The Republicans will probably (but not certainly) win the House; the Democrats will almost certainly keep the Senate. I decided to take a look at the electoral map for 2012 to ask myself whether the Republicans could actually win. The answer, I have to say, is yes.

Basically, they need 100 additional electoral votes. (I certainly don't expect any of the states that voted Red last time to flip.) The way things are going I think we can safely give them Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Indiana right now. That's 66 votes right there. The election, then, will be decided in Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), and Nevada (5), and perhaps Michigan and other upper Midwestern states. Pennsylvania and Ohio both seem certain to elect a Republican to the Senate in 7 weeks. The math will change somewhat, probably in the Republicans' favor, when the new electoral map comes out.

Although the Republicans will have a terrible time selecting a candidate, I think the possibility that they can win is very real. Yes, all this is two years away, but the Republicans in Congress will surely make it impossible for Obama to do anything significant during that time.

Anything can happen but I see no favorable trends at the moment.

Dave, between now and then the commission on Social Security and other programs will report and the parties will have to take some action on their pronouncements. That could make a state like Florida very much in play and a possible Democratic state.

I do not think the congressional results in a few weeks mean much as to how a state will vote for President in 2012.

The professor is correct in starting the thread. It's fairly clear that gridlock government will be the norm, whatever the 2010 results. We're subject to the usual Murphy's Law events between now and then, of course. As the economic situation continues a version of Japan's Lost Decade, with high structural unemployment, and unsure/low returns on investment, we can expect anger to grow. Where, and who this anger will be taken out on in this midterm election is known (the party in power). What is unknown is the effects of two more years of this on the political system.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Republicans will probably (but not certainly) win the House; the Democrats will almost certainly keep the Senate. I decided to take a look at the electoral map for 2012 to ask myself whether the Republicans could actually win. The answer, I have to say, is yes.

Basically, they need 100 additional electoral votes. (I certainly don't expect any of the states that voted Red last time to flip.) The way things are going I think we can safely give them Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Indiana right now. That's 66 votes right there. The election, then, will be decided in Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), and Nevada (5), and perhaps Michigan and other upper Midwestern states. Pennsylvania and Ohio both seem certain to elect a Republican to the Senate in 7 weeks. The math will change somewhat, probably in the Republicans' favor, when the new electoral map comes out.

Although the Republicans will have a terrible time selecting a candidate, I think the possibility that they can win is very real. Yes, all this is two years away, but the Republicans in Congress will surely make it impossible for Obama to do anything significant during that time.

Anything can happen but I see no favorable trends at the moment.

Kicking Gerry Connolly's (D-11th Dist, VA) ass to the curb. Arkansas is beginning to look like a runaway with the GOP Senate candidate (25+/- points ahead).

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Kicking Gerry Connolly's (D-11th Dist, VA) ass to the curb. Arkansas is beginning to look like a runaway with the GOP Senate candidate (25+/- points ahead).

Arkansas has been rated a no-brainer from the beginning at fivethirtyeight.com, as have Indiana and North Dakota. The big shock for me is Pennsylvania where Toomey's chances are up to 80%. Reed ain't out of the woods either. They also rate the Republican more likely to win in Illinois.

It's not even possible to predict this November's election outcome, let alone the one two years after. Statements like "the Republicans will almost surely take the House, and the Democrats will almost surely keep the Senate" require the caveat: "If the election were held today." It won't be, and how things will change between now and November contains many imponderables. Absent substantial shaping events -- something we can't assume -- the race will certainly tighten between now and then, making it less likely that the GOP will take the House. On the other hand, WITH substantial shaping events, anything from a total Republican takeover of both houses to a Democratic victory increasing their margins becomes possible.

With two more years to go between now and when Obama comes up for reelection, all we can do is present some if-thens. I will say this: IF this election results in gridlock, THEN the situation will worsen for most Americans, AND public anger and demands for effective action will increase. In that case, and because this is a 4T, any of the following far-out scenarios becomes plausible:

1) Shakeup in the White House -- Obama's entire team of economic advisors resigns, being replaced by a progressive modern-day Brains Trust, and he very publicly calls on Congress to pass simple, much-needed legislation designed to bring jobs home, push wages up, and spread the wealth around. Assuming this year's election has the House/Senate split that David predicts, much of this legislation is introduced into the Senate, where it is either passed or killed by Republican filibuster; those bills that pass go on to the House where the Republicans kill most of them. Anger and disgust at the GOP keeps growing. Obama wins by a landslide in 2012, bringing in new Democratic majorities in both houses.

