recent security/intelligence executive, she (we'll see a lot of shes in a Clinton administration) will be a noted civil liberties advocate, maybe a law professor ... the community organizers will have key roles in lots of departments and, in Clinton's second term many of them will be promoted to full cabinet secretary rank.
 
Might I suggest the Department of Commerce as a bellwether.  I had some dealings with their agencies in the past.

When Democrats (Clinton) were in power the role of the Department was to restrain Commerce (become a second Department of the Environment).  Under the Republicans the role was to, if not promote, at least not hinder Commerce.
 
When we talk about America it might help to have a focus on what (demographically) America is and what it will be in the near future.

The Pew Resaerch Centre has produced a useful report, a synopsis of their new book a actually, which looks at the numbers and assesses the likely impacts across a wide range of issues.
 
tomahawk6 said:
The Democrat Party today is not the same as under Kennedy or LBJ.There are no conservatives left because they became Republicans or at least vote that way.The south used to be a solid Democrat voting block.Now its almost solid Republican.Only the left coast and northeast remain Democrat bastions.

Any more than today's GOP is the party of Eisenhower or even, dare I say it, Nixon.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
When we talk about America it might help to have a focus on what (demographically) America is and what it will be in the near future.

The Pew Research Centre has produced a useful report, a synopsis of their new book a actually, which looks at the numbers and assesses the likely impacts across a wide range of issues.

Wow. Fascinating stuff. I had heard bits and pieces of this sort of prediction in various places, but never as coherently as this. This must be disturbing and even frightening for some Americans. No wonder the Religious Right is so strident: if these figures are true, they may be headed for utter marginalization. Which, in my books, would be just fine.

Or, are they...?

One thing I didn't see discussed (but which is discussed in the very similar Canadian work The Big Shift), is the theory that many new immigrants hold strong religious beliefs and are socially quite conservative. Hispanics and Asians, the two groups headlined in the Pew study, are anecdotally social and religious conservatives. In Canada we see a similar theory around South Asian immigrants. The theory holds that, for example, issues of women's rights, gay rights, a secular society, etc don't necessarily resonate the same with these folks as they do in middle class, liberal European-background society.

The interesting thing on the religious front is that the vanguard of religious and social conservatism might pass from white, old stock middle class and largely rural Protestants to middle and lower middle class immigrants in large urban centres.

Could the Republican Party (or its successor) become a party of younger non-white immigrants, while the Democrats become a shrinking faction of  aging white, liberal, middle and upper class  folks?
 
This thread could be a U course! Lots of words.  Holy Frack!!!
 
pbi said:
Wow. Fascinating stuff. I had heard bits and pieces of this sort of prediction in various places, but never as coherently as this. This must be disturbing and even frightening for some Americans. No wonder the Religious Right is so strident: if these figures are true, they may be headed for utter marginalization. Which, in my books, would be just fine.

Or, are they...?

One thing I didn't see discussed (but which is discussed in the very similar Canadian work The Big Shift), is the theory that many new immigrants hold strong religious beliefs and are socially quite conservative. Hispanics and Asians, the two groups headlined in the Pew study, are anecdotally social and religious conservatives. In Canada we see a similar theory around South Asian immigrants. The theory holds that, for example, issues of women's rights, gay rights, a secular society, etc don't necessarily resonate the same with these folks as they do in middle class, liberal European-background society.

The interesting thing on the religious front is that the vanguard of religious and social conservatism might pass from white, old stock middle class and largely rural Protestants to middle and lower middle class immigrants in large urban centres.

Could the Republican Party (or its successor) become a party of younger non-white immigrants, while the Democrats become a shrinking faction of  aging white, liberal, middle and upper class  folks?

Oddly this is also the topic of Samual Huntington's last book "Who are We?", which speaks directly about the role of large numbers of "settlers" (as opposed to colonists) in bringing and transplanting a unified "world view" with them. The America of the Enlightenment era was that way because most American settlers came from particular places in England and carried with them the spirit and practice of Protestant dissenters, building the cultural and political foundations of the American State. Huntington was also wary of the flood of Hispanic Settlers in the American southwest, seeing them as bringing a cultural world view which was at odds with the American one, and which (he feared) would dilute or weaken it.

The Big Shift translates this argument into Canadian terms, and the success of the CPC in courting the immigrant vote is a reflection of this process described by Huntington at work (in this case, the Settlers are being courted by the CPC since their world view is aligned with that of the Party). Tappnig into preexisting cultural memes that align with your own is probably much faster and easier than trying to homogenize entirely new and cohesive groups into the existing polity.
 
Wouldn't it be odd, if the "liberals" in Canada were to abandon their traditionally "pro-immigrant" stance, because they perceived immigrants to be a source of social and political views antithetical to their own? And, concurrently (maybe it's happening now, if you believe The Big Shift), the "conservatives" came to embrace that same group of immigrants as new lifeblood to their side?

