The incoming generation

[Horus]

I mean this in what the overall vibe of this incoming generation will be. Some generations definitely lean to the left, baby boomers for example, while others lean to the right, mind you, they're rarely too extreme. What direction do you think this new generation, (many of which will be able to vote in 2008) will lean in?

[opebo]

Liberal, obviously.  After growing up in the current ultra-right-wing religious era, they will rebel and recoil in disgust.  Especially when they find out they won't be able to afford college, get paid more than $10 an hour, or have health insurance.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's really hard to say yet. People's political opinions tend to change a lot by the time they're 18. I'd assume most 18 year olds are more socially liberal than most 13 year olds.

[A18]

Conservative, obviously. After growing up in the current ultra-left-wing gay era, they will rebel against liberal judges and recoil in disgust. Especially when they find out they can't keep a decent percentage of their pay check, smoke cigarettes without being taxed to hell, or start a business without obsessive government regulation.

[John Dibble]

I think they'll lean more libertarian - not anything like big L libertarian, but more of a moderate libertarian though. Of course, I'm just speaking of the generation as a whole, there will inevitably be ultraliberals and ultraconservatives among other things.

[Nym90]

Conservative, obviously. After growing up in the current ultra-left-wing gay era, they will rebel against liberal judges and recoil in disgust. Especially when they find out they can't keep a decent percentage of their pay check, smoke cigarettes without being taxed to hell, or start a business without obsessive government regulation.

Yes, this era is so ultra-left wing. The liberals clearly have such dominance over government. They control the Presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court.

[/sarcasm]

In all seriousness, though, I just can't understand conservatives complaining over liberal dominance of the country. That would have been like liberals complaining in 1968 about conservative dominance of America. The bottom line is that the Republican party pretty much controls America, so if someone thinks the country is too liberal, you'd best blame the GOP. At some point the Republicans have to realize that they run the country, and can't keep blaming everything on the Democrats.

As for the question itself, it's hard to say. I think that young people are quite a bit more socially liberal than previous generations, though economically they might be slightly more conservative. It remains to be seen if this will hold up.

[A18]

Only insignifcant laws are made by the Congress. The major laws are made by the Supreme Court.

Yes, liberals dominate the Supreme Court. That is widely understood. There are only two originalists and one conservative fascist who at least believes in restraint.

[Nym90]

Only insignifcant laws are made by the Congress. The major laws are made by the Supreme Court.

Yes, liberals dominate the Supreme Court. That is widely understood. There are only two originalists and one conservative fascist who at least believes in restraint.

Well, then, like I said, blame the Republicans for having nominated 7 of those 9 justices.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, liberals dominate the Supreme Court.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA

Sorry, liberals don't ignore state's rights to end a recount in an election where the Democrat clearly won.

[A18]

Only insignifcant laws are made by the Congress. The major laws are made by the Supreme Court.

Yes, liberals dominate the Supreme Court. That is widely understood. There are only two originalists and one conservative fascist who at least believes in restraint.

Well, then, like I said, blame the Republicans for having nominated 7 of those 9 justices.

Go tell Robert Bork the president picks the justices.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Go tell Robert Bork the president picks the justices.

Clinton had plenty of appointments for lower courts not approved.

[A18]

You realize you're backing up my point, right?

[Nym90]

You realize you're backing up my point, right?

Yes, Congress does have a role to play, that's very true.

They have generally only shot down the most extreme nominees, however, and this is true of both parties. Both sides have done it, and neither has really abused the power in my opinion. I think it's good that Congress has the power of judicial review; the President shouldn't have dictatorial power to make appointments. The more checks and balances within the system, the better, generally speaking.

I know it's not easy to accept the fact that the vast majority of Americans, even Republicans, disagree with your view on judicial appointments.

[A18]

Well, I just said they'd be conservative because of the dangerously anti-originalist courts. I didn't say Republicans didn't bear any blame.

I don't think most Americans consider themselves originalists; I do think they're getting tired of judges making law.