2) Obama defeat in Democratic primary -- a progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party, expressing public fury at the failure of the government to do anything effective, mounts a serious primary challenge on the part of a charismatic, progressive Democrat who seizes the nomination from Obama and goes on to win the general election with big margins.

3) Third Party Victory -- public disgust with both parties generates an insurgency outside the ranks of Dems and Pubs, resulting in a first-time-ever win for a third party candidate, who defeats both Obama and the Republican nominee. The new third party also takes enough seats in Congress that a coalition caucus of its own members and progressive Democrats rules in the House and Senate.

4) Fascist takeover -- the Tea Party insurgency morphs into a full-on fascist movement, complete with the currently-absent socialist elements, and a charismatic leader wins the 2012 GOP nomination on a platform that promises jobs and income redistribution and energy independence, but also the "restoration of order" through setting aside civil liberties. This candidate goes on to secure a Republican victory in the general election, but one that has the corporate interests shaking in their boots -- along with civil libertarians.

I'm not prepared to actually predict any of these outcomes, as all of them involve lots of imponderables -- but that's the point. We cannot make any serious predictions of electoral outcomes that far out, especially not in a 4T.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Although the Republicans will have a terrible time selecting a candidate, I think the possibility that they can win is very real. Yes, all this is two years away, but the Republicans in Congress will surely make it impossible for Obama to do anything significant during that time.

One can only hope. Bush caused enough damage over 8 years of his presidency only to have that tossed aside for the even greater disaster of the last two years (from the frying pan to the fire). Hopefully the Republican elects in November can attempt to bring things more centrist without pushing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction (this brings back memories to the coup in '94 when we tried to go as far right as possible only to have it backfire on us). We need a more centrist approach towards working together on both sides of the fence.

If the Republican party kicks too hard once the House and/or Senate is re-taken, it will only come back to bite us in the shiner as it did in '94.

As far as 2012, I'm calling the great Romney Revolution now (and he should go with this description as well, it would be fitting for America to hopefully return to greatness instead of having leaders bowing before despots and apologizing for our nation around the world for being great).

j.p.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Hopefully the Republican elects in November can attempt to bring things more centrist without pushing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction (this brings back memories to the coup in '94 when we tried to go as far right as possible only to have it backfire on us). We need a more centrist approach towards working together on both sides of the fence.

Actually, no, and that's one thing we can confidently predict will NOT happen. We need to remember that those events of 1994-96 occurred in a 3T. The dynamic was totally different, and the people effectively showed that they wanted gridlocked government that would not rock the boat. Thus, they tossed the Democrats out in '94, but with the prospect of giving the GOP Congress a GOP president and effective control, they said, "No, thanks. We like things the way they are, and we'll keep Clinton for the next four years. That way, he'll keep you from getting into mischief, and you'll do the same for him."

I look at the current troubles the Democrats are facing, combined with the fact that Republicans inspire less public confidence in polls even than the Democrats do (they're set to win this election by default, not because people actually like them), and what I see is that patience is gone. We need the government to take effective action. The Democrats, with big majorities and the White House, haven't done that. The call is not for centrist government, it's for effective government. The outrage is not against liberal ideology, it's for feckless limp-wristed impotence.

A Fourth Turning is not a time for compromise.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's not even possible to predict this November's election outcome, let alone the one two years after. Statements like "the Republicans will almost surely take the House, and the Democrats will almost surely keep the Senate" require the caveat: "If the election were held today." It won't be, and how things will change between now and November contains many imponderables. Absent substantial shaping events -- something we can't assume -- the race will certainly tighten between now and then, making it less likely that the GOP will take the House. On the other hand, WITH substantial shaping events, anything from a total Republican takeover of both houses to a Democratic victory increasing their margins becomes possible.

.

First of all, my dear Brian, the statement you put into quotation marks is not the one that I made, or even close to it. But secondly, you are wrong. It is possible to make predictions based on polling to date and comparisons to what has happened in past elections. One cannot predict to a certainty, but Nate Silver and co. at fivethirtyeight.com do the most thorough job, and they think the Republicans have a 66% chance of emerging with a House majority, and prediction is based upon modeling that fully takes into account the possibility of something happening between now and then. They are predicting various Senate races with an 80-90% probability. Your statement that the races will tighten between now and election day is without historical/statistical foundation,. so far as I can see. That doesn't mean the Republicans are CERTAIN to take the House by any means, but it does mean that they probably will.