We might hear otherwise "liberal" Canadians (what The Big Shift calls the "Laurentian Consensus" types) talk about "those damned immigrants" in much the same way "conservatives" have typically been thought to do.

I'm probably quite a bit more of a "liberal" than many of the folks on this site, but I think this scenario is plausible. Strange, but plausible.
 
Frankly, except for some tokenism, the Liberals did very little for immigrants except make it easy to come to Canada. Certainly much Liberal social engineering was based on "Progressive" ideas and was completely at odds to the world views of may immigrant groups in Canada. Since the various flavours of Conservatives pre the merger of the PC's and Reform did little to court these groups and were passive in the face of hostile PSYOPS that characterized them as bigoted etc., the Liberals got a free ride.

Now that the Conservatives are actively courting these groups, and are able to demonstrate that their party is aligned with the traditional values of the immigrant groups (one of the benefits of being a transformative party is you actually have ideas and ideals to point towards, no matter how poorly you execute them), the Liberals have lost a voting block they had taken for granted. Since the Young Dauphin has nothing to point towards as a reason to vote for the Liberals, getting the vote back will be a long, uphill struggle.

In the United States, the political dynamics are different, but I think the end results could end up being very similar. The establishment parties are busy trying to gain voters by the time honoured method of bribing people, but the actual means and resources to do so are running out, as well as pitting various client groups against each other. The TEA Party movement's basic platform af a smaller, more responsible government could work if they can tie it to a culture of hard work, thrift and saving for the future. Many immigrants to the United States do fall into this cultural meme (stories of how Africans coming to America succeed are just the most recent version of this truth), and I have the feeling this could be a better sell to the Hispanic community than "amnesty". Looking at the recent scuffle in California as Asian-Americans rise up against racial preferences in education shows another potential fracture point that could be exploited.

So, as you suggest, a resurgent Republican party might well become a party of immigrants, while the Dems become a shrinking party of aging white baby boomers with a few clients along for whatever freebies get thrown their way.
 
Cut to the chase and see Canada and the US combine to form the United States of North America. :)
 
Not a good idea ... we cannot afford one another.

But: let us, de facto, "erase the border," as the 1988 Canadian election ad threatened, by having a real free trade agreement that includes the free movement of all goods, services and people - at least of people who are citizens or landed immigrants/green card holders. That will require a bunch of technical people, trade and commerce and immigration and border security folks, to work hard, together, for a year or two, but it is an achievable goal.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Not a good idea ... we cannot afford one another.

But: let us, de facto, "erase the border," as the 1988 Canadian election ad threatened, by having a real free trade agreement that includes the free movement of all goods, services and people - at least of people who are citizens or landed immigrants/green card holders. That will require a bunch of technical people, trade and commerce and immigration and border security folks, to work hard, together, for a year or two, but it is an achievable goal.

Like the EU? 
 
tomahawk6 said:
Cut to the chase and see Canada and the US combine to form the United States of North America. :)

Do you really want 34 million people who are left of the Democrats? >:D
 
pbi said:
Do you really want 34 million people who are left of the Democrats? >:D .....of dubious employability and literacy, entitled to a hand-out?
  >:D 2
 
pbi said:
Do you really want 34 million people who are left of the Democrats? >:D

Don't you mean Does Canada want 350 million people who speak a strange language and are so socially conservative that almost all channels on the TV would have to be heavily censored (don't even think about what they would do to the french channels after midnight).

And we'd be watching hockey with red and blue dots again.

Oh, and we'd still have Ted Cruz.
 
cupper said:
Don't you mean Does Canada want 350 million people who speak a strange language and are so socially conservative that almost all channels on the TV would have to be heavily censored (don't even think about what they would do to the french channels after midnight).

And we'd be watching hockey with red and blue dots again.

Oh, and we'd still have Ted Cruz.

Ohhhh, right. Forgot about that.

Reminds  me of  Ellen Degeneris interviewing a Canadian guest: she was studiously avoiding pronouncing "Regina" properly, apparently because it sounded too much like "vagina". There is a sort of latent Puritanism, isn't there.

Ahhh...but then there's New York City...
 
pbi said:
Reminds  me of  Ellen Degeneris interviewing a Canadian guest: she was studiously avoiding pronouncing "Regina" properly, apparently because it sounded too much like "vagina". There is a sort of latent Puritanism isn't there.
I don't think it was Puritanism causing Ellen to avoid saying vagina-like words -- you know, distractions and all.  ;D
 
Journeyman said:
I don't think it was Puritanism causing Ellen to avoid saying vagina-like words -- you know, distractions and all.  ;D

Ohhhh.....I didn't think of THAT, either....

But, as a devil's advocate point, if the USA is so socially conservative, why is Ellen apparently so popular with mainstream audiences? And Rosie O'Donnell before her?
 
Back
Top