But, I think you missed the point to my post, which was just a parody of opebo's earlier rambling.

[Nym90]

Well, I just said they'd be conservative because of the dangerously anti-originalist courts. I didn't say Republicans didn't bear any blame.

I don't think most Americans consider themselves originalists; I do think they're getting tired of judges making law.

But, I think you missed the point to my post, which was just a parody of opebo's earlier rambling.

I would definitely agree that the courts have gone too far in many cases, yes. I would favor reducing the power of unelected officials and putting more into the hands of directly elected ones, if possible without upsetting the balance of checks and balances that is in place. I'm not sure that can be easily done, but I'm definitely open to suggestions.

[A18]

Well, I just said they'd be conservative because of the dangerously anti-originalist courts. I didn't say Republicans didn't bear any blame.

I don't think most Americans consider themselves originalists; I do think they're getting tired of judges making law.

But, I think you missed the point to my post, which was just a parody of opebo's earlier rambling.

I would definitely agree that the courts have gone too far in many cases, yes. I would favor reducing the power of unelected officials and putting more into the hands of directly elected ones, if possible without upsetting the balance of checks and balances that is in place. I'm not sure that can be easily done, but I'm definitely open to suggestions.

How about the new oath of office I proposed a couple days ago?

[dazzleman]

Conservative, obviously. After growing up in the current ultra-left-wing gay era, they will rebel against liberal judges and recoil in disgust. Especially when they find out they can't keep a decent percentage of their pay check, smoke cigarettes without being taxed to hell, or start a business without obsessive government regulation.

Yes, this era is so ultra-left wing. The liberals clearly have such dominance over government. They control the Presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court.

[/sarcasm]

In all seriousness, though, I just can't understand conservatives complaining over liberal dominance of the country. That would have been like liberals complaining in 1968 about conservative dominance of America. The bottom line is that the Republican party pretty much controls America, so if someone thinks the country is too liberal, you'd best blame the GOP. At some point the Republicans have to realize that they run the country, and can't keep blaming everything on the Democrats.

As for the question itself, it's hard to say. I think that young people are quite a bit more socially liberal than previous generations, though economically they might be slightly more conservative. It remains to be seen if this will hold up.

Last night, I saw an interview with (of all people) Jerry Springer, who is starting a new show on Air America.

He said some things that made a lot of sense, and took a contrary view to the view that conservatives control everything.  Basically, he said that the situation today is a reversal from the 1950s and 1960s, when conservatives were in control, and liberals were in rebellion.  He pointed out that today, people live their lives in a much more liberal way than before, even Republicans.  I think this is very true.

Today, liberals are the establishment and on the defensive, just as conservatives were in the 1960s, and the new ideas are coming more from the conservative side.  Liberals continue to push ahead with an aggressive social agenda, but this has helped lead to some political successes for conservatives.

[Nym90]

Well, to some extent this is true. If you look over the long arc of history, the world has gotten more liberal over time, both socially and economically. Now, over the last 30 years the country has gotten more economically conservative, but we still are a lot more economically liberal today than we were in the 1920's, and there doesn't seem to be much chance that the entirety of the New Deal will be repealed, nor do most Republicans even want it to be.

Things that are taken for granted today, and that even most ardent conservatives would not support repealing, like the minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, the 40 hour work week, paid vacation time, safety and health regulations for consumer products, child labor laws, CAFE standards, etc. were all, at the time, advocated by economic liberals and opposed by economic conservatives. Likewise, ideas such as equal rights for women and blacks, even at the basest level, were at the time advocated by social liberals and opposed by social conservatives. Of course, if you go back to thousands of years ago, there was a much, much larger gap between rich and poor than is true today; Opebo would have been spot on in many of his theories if he lived 100 years ago, and 1900 was extremely economically liberal compared to 1000 or 1200 or 1500 or 1700. And of course, socially, those who differ from what is considered "normal" used to have little to no rights at all.

