Do You Favor Any of the '08 "Big Six?"

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I'd probably vote for ... Obama, Edwards scares me.

Why does Edwards scare you? Obama is just the black Edwards.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why does Edwards scare you? Obama is just the black Edwards.

Edwards is full of the protectionist rhetoric. Maybe I haven't been paying attention (Ok... I really haven't primaries are more than 6 months away WTF?) but it seems like Obama isn't likely to talk about class struggle any time soon.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Edwards is full of the protectionist rhetoric. Maybe I haven't been paying attention (Ok... I really haven't primaries are more than 6 months away WTF?) but it seems like Obama isn't likely to talk about class struggle any time soon.

I think youve got it right. Obama is all talking process, and Iraq. Just what upper middle class liberals like. Harold Myerson said that in that sense even Hilary (who is pro free trade) is closer to Edwards - they both are more focused on domestic bread and butter issues than Obama.

[Victor Galis]

My biggest problem with American politics is the alignment of the parties.

I would really like to see the parties shift pushing the unions and blue-collar workers together with the religious guys into some sort of Christian Democratic Party and everyone else into a Liberal Party (liberal in the classical sense; it might be hard getting some of the green activists to embrace globalization, but meh.)

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
My biggest problem with American politics is the alignment of the parties.

I would really like to see the parties shift pushing the unions and blue-collar workers together with the religious guys into some sort of Christian Democratic Party and everyone else into a Liberal Party (liberal in the classical sense; it might be hard getting some of the green activists to embrace globalization, but meh.)

Well, the last thing America needs right now is what it currently has: a whiny, complaining Left and an inept, near-fascist Right.

So party realignment = good.

[Alexander I]

Now Giuli' and 'Bama are tied at 27. Hmm.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Edwards is ...

an ideaological empty suit relying on charisma as his main appeal rather than anything of substance just as Obama is?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
an ideaological empty suit relying on charisma as his main appeal rather than anything of substance just as Obama is?

Yes, but their target demographics are not the same.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
My biggest problem with American politics is the alignment of the parties.

I would really like to see the parties shift pushing the unions and blue-collar workers together with the religious guys into some sort of Christian Democratic Party and everyone else into a Liberal Party (liberal in the classical sense; it might be hard getting some of the green activists to embrace globalization, but meh.)

difficulty 1. not all fundie types are working class by any means. Some are quite affluent, and will tend to join a free market party, and pull it to the right on cultural issues.

difficulty 2. quite a few upper middle class folks commited to secularism are also commited to "social justice" either out of conviction, or belief in the necessity of a welfare state to maintain a "liberal" society. this is the historic division in 'classicial liberalism' the breakaway of progressives from hard line free marketers - occured in Europe too, for ex Lloyd George Liberalism. In the US these were the folks who led the new deal, and their ideology is so wrapped into the self image of the Democratic part, it would be very hard to break that apart.

difficulty 3 - a large part of the social dem leaning (not all union members, btw) blue collar vote is black or hispanic, and there are still cultural racial issues that get in the way of an alliance with blue collar white southern fundies.

difficulty 4 - there is no real constituency for "classical liberalism" Every corporation or group is willing to support state intervention it sees as in its interests, and this makes the support base for "classical liberalism" inherently unstable.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Yes, but their target demographics are not the same.

You're the first person to explain a meaningful difference between the two. I thank you.

[DinoDoc]

re difficulty 4: How would that be substantially different than from Europe?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
re difficulty 4: How would that be substantially different than from Europe?

where is there a euro country that has the kind of party structure Galis suggests?

[DinoDoc]

Considering those are all Euro parties he mentioned, quite a few.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Considering those are all Euro parties he mentioned, quite a few.

I mean a two party system dominated by Christian Dems vs 'classical libs'

The most common Europ party structure is CDs vs Soc Dems, with "liberals" as a small group in the center, and the "liberals" in those instances are usually more statist on welfare state issues than would be compatible with "classical liberal".

France the old centrist block (Giscardist) of "liberals" AND CDs broke apart, with the "liberals" AND the CDs going into an alliance with the Gaullists (thats Sarkozys political origin, BTW), except for a rump of more left leaning "liberals" (Bayrou)

In UK its Tories, who maybe are classical libs in VGs def, but seem to include CD types as well, vs Soc dems, and the Lib Dem party is centrist but not quite "classical lib"

I suppose you could pretend Labour is CD cause Blair believes in God, and pretend the Tories are 'classical liberals' but I think youd be mistaken.

[Victor Galis]

Well, really, I don't think there's a two party system anywhere that's quite like that, though there are multiparty systems that contain two such parties. Really, the idea is stolen from Thomas Friedman, who suggested a reallignment based on views on Globalisation. He calls the parties the Wall (anti-) and the Web (pro-). I prefer not to come up with new names when the parties he thinks should form already resemble parties elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong, my Liberal party would favor state intervention if it is justifiable, though would generally ask whether state intervention can have benefits or not (Hence not Libertarian.) I suppose my definition of necessary is not strictly a Classical Liberal definition; however, I don't support, say, income redistribution for its own sake. I support equality of opportunity, which I think requires free public education. Things like that. I seriously think that the solution to environmental issues can come only if Greens and Big Business manage to compromise: abandon alarmism, look for solutions that are practical... I honestly think businesses dig in their heels and refuse to take action on environmental issues because environmentalists don't consider practicality when proposing solutions. I honestly think that moderate-cost action, taken right now, could prevent most of the worst of the devastation that's supposed to be comming.