Will the GOP move leftwards on economics in the future?

[All Along The Watchtower]

I would think the GOP would do wise to work on helping small businesses, not multinational corporations.

Also, as a young person, I can say that most young people are social libertarians.

Be Careful using that term. There is a difference between "Socially Libertarian" and "Socially Liberal."

Gah, I meant social liberal.

[President Mitt]

I would think the GOP would do wise to work on helping small businesses, not multinational corporations.

Also, as a young person, I can say that most young people are social libertarians.

Be Careful using that term. There is a difference between "Socially Libertarian" and "Socially Liberal."

Gah, I meant social liberal.

It's Ok

It's sometimes easy to mix them up.

[Bo]

I would think the GOP would do wise to work on helping small businesses, not multinational corporations.

Also, as a young person, I can say that most young people are social libertarians.

Be Careful using that term. There is a difference between "Socially Libertarian" and "Socially Liberal."

Gah, I meant social liberal.

It's Ok

It's sometimes easy to mix them up.

What's the difference between those terms?

[CARLHAYDEN]

I would think the GOP would do wise to work on helping small businesses, not multinational corporations.

Also, as a young person, I can say that most young people are social libertarians.

Be Careful using that term. There is a difference between "Socially Libertarian" and "Socially Liberal."

Gah, I meant social liberal.

It's Ok

It's sometimes easy to mix them up.

What's the difference between those terms?

Well, to give you two examples:

A libertarian believes in freedom of speech, a liberal believes in repressing speech which is 'politically incorrect.'

A libertarian believes in the right to keep and bear arms, whereas most liberals oppose that natural right.

[Joe Republic]

So owning guns is a natural right now?  Who knew?

[Joe Republic]

Oh dear, CARL missed the point yet again, and threw in an ad hominem for good measure.  That's quite a habit he's got there.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oh dear, CARL missed the point yet again, and threw in an ad hominem for good measure.  That's quite a habit he's got there.

Now you are claiming that you deliberately misrepresented what I said?

Oh, and here are a few quotes for you:

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Patrick Henry:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.

Samuel Adams:"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

George Mason:"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Thomas Jefferson: "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Tench Coxe: "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize ... the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Thomas Jefferson: "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."

Thomas Jefferson:"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Alexander Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oh, and here's a brief exposition on the matter which Joe professes to not-understand, or is misrepresenting (from the Constitution Society):

(1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned out to have been a good idea.

(2) The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and was a long-established principle of English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, which is considered to be a part of constitutional law for purposes of interpreting the written Constitution.

[Joe Republic]

You still haven't quite got it, but you're nearly there.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You still haven't quite got it, but you're nearly there.

Oh, and for the religious:

    Luke 22:36

   " And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword."

[Joe Republic]

Ha ha, when all else fails, resort to the Bible! 

[Mint]

I don't think they'll go Keynesian for obvious reasons but as it stands there's a lot of evidence that Republicans are already considerably less 'free market' or 'small government' inclined (whatever that means) than you would think. For example, in 2009 a NYT/CBS poll showed 50% of republicans supported a 'public option' with some polls showing even higher levels (e.g. Washington Post had as many as 56% supporting it under certain conditions). The Wall Street Journal found that 61% of self-described Tea Party members opposed free trade agreements, just four percent less than union members. According to Gallup only 47% of Republicans support keeping all of the Bush tax cuts...

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I can see the GOP becmoing more anti-Free Trade in the future. I myself was surprised to find that the GOP was teh party supporting Free Trade, because I assumed the party opposing illegal immigrants because they take jobs would be the party against letting those same jobs going over-seas. I can also see the GOP sticking with tax cuts, but allowing more regulation on Wall Street. It might go to a more "Lou Dobbs" form of economics which, (from what Wikipedia says on Dobbs), includes basic Cosnervatism, but opposition to Free Trade and believing in regulations for huge companies.

[Nichlemn]

I can see the GOP becmoing more anti-Free Trade in the future. I myself was surprised to find that the GOP was teh party supporting Free Trade, because I assumed the party opposing illegal immigrants because they take jobs would be the party against letting those same jobs going over-seas. I can also see the GOP sticking with tax cuts, but allowing more regulation on Wall Street. It might go to a more "Lou Dobbs" form of economics which, (from what Wikipedia says on Dobbs), includes basic Cosnervatism, but opposition to Free Trade and believing in regulations for huge companies.

There are reasons for opposing illegal immigrants other than jobs (illegality for one, alleged abuse of social services and plain old racism).

[Dgov]

I can see the GOP becmoing more anti-Free Trade in the future. I myself was surprised to find that the GOP was teh party supporting Free Trade, because I assumed the party opposing illegal immigrants because they take jobs would be the party against letting those same jobs going over-seas. I can also see the GOP sticking with tax cuts, but allowing more regulation on Wall Street. It might go to a more "Lou Dobbs" form of economics which, (from what Wikipedia says on Dobbs), includes basic Cosnervatism, but opposition to Free Trade and believing in regulations for huge companies.

Actually, the groups were against Illegal immigration "Because they take the jobs" were the unions, who dropped that line once they realized that Hispanics are easier to unionize than other Americans.

[Frink]

I can see the GOP becmoing more anti-Free Trade in the future. I myself was surprised to find that the GOP was teh party supporting Free Trade, because I assumed the party opposing illegal immigrants because they take jobs would be the party against letting those same jobs going over-seas. I can also see the GOP sticking with tax cuts, but allowing more regulation on Wall Street. It might go to a more "Lou Dobbs" form of economics which, (from what Wikipedia says on Dobbs), includes basic Cosnervatism, but opposition to Free Trade and believing in regulations for huge companies.

Actually, the groups were against Illegal immigration "Because they take the jobs" were the unions, who dropped that line once they realized that Hispanics are easier to unionize than other Americans.

Low-skilled blue collar whites are more or less against it for similar reasons.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I didn't mean that "they take our jobs" is the only reason that Republicans and Cosnervatives oppose Illegal Immigration, I was just rying to say that I was surprised that the Republicans are Pro-Free Trade, and that "they take our jobs" was one of the perceived reasons. Remember, I'm a Republican.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I didn't mean that "they take our jobs" is the only reason that Republicans and Cosnervatives oppose Illegal Immigration, I was just rying to say that I was surprised that the Republicans are Pro-Free Trade, and that "they take our jobs" was one of the perceived reasons. Remember, I'm a Republican.

Indead and that is why Bush and McCain and many others like Robert Bennet and Chris Cannon supported a path to Citizenship.

Republicans who oppose illegal immigration do so for National Security reasons primarily (hence why McCain and Bush thought some worthless border security measures would amke Amnesty palatable). It didn't work because for the most part you can't secure the border and offer Amnesty at the same time and second of all in order to gain support for border security appealing to the "They take our jobs" and to abandon them would weaken the ability to secure the border when yet another "Compromise Immigration bill" failed. I myself way economic implications of illegal immigration, as equal to the national security concerns, much "They take our jobs" but they lower wages when you overwhelm in immigration of certain skills, and the pressure on local and state gov't services as well is another important focus of mine. But by and large I avoid "They take our jobs" because a growing population is a benefit to the economy, and secondly I support immigration when done legally.

The GOP has been for Free trade for decades. The shift begin under Ike really but came to full fruition under Reagan. The reason is that if you understand Stomper-Samuelson's work  with regards to the abundance of the different Factors of Production, as a determinant of position on Trade (Free Trade versus Protectionist). Democrats were the party of Labor and land (Farmers) and the GOP the Party of Capital (Business and investors). Prior to 1900 Capital wanted Protectionism and that put them in alliance with the GOP. The Democrats were divided on trade depending on whether the Farmers or the Proletatariat dominated. In the early 1900's Capital became abundant and no longer benefited from protectionism so they began to favor Free Trade. The GOP took few decades to fully switch over to Free Trade. Meanwhile the Democrats decided to focus on the proletariat and thus farmers switched over to the GOP as the Dems became more Protectionist. By the 1980's you had the Free Trade GOP of Land and Capital and the Protectionist Dems of Labor.

I was a protectionist myself till about 2007. Then I began to do more extensive research and I learned that Protectionism doesn't work and in some cases cause more damage to related sectors. You can't protect jobs, the economy creates and destroys millions every year.