Now, I don't believe this will continue in perpetuity, nor should it; I think that it's an exponential function, that will eventually slow down and for all practical purposes stop, once we achieve an ideal balance. Of course, unfortunately the balance has to be achieved in the average, as when things swing too far in one direction, they tend to swing too far in the opposite direction in response, and the cycle tends to repeat itself. Those in power get arrogant and overreach, and those out of power wise up and moderate, and eventually control of government changes hands.

So yes, over the long run, conservatives have been on the defensive, though in the short term, liberal frustration with an insufficient rate of progress has caused a backlash which can help conservatives when liberals go too far.

So yes, both parties have tended to move left over time. And it could be argued from a conservative perspective that change has tended to happen too fast, and the pace of it should be slowed. That's definitely an argument that has merit.

But, my point was that the Republicans are, at the moment, in total control. So it's basically put up or shut up time; conservatives can't keep complaining about things anymore. They have to face the facts that if they can't undo liberal changes in the current climate, then maybe these liberal things aren't as extreme as they thought.

As just one example, take Roe v. Wade. If a Supreme Court with 7 Republican appointees on it refuses to overturn this decision, then it seems kind of silly,, from a completely neutral perspective, to say that it was an extremist decision; you are obviously in the minority and a bit of an extremist if you are arguing that the current Supreme Court, with mostly Republican appointed justices, is way too liberal.

[Jake]

Wow, 3-1 says conservative/libertarian leaning

[A18]

The entire New Deal is unconstitutional, and should be struck down as such. I do believe we will, within the next generation, get an orginalist majority on the Supreme Court and eradicate the entire thing. Of course, the liberal states will then implement these things on their own, but that's beside the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of those are unconstitutional at the federal level. And all of them are terrible.

Roe v. Wade was not an extremist ruling, it was just made up. It fit majority opinion, but still had absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever of any kind at all, and so to support it really enrages me and shows complete disrespect for our most important founding document.

[dazzleman]

Well, to some extent this is true. If you look over the long arc of history, the world has gotten more liberal over time, both socially and economically. Now, over the last 30 years the country has gotten more economically conservative, but we still are a lot more economically liberal today than we were in the 1920's, and there doesn't seem to be much chance that the entirety of the New Deal will be repealed, nor do most Republicans even want it to be.

Things that are taken for granted today, and that even most ardent conservatives would not support repealing, like the minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, the 40 hour work week, paid vacation time, safety and health regulations for consumer products, child labor laws, CAFE standards, etc. were all, at the time, advocated by economic liberals and opposed by economic conservatives. Likewise, ideas such as equal rights for women and blacks, even at the basest level, were at the time advocated by social liberals and opposed by social conservatives. Of course, if you go back to thousands of years ago, there was a much, much larger gap between rich and poor than is true today; Opebo would have been spot on in many of his theories if he lived 100 years ago, and 1900 was extremely economically liberal compared to 1000 or 1200 or 1500 or 1700. And of course, socially, those who differ from what is considered "normal" used to have little to no rights at all.

Now, I don't believe this will continue in perpetuity, nor should it; I think that it's an exponential function, that will eventually slow down and for all practical purposes stop, once we achieve an ideal balance. Of course, unfortunately the balance has to be achieved in the average, as when things swing too far in one direction, they tend to swing too far in the opposite direction in response, and the cycle tends to repeat itself. Those in power get arrogant and overreach, and those out of power wise up and moderate, and eventually control of government changes hands.

So yes, over the long run, conservatives have been on the defensive, though in the short term, liberal frustration with an insufficient rate of progress has caused a backlash which can help conservatives when liberals go too far.

So yes, both parties have tended to move left over time. And it could be argued from a conservative perspective that change has tended to happen too fast, and the pace of it should be slowed. That's definitely an argument that has merit.

But, my point was that the Republicans are, at the moment, in total control. So it's basically put up or shut up time; conservatives can't keep complaining about things anymore. They have to face the facts that if they can't undo liberal changes in the current climate, then maybe these liberal things aren't as extreme as they thought.