I do think that any mention of a possible Fascist takeover is way over the top. Organizational ability and respect for authority have dropped a great deal in the last 80 years. The Tea Party can't be compared to the Nazis or Fascists (although their propaganda arms certainly can be.) They aren't interested in creating or administering a totalitarian state. They just want more money and weaker government and don't care about the consequences.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

First of all, my dear Brian, the statement you put into quotation marks is not the one that I made, or even close to it.

On the contrary, here is what you said word for word: "The Republicans will probably (but not certainly) win the House; the Democrats will almost certainly keep the Senate."

Looks quite close indeed to me. Only a trivial difference in precise verbiage. The meaning is identical.

But secondly, you are wrong. It is possible to make predictions based on polling to date and comparisons to what has happened in past elections. One cannot predict to a certainty, but Nate Silver and co. at fivethirtyeight.com do the most thorough job, and they think the Republicans have a 66% chance of emerging with a House majority

Stop there. What does that "66% chance" mean? It means that there is a 34% chance they WON'T. Does that mean simply that nothing of significance happens between now and November, and we have all the information we need but due to a kind of political uncertainty principle can't call the outcome with perfect certainty? No. It means that we DON'T have all the information we need, but based on the incomplete and imperfect information we have now, this is as close to certainty we can come. Contained in that 34% is the impact of unpredictable shaping events, and also the likelihood that the race will tighten as we approach election day.

So -- not only does this not in any way show that I'm wrong, it doesn't even contradict what I said. Perhaps a refresher course in probability and statistics might be in order? Just a suggestion.

I do think that any mention of a possible Fascist takeover is way over the top.

I dsagree, although as I said I'm not prepared at this time to call that happening. What I'm basing that on is an understanding of the Crisis issues we face and what needs to be done to improve matters, that is, put the economy back on its feet, end energy dependency, and resolve problems of international trade and international terrorism. Can this be done within a corporate-stooge bogus-free-market slash-taxes-for-the-rich framework such as the current GOP incarnation is calling for? No. And so any Republican government as the party is currently constituted will be a dismal failure -- not in terms of immediate politics but in terms of policy and outcome, you know, in the real world outside Washington -- and will be short-lived for that reason.

On the other hand, does the solution require a healthy respect for civil liberties and democracy? Regrettably, it does not. And so the only possibly successful "right-wing" government, something that could arise from the Republican Party in this 4T, would lean strongly towards fascism. It would abandon many of the current Republican positions, but it would certainly not be "liberal."

I hope that doesn't happen, though, and it won't necessarily. Any of the other outcomes I listed is at least equally plausible. If I were to pick the most likely one, I would call no. 1. But the point I was making was not to predict what will happen, but what will not: there is no future for business as usual.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The call is not for centrist government, it's for effective government. The outrage is not against liberal ideology, it's for feckless limp-wristed impotence.

A Fourth Turning is not a time for compromise.

This seems extremely dangerous to me. The further to the left liberals go the further to the right the sling will pull at the right side as well -- see this with socialist tendencies of Frank/Pelosi/Reid and their ilk being met with the Tea Party on the right. The greater distance the pendulum swings to the left so shall it swing to the right -- Germany under the Wiemar Republic is a good example of this -- extremist Communists being met in firefights with extremist Fascists.

And this is part of why the country is in such a damn mess right now -- for the last 20 years (increasing on both sides of the fence -- and probably longer than this) we've been split almost down the middle on ideology -- and if that continues to pull apart in a greater distance on each side it only makes it more difficult to accomplish anything that isn't met with greater resentment and difficulty from the opposite force.

When I say centrist I don't mean it as "ineffective" -- I mean that we must break away from these pulls of extremism on both sides of the fence or America as we know her is going to be in a shit storm of trouble (pardon my French) by continuing down this current path we are on as a society.

j.p.

Originally Posted by JDFP

This seems extremely dangerous to me. The further to the left liberals go the further to the right the sling will pull at the right side as well -- see this with socialist tendencies of Frank/Pelosi/Reid and their ilk being met with the Tea Party on the right. The greater distance the pendulum swings to the left so shall it swing to the right -- Germany under the Wiemar Republic is a good example of this -- extremist Communists being met in firefights with extremist Fascists.

And this is part of why the country is in such a damn mess right now -- for the last 20 years (increasing on both sides of the fence -- and probably longer than this) we've been split almost down the middle on ideology -- and if that continues to pull apart in a greater distance on each side it only makes it more difficult to accomplish anything that isn't met with greater resentment and difficulty from the opposite force.

