Two Guesses

[J. J.]

I think the Republican Party of today is very different than the GOP of 1976.  I would say the same thing of the Democratic Party.  I've looked what Ted Kennedy was advocating in 1980, and it was far to the left of the current Russian government, more to the left than any UK Labor Government.

And yes, the Republican Party of 1896 was very different than the Republican Party of 1904, as was the Democratic Party.

[J. J.]

I keep on saying, I do not know the changes only that I see the change coming.

[J. J.]

So, anything could happen from here on out?

I can't tell at this point.  I'm saying it is something we should be looking for.

[J. J.]

So IT COULD be anything.....at this point.

I have no idea what direction it is going to go.  We could see a liberal elected, and a huge reaction against him/her.  We could see a conservative elected and a new right wing pathway opened up.  The center could shift left or right.

[J. J.]

Though a further shift to the right could be seen as simply the strengthening of the Reagan revolution, unless of course there is a more secular conservatism or a more compassionate conservatism.

It would not necessarily be an extension, but more dramatic swing to the right.

[J. J.]

5. Just before the strong shift occurs, there may be a strong result in the opposite direction. This is because the opposition to the current policy foundation almost reaches the tipping point and those put forward a candidate who focuses on their alternative foundation. Because the opposition does not yet have enough support, they don't win, however the public that is completely satisfied with the status quo responds strongly to the opposition canddiate.

Only on this point do I disagree.  I wouldn't call 1976 a strong shift to the left, when going back to 1936.  Same with the elections between 1868-1892.  I see that as almost a continuation with a break, in presidential elections, beginning with the first presidential elections of the re-alignment period.

I'm seeing parallels between 1976 and 2008, whomever eventually wins, even if they win by a landslide.  I think either Michelle, Bill, or Cindy should lean over to their respective spouses and say, "After us, the deluge," on election night.

[J. J.]

I could see, long term (2016-), a substantially more authoritarian government, with security as being the base.

[J. J.]

...and if things get worse, could that lead to people acting "out of the system"?  i.e. Left-Wing Militias popping up?

The closest the US ever can to that was in the late 1960's and 1970's.

[J. J.]

I know.....and it could happen again.

That was the product of a very liberal period; I don't know if this would lead to a very leberal period.

[J. J.]

Time to bump.

[J. J.]

You could see two situations:

1.  Obama wins and is the next Jimmy Carter, only worse.  Within 5 years of today there is Christian conservative Congress abnd President.

2.  McCain win and the evangelicals in the party are diminished.

[J. J.]

- Will WMDs be used?

Probambly at chemical weapons in a terrorist attack.

- Will there be another war?

Yes.

- Will there be a reccesion?

Yes.

- Will there be a depression?

Not like 1929, but I could see a return to the late 1970's type economy.

- Will life-saving science be abandoned?

No.

- Will any other potentially world-changing sciences be abandoned?

Ask Tesla.

- Will there be a large disaster that is much bigger than Katrina on the United States?

Yes, with number one being a possibility.

[J. J.]

Ummmmmmmm I hate to be an asshole but lots of your predictions seem to be pretty shaky/partisan to me. Then again mine are too, hope/bias is on all sides, just saying.

I'm not sure "partisan" would apply to my most recent answers.

I do think that if Republicans are elected that are seen as being outside of the "religious right," that will weaken the influence of the religious right.

I'd say the same about Black voters and the Democratic Party. 

[J. J.]

Ummmmmmmm I hate to be an asshole but lots of your predictions seem to be pretty shaky/partisan to me. Then again mine are too, hope/bias is on all sides, just saying.

I'm not sure "partisan" would apply to my most recent answers.

I do think that if Republicans are elected that are seen as being outside of the "religious right," that will weaken the influence of the religious right.

I'd say the same about Black voters and the Democratic Party. 

No I meant with terrorism. I should have clarified, also I thought your assesment of Obama was a little partisan. I don't think it would be a great presidency but worse than Carter...

First, I don't see a terrorist attack as being based on what party is control.

Second, I'm looking at the House seat change from 1974-6 and 1980.  I think it was a high 40's shift, without redistricting and the GOP base was lower (about 144-7 seats).  In 2010, there will be redistricting, and probably an upswing in the opposition party control of the state legislatures.  If it's Obama, he'll have to overcome that.  In short, evens could make it much worse than Carter.

Now, Obama's job performance is unknowable, but I have to look at a candidate who made the "God and guns" comment and his lack of experience (Carter was more experienced as an administrator).  Unable to relate to the population and inexperienced are not promising.

[J. J.]

You could see two situations:

1.  Obama wins and is the next Jimmy Carter, only worse.  Within 5 years of today there is Christian conservative Congress abnd President.

Worse than Jimmy Carter? How is that possible?

You could see two situations:
2.  McCain win and the evangelicals in the party are diminished.

If anything, the Dobsonites will support primary challenges in 2010 that will further bifurcate the GOP between the economic folks (default secularists) and the evangelicals.

That's probably right.

I am also thinking that if Obama does SOMETHING different and things don't get any worse, I think we could be on the way to a more progressive country. Basically, no one knows what will happen after or before November 5, 2008. I mean, if McCain wins, that could have the same effect of a bad Obama administration- people could simply become more dissillusioned with progressive politics and there could be massive reprocussions on the Left. Maybe the democratic party will go the way of the whigs. I mean, do you see a future for the Democratic Party if their platform is discredited?

The odds on an Obama failure (due to lack of experience) are high.

There is also another problem.  Having a black president breaks down barriers, but it also removes a very powerful argument that that the country discriminates.  You could see a dismantling of race based affirmative action.  You could see a total end to affirmative action and, in future elections, the black electorate being totally taken for granted or candidates from both parties using the urban black electorate as scapegoats.  That is at least partly true with a successful Obama presidency.

[J. J.]

Maybe if this was a different period, maybe you would be right. I think the entire black issue will depend on how his presidency goes or whether he even wins. I mean, if he loses, it will because most Americans are so pissed off at him that they are willing to live in Bush's America for four more years. Obama will have to  up royally to lose this election, and if he does, Black America could be blamed for creating a politician that was so close to the White House, yet so destructive to America. This would basically cause a "black lash" that could cause a total end to affirmative action AND possible re-segragation (I mean, black nationalists want it and the Supreme Court seems willing to grant it). I mean, if Barack Obama, the first black candidate, is so hated by the American People and so attached with this ethic identity, some of that hatred is going to fall to the black people, themselves.

No, for this reason.  The nomination of Obama will drive people that vote principally on race out of the Democratic Party.  For it to have the full effect that I've described, Obama will have to be elected and discredited.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, first, he has to understand the different culture.  He's failed at that (and if he loses, he'll have four years to understand it).

[J. J.]

...and they haven't already. Economically, you are 20 years ahead, but socially, you are 40 years behind. ...and you don't think someone will be blamed for making the Republican Party invincible in the White House? ...and are you sure that Obama will ever want a re-match if he loses and you are even more sure that he understands American culture any less than any other president in modern American history, with the exception of Clinton or maybe Ford? I mean, you make all of these generalisations that create more questions than answers and have predicted Obama's downfall for two or three times now. Maybe the fourth (him losing) or fifth (him being discredited) will be the charm, right?

I don't think Obama, losing, will make the GOP "invincible," by a long shot. 

No, I've said that Obama doesn't understand working class white culture, not "American" culture.  I do think Bill Clinton has a better understanding of it than possibly most of the recent US presidents, possibly excepting Ronald Reagan.

I'm talking largely about trends over the next 8-12 years.  Of course I won't have details. 

[J. J.]

Another issue that makes your prognostics weak is the idea that you expect the early 21st century to be like the late 20th.

No, I expect it potentially to be much different than the mid-20th Century.  But you seen not to have read Santayana.

[J. J.]

Another issue that makes your prognostics weak is the idea that you expect the early 21st century to be like the late 20th.

No, I expect it potentially to be much different than the mid-20th Century.  But you seen not to have read Santayana.

I haven't. Is it like Ortega? Tell me about it. To tell you the truth, one should look at small, fast growing-trends than large and old trends.

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Actually, you are looking at fads, the political equivalent of Hula Hoops, Pet Rocks and Cabbage Patch Kids.

I'm not actually making too many predictions, except that a change is coming.  Obama, this time, is not the change.  Some examples are his sudden shift on positions to a more moderate stance.  The "new politics" isn't here as of yet.  I think we will see something very new, and very different, politically, between now and 2016.  I don't know what that change will look like, but it could end up taking the country in a more right wing direction (even to a point where I would, not changing any beliefs, be considered on the left of the GOP). 

In 1978-79, when I began forming my political views, I was considered far right.  I supported a fairly right wing candidate, George H. W. Bush.  By 1982-3, I was not right wing; I was moderate.  I hadn't changed, the country did.

On a more macro scale, in 1976, the person who would become arguably the most successful president of the second half of the 20th Century could not get his party's nomination, on the second try.

In 1928, the country rejected Al Smith, soundly, as the more liberal/progressive candidate.  In 1936 and 1940, he became a leader of the forces who opposed FDR for being too liberal.

There are shifts, but how they will go is beyond me at this point.

[J. J.]

Well, besides the fact of what you think about the candidates in question, what could be farther right than what we have now? Have we ever been farther to the right in say- the past 70 or 80 years?

I would say yes, prior to FDR.  You actually had citizens deported in the red scare.

[/quote]
I mean, I am guessing we will probably return to the 60s and 70s if Obama or some succesor who takes up his cause is succesful and pushes the country back to the center-left....but what would happen if this country went any further right? Would that even be considered "change"?

[/quote]

Believe me, the county could move substantially to the right.  It could have moved much further left even after the 1936 realignment.  Ted Kennedy was considered "main stream" and he was talking about nationalizing the oil companies in the 1970's. 

I think we could very easily see a rightward shift.  I'm actually hoping for a more libertarian shift.

[J. J.]

Can you provide more examples of what you want and what could happen? I just don't see how this country could go further to the right. I mean, I guess a reasonable "liberal" like myself could get deported as well as most of the people on this forum...but seriously...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Red_Scare

I would argue that this was far worse than anything we have today.

[J. J.]

I know about the 1919-21 scare, but what kind of policies could we see today? You seem to be stating that the 2010s could be the 1920s, complete with eugenics, prohibition, mass deportations, scandals, and basically proto-fascism.

First, I'm not calling Democrat Woodrow Wilson a fascist.

I think we could see much limited personal rights, a willingness of the federal government to enter into Terri Schiavo type situations, greater police powers.  It isn't fascism, because we would have pluralism, but I wouldn't be too overjoyed about it either.

We could see something along the lines of genetic screening used in employment and criminal classification.

[J. J.]

So, Gattica could become an issue, then?

What about other issues- are we just talking about creating a domestic vice version of the PATRIOT Act and handing over of social services to businesses?

...would this interference be also found in the establishment of Single-Payer Health Care and Higher Taxes?

I know of what you are talking about, but will there be a difference in all issues, some issues, specific issues and how much of a difference will it make? Perhaps you are talking about the fact the relative political balence of power will remain the same, but the Republican party's primary issues will be War, Race and Religion, instead of Taxes and Business.

Look, you are asking me for a reading of my crystal ball for a trend I expect to be 8-10 years away.  I think that this is one possibility.  I think the odds on it go up on it if McCain loses.

[J. J.]

What's the other most likely possibility you see besides this?

The converse.  McCain wins and, in terms of the GOP, the more "theocratic" elements are discredited.  The role of government decreases.

[J. J.]

I am thinking that he, a socially moderate (marginally in favor of secularism, civil liberties and civil rights) conservative, thinks that if McCain is a succesful politician and administrator, that the religious right's influence will decline and that the American political climate will shift to that of which is seen in the non-mormon west.

No, you've missed it.

For probably the last 28 years, these statements have arguably been true.

Democrats:  We can only achieve national office with the solid support of urban Black voters.

Republicans:  We can only achieve national office with the solid support of the religious right.

In 2008, there is the possibly that the Democratic candidate will get that solid support and not win and the possibility that the Republican will win without that solid support.  If that happens, in 2012, any Democratic can say to urban Black voters, "You cannot deliver."  The Republican can say to the religious right, "I don't need you."  It forces both parties to move away from the extremes and move toward the center.  It ends both coalitions.

It really doesn't make a difference with the type of job McCain would do if elected.  He could be the next Reagan, and this change will still occur.