As just one example, take Roe v. Wade. If a Supreme Court with 7 Republican appointees on it refuses to overturn this decision, then it seems kind of silly,, from a completely neutral perspective, to say that it was an extremist decision; you are obviously in the minority and a bit of an extremist if you are arguing that the current Supreme Court, with mostly Republican appointed justices, is way too liberal.

I actually think that we're more economically conservative now than in the 1930s and 1940s, at least as far as government policies go.  Back then, things like price controls were accepted, and there was much more of a sense that government could control the economy than I think there is now.  Maybe liberal/conservative is not the right axis, but we seem to believe more in the free market than we did then.  Can you imagine even a Democratic president today making an speech in which he excoriates Congress (as Harry Truman did) for failing to renew wartime price controls after the war, and says that price controls are the answer to inflation?  The last serious presidential candidate to even mention price controls on a broad scale, as far as I can remember, was Ted Kennedy in 1980, and he was soundly defeated by the hapless and unpopular Jimmy Carter.

Social mores have shifted back and forth between liberal and conservative over the ages.  I think both extremes cause damage, and when the damage becomes obvious, the pendulum shifts the other way.  In that regard, homosexuality has also moved in and out of acceptance over the ages.  I think it's a mistake to say that history has always moved in the "liberal" direction because that implies that liberals always equals progressive, when at times it can mean reactionary or defensive.  In my mind, progress should be positive, not negative, and much of what liberals have given us is negative in my opinion.

As for Roe vs. Wade, I think this decision was an example of judicial activism at the time it was made, and the Supreme Court upheld it because they are loathe to reverse recent decisions that they have made, except in extreme cases.  As I've said earlier, I don't believe judges should be making social policy, but as a person who dislikes the feminist movement, it could be said the Roe vs. Wade was a benefit in that it has forced the feminists to mortgage almost their whole movement to defending it on an ongoing basis, something that wouldn't have been necessary had the decision been made through the democratic process.

[Nym90]

The entire New Deal is unconstitutional, and should be struck down as such. I do believe we will, within the next generation, get an orginalist majority on the Supreme Court and eradicate the entire thing. Of course, the liberal states will then implement these things on their own, but that's beside the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of those are unconstitutional at the federal level. And all of them are terrible.

Roe v. Wade was not an extremist ruling, it was just made up. It fit majority opinion, but still had absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever of any kind at all, and so to support it really enrages me and shows complete disrespect for our most important founding document.

Well, again, it's a philosophical disagreement. I agree that the Constitution should be respected, but I support a loose interpretation of it, and I support it being a living document that adjusts to the times. I think that a very strict literal interpretation of the Constitution is quite often in the best interests of our country, but the purpose of the Constitution is to create "a more perfect union". When an absolute literal interpretation of the Constitution does not create a more perfect union, then insisting on a literal translation defeats the original purpose of the document's entire existence. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.

Rules have a purpose, and it isn't to make technocrats and bureaucrats happy; it's to serve the greater good.

So while you could say that it was silly to list everything the federal government could do in the Constitution, if it indeed was permitted to do more than that, I would argue that it was more likely a clarification of government's powers regarding pertinent issues of the day; if the government was not meant to have the power to provide for the common defense and welfare, and provide for a more perfect union, then why even bother to mention these purposes at all? Why not just list what it can do, and not say what the purpose of these rights is? That argument can be used in both directions.

Just something to think about.

[Nym90]

Well, to some extent this is true. If you look over the long arc of history, the world has gotten more liberal over time, both socially and economically. Now, over the last 30 years the country has gotten more economically conservative, but we still are a lot more economically liberal today than we were in the 1920's, and there doesn't seem to be much chance that the entirety of the New Deal will be repealed, nor do most Republicans even want it to be.

Things that are taken for granted today, and that even most ardent conservatives would not support repealing, like the minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, the 40 hour work week, paid vacation time, safety and health regulations for consumer products, child labor laws, CAFE standards, etc. were all, at the time, advocated by economic liberals and opposed by economic conservatives. Likewise, ideas such as equal rights for women and blacks, even at the basest level, were at the time advocated by social liberals and opposed by social conservatives. Of course, if you go back to thousands of years ago, there was a much, much larger gap between rich and poor than is true today; Opebo would have been spot on in many of his theories if he lived 100 years ago, and 1900 was extremely economically liberal compared to 1000 or 1200 or 1500 or 1700. And of course, socially, those who differ from what is considered "normal" used to have little to no rights at all.

Now, I don't believe this will continue in perpetuity, nor should it; I think that it's an exponential function, that will eventually slow down and for all practical purposes stop, once we achieve an ideal balance. Of course, unfortunately the balance has to be achieved in the average, as when things swing too far in one direction, they tend to swing too far in the opposite direction in response, and the cycle tends to repeat itself. Those in power get arrogant and overreach, and those out of power wise up and moderate, and eventually control of government changes hands.

So yes, over the long run, conservatives have been on the defensive, though in the short term, liberal frustration with an insufficient rate of progress has caused a backlash which can help conservatives when liberals go too far.

So yes, both parties have tended to move left over time. And it could be argued from a conservative perspective that change has tended to happen too fast, and the pace of it should be slowed. That's definitely an argument that has merit.

But, my point was that the Republicans are, at the moment, in total control. So it's basically put up or shut up time; conservatives can't keep complaining about things anymore. They have to face the facts that if they can't undo liberal changes in the current climate, then maybe these liberal things aren't as extreme as they thought.

As just one example, take Roe v. Wade. If a Supreme Court with 7 Republican appointees on it refuses to overturn this decision, then it seems kind of silly,, from a completely neutral perspective, to say that it was an extremist decision; you are obviously in the minority and a bit of an extremist if you are arguing that the current Supreme Court, with mostly Republican appointed justices, is way too liberal.

I actually think that we're more economically conservative now than in the 1930s and 1940s, at least as far as government policies go. Back then, things like price controls were accepted, and there was much more of a sense that government could control the economy than I think there is now. Maybe liberal/conservative is not the right axis, but we seem to believe more in the free market than we did then. Can you imagine even a Democratic president today making an speech in which he excoriates Congress (as Harry Truman did) for failing to renew wartime price controls after the war, and says that price controls are the answer to inflation? The last serious presidential candidate to even mention price controls on a broad scale, as far as I can remember, was Ted Kennedy in 1980, and he was soundly defeated by the hapless and unpopular Jimmy Carter.

Social mores have shifted back and forth between liberal and conservative over the ages. I think both extremes cause damage, and when the damage becomes obvious, the pendulum shifts the other way. In that regard, homosexuality has also moved in and out of acceptance over the ages. I think it's a mistake to say that history has always moved in the "liberal" direction because that implies that liberals always equals progressive, when at times it can mean reactionary or defensive. In my mind, progress should be positive, not negative, and much of what liberals have given us is negative in my opinion.

As for Roe vs. Wade, I think this decision was an example of judicial activism at the time it was made, and the Supreme Court upheld it because they are loathe to reverse recent decisions that they have made, except in extreme cases. As I've said earlier, I don't believe judges should be making social policy, but as a person who dislikes the feminist movement, it could be said the Roe vs. Wade was a benefit in that it has forced the feminists to mortgage almost their whole movement to defending it on an ongoing basis, something that wouldn't have been necessary had the decision been made through the democratic process.

I see your point. Courts tend to like to stick up for each other; they don't like to overturn each other. Judges are kind of a clique in a way, even if they don't agree with each other. You see the same thing with cops; if you go to court to fight a traffic ticket, the judge is biased towards the cop, and the cops will often lie to back each other up. So yeah, there is some cliquishness there, but not as much as some people would have you believe.

Still, the point stands; if these "extreme liberal" decisions are wildly unpopular with the public, then it makes no sense for conservatives to fear overturning them; doing so could only be in their best interest politically, right? If they fear overturning them, does that not at least provide a tiny shred of evidence for the theory that they might not be so extreme after all? That maybe they are not overturning them in part because they fear a political backlash?

[dazzleman]

I see your point. Courts tend to like to stick up for each other; they don't like to overturn each other. Judges are kind of a clique in a way, even if they don't agree with each other. You see the same thing with cops; if you go to court to fight a traffic ticket, the judge is biased towards the cop, and the cops will often lie to back each other up. So yeah, there is some cliquishness there, but not as much as some people would have you believe.

Still, the point stands; if these "extreme liberal" decisions are wildly unpopular with the public, then it makes no sense for conservatives to fear overturning them; doing so could only be in their best interest politically, right? If they fear overturning them, does that not at least provide a tiny shred of evidence for the theory that they might not be so extreme after all? That maybe they are not overturning them in part because they fear a political backlash?

Well, conservatives have had the overturning of Roe vs. Wade as a goal, but I understand your point about the risks to conservatives of overturning it.  I never claimed it was a wildly unpopular decision.  I do say it was controversial, and not based on a sound reading of the constitution, in my opinion.  I think it would have been better to decide the issue through the democratic process, but clearly there are plenty of people who favor the decision.  That doesn't make it right.

Cynically speaking, I think that court decisions like Roe vs. Wade often do more to invigorate the opposition than the winning side, and conservatives have used these types of decisions to gain support.  Some people argue that the Massachusetts Supreme Court re-elected Pres. Bush when they took an activist stance on gay marriage.  And how many Democratic voters were lost by court decisions on busing, which was wildly unpopular with white voters? 

I think that deep-down, conservatives are very ambivalent about overturning Roe vs. Wade from a political point of view.  It's kind of like German re-unification as a goal during the Cold War.  Nobody really wanted it, but it was necessary to state it as a NATO goal.  Once it was possible, we then had no choice but to support it, as we had been pushing for it for so long when we thought it impossible.  The overturning of Roe vs. Wade could invigorate those who favor it.  Still, I think it would be better for the country to have issues such as these decided through the democratic process rather than judges.

[A18]

The entire New Deal is unconstitutional, and should be struck down as such. I do believe we will, within the next generation, get an orginalist majority on the Supreme Court and eradicate the entire thing. Of course, the liberal states will then implement these things on their own, but that's beside the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All of those are unconstitutional at the federal level. And all of them are terrible.

Roe v. Wade was not an extremist ruling, it was just made up. It fit majority opinion, but still had absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever of any kind at all, and so to support it really enrages me and shows complete disrespect for our most important founding document.

Well, again, it's a philosophical disagreement. I agree that the Constitution should be respected, but I support a loose interpretation of it, and I support it being a living document that adjusts to the times. I think that a very strict literal interpretation of the Constitution is quite often in the best interests of our country, but the purpose of the Constitution is to create "a more perfect union". When an absolute literal interpretation of the Constitution does not create a more perfect union, then insisting on a literal translation defeats the original purpose of the document's entire existence. It's not seeing the forest for the trees.

Rules have a purpose, and it isn't to make technocrats and bureaucrats happy; it's to serve the greater good.

So while you could say that it was silly to list everything the federal government could do in the Constitution, if it indeed was permitted to do more than that, I would argue that it was more likely a clarification of government's powers regarding pertinent issues of the day; if the government was not meant to have the power to provide for the common defense and welfare, and provide for a more perfect union, then why even bother to mention these purposes at all? Why not just list what it can do, and not say what the purpose of these rights is? That argument can be used in both directions.

Just something to think about.

Hah! Your idiotic post is exactly what the Anti-Federalists feared. Indeed, the framers of the Constitution dismissed it as ridiculous:

http://speaker.house.gov/library/texts/federalist/default.asp

It is apparent that you know absolutely nothing about the history of the Constitution, and frankly, have no business talking about it.