When I say centrist I don't mean it as "ineffective" -- I mean that we must break away from these pulls of extremism on both sides of the fence or America as we know her is going to be in a shit storm of trouble (pardon my French) by continuing down this current path we are on as a society.

j.p.

Finally a voice of reason. That's why I will love watching Progressives and Neo-Cons on the sideline holding their dripping ice cream cones and crying about what could have been.

Originally Posted by JDFP

This seems extremely dangerous to me. The further to the left liberals go the further to the right the sling will pull at the right side as well -- see this with socialist tendencies of Frank/Pelosi/Reid and their ilk being met with the Tea Party on the right. The greater distance the pendulum swings to the left so shall it swing to the right -- Germany under the Wiemar Republic is a good example of this -- extremist Communists being met in firefights with extremist Fascists.

And this is part of why the country is in such a damn mess right now -- for the last 20 years (increasing on both sides of the fence -- and probably longer than this) we've been split almost down the middle on ideology -- and if that continues to pull apart in a greater distance on each side it only makes it more difficult to accomplish anything that isn't met with greater resentment and difficulty from the opposite force.

When I say centrist I don't mean it as "ineffective" -- I mean that we must break away from these pulls of extremism on both sides of the fence or America as we know her is going to be in a shit storm of trouble (pardon my French) by continuing down this current path we are on as a society.

j.p.

One thing though...you quote Ronald Reagan in your signature, and you started a thread praising him. He was not a moderate centrist. Maybe a moderate compared to Ron Paul, but not compared to most Republicans. The Bushes are moderates. John McCain and Bob Dole are moderates. Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon were moderates. Ronald Reagan was not.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

One thing though...you quote Ronald Reagan in your signature, and you started a thread praising him. He was not a moderate centrist. Maybe a moderate compared to Ron Paul, but not compared to most Republicans. The Bushes are moderates. John McCain and Bob Dole are moderates. Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon were moderates. Ronald Reagan was not.

The last true Conservative was Barry Goldwater, not Reagan. HW played him like a $2 fiddle and he almost got impeached because of it and his advisers actions. Better yet, JFK was a better Conservative model than the last 3 GOP President's (Reagan, Bush, Bush II).

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

One thing though...you quote Ronald Reagan in your signature, and you started a thread praising him. He was not a moderate centrist...

Simply because, contrary to Libertarian 101 -- and the post-1972 liberal agenda -- view, Reagan embraced a strong military defense, pro-Winthrop "City on the Hill" platform.

Libertarians cheered Reagan's pro-Ayn Rand top-rate tax cut (from 70 to 30%). But this was the ultimate selfish act to post-1972 liberal Democrats (who had previously embraced LBJ's supply-side tax cuts in 1964).

Do the math, people.

Originally Posted by JDFP

One can only hope. Bush caused enough damage over 8 years of his presidency only to have that tossed aside for the even greater disaster of the last two years (from the frying pan to the fire). Hopefully the Republican elects in November can attempt to bring things more centrist without pushing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction (this brings back memories to the coup in '94 when we tried to go as far right as possible only to have it backfire on us). We need a more centrist approach towards working together on both sides of the fence.

If the Republican party kicks too hard once the House and/or Senate is re-taken, it will only come back to bite us in the shiner as it did in '94.

As far as 2012, I'm calling the great Romney Revolution now (and he should go with this description as well, it would be fitting for America to hopefully return to greatness instead of having leaders bowing before despots and apologizing for our nation around the world for being great).

j.p.

Romney? LOL, a Romney nomination will cause the Tea Party to bolt. His Mormonism and the TPers hatred of anything smacking of "Northeastern Elites" doom him from the start. The GOP has created a monster it can't stop, and it will consume the GOP.

Originally Posted by Odin

Romney? LOL, a Romney nomination will cause the Tea Party to bolt. His Mormonism and the TPers hatred of anything smacking of "Northeastern Elites" doom him from the start. The GOP has created a monster it can't stop, and it will consume the GOP.

The funny thing is; Rove, Beck and Palin are trying the put the Genie back in the Bottle with their Neo-Conservative quackery. They don't like a hit of a newspaper over their noses.

See what happens when the elites of a party forgets its roots.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

One thing though...you quote Ronald Reagan in your signature, and you started a thread praising him. He was not a moderate centrist. Maybe a moderate compared to Ron Paul, but not compared to most Republicans. The Bushes are moderates. John McCain and Bob Dole are moderates. Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon were moderates. Ronald Reagan was not.

This is true to I think an extent. I will say that different times do call for different measures though. While he was more extreme in his world-ideology he did attempt to work with Democrats without shutting them out of the political process (in complete contrast with Obama/Pelosi fashion). The post-Cold War era calls for different measures of political actions and leadership than back in the 80's. Kissinger and his cronies from Nixon to Carter attempted a type of "detente" with the Soviet regime which only led to 'appeasing' Soviet brutality. Society needed a hard-edged individual when Reagan was in a leadership position -- today I don't think Reagan would have been as successful on foreign affairs (especially some of the more shady aspects) as he was in his era. The world, especially outside America, is a much different place today.

I think Reagan actually hammed quite a bit of this up as well. It doesn't matter if SDI was successful or not in practicality as opposed to ideologically, all it required was the ability to scare the bejezus out of the Soviets enough to make them think that it could practically come into play -- and it worked extremely well to this end. The Soviets thought he was crazy and just possibly mad enough to possibly do more than talk big. A great deal of it was really a performance in playing the cards just right. There's actually an excerpt from Reagan's diary after watching "The Day After" in a private screening with Nancy one evening where he writes (in October 1983 I believe it was, paraphrasing here): "Anyone who thinks a nuclear war can be won is truly mad. There's no potential for success in a nuclear confrontation."

He certainly came across as extremist to the weak detente ideology of former presidents -- and this was the necessary point that helped win the Cold War. Make them think you're not hesitant to take another step.

As far as social issues, I don't think Reagan was an extremist at all in his focus on family values and American tradition -- his desire to instill a powerful military (walking softly and carrying a big stick of ICBM's) or his values in faith. Reagan was a very religious faith-filled man -- but unlike many presidents (Carter and G.W.) Reagan never wore his faith on his sleeve. It was much deeper and more ingrained with him.

Honestly, I don't think you can compare Reagan's form of traditional values/ideologies so much with contemporary Neo-Con or Paleo-Con ideologies. As Edmund Morris (biographer) pointed out (paraphrasing): "The more I came to speak with the man [Reagan] the less I could figure him out." To attempt to label current political understandings/leanings on him I think would be a case of presentism without understanding the distinctions in time/place from today.

He certainly softened up with age to a point where a reporter came to ask him: "Mr. Reagan, do you still think the Soviet Union is still the Evil Empire?" (after years of perestroika and glasnost) and curtly responded with: "No." He certainly evolved with time in his presidency in realizing the distinctions of Russia from entering into his first term and leaving from his second term (events and actions that he helped shape into taking place, I would argue).

j.p.

Originally Posted by JDFP

socialist tendencies of Frank/Pelosi/Reid

This is a false statement. the party leadership on both sides is Right-Wing Corporatist. "Socialist" has a precise meaning (the control of the means of production by the workers), it is not a blanket epithet to throw at people you don't like, nor does it mean "big government".

Sorry for ranting, but you just set off a HUGE pet peeve of mine.

Originally Posted by Odin

Romney? LOL, a Romney nomination will cause the Tea Party to bolt. His Mormonism and the TPers hatred of anything smacking of "Northeastern Elites" doom him from the start. The GOP has created a monster it can't stop, and it will consume the GOP.

Romney should be disqualified for one reason alone: "Romneycare". He's the textbook definition of a finger-in-the-wind politician, and the favorite candidate of the party establishment. If he won the nomination, the choice between him and Obama would arguably be even worse than the choice between McCain and Obama was.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

One thing though...you quote Ronald Reagan in your signature, and you started a thread praising him. He was not a moderate centrist. Maybe a moderate compared to Ron Paul, but not compared to most Republicans. The Bushes are moderates. John McCain and Bob Dole are moderates. Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon were moderates. Ronald Reagan was not.

No, Reagan was the first Neocon president. I find it hilarious you guys still fall for his Faux-Libertarian rhetoric.

Originally Posted by JDFP

This is true to I think an extent. I will say that different times do call for different measures though. While he was more extreme in his world-ideology he did attempt to work with Democrats without shutting them out of the political process (in complete contrast with Obama/Pelosi fashion). The post-Cold War era calls for different measures of political actions and leadership than back in the 80's. Kissinger and his cronies from Nixon to Carter attempted a type of "detente" with the Soviet regime which only led to 'appeasing' Soviet brutality. Society needed a hard-edged individual when Reagan was in a leadership position -- today I don't think Reagan would have been as successful on foreign affairs (especially some of the more shady aspects) as he was in his era. The world, especially outside America, is a much different place today.

I think Reagan actually hammed quite a bit of this up as well. It doesn't matter if SDI was successful or not in practicality as opposed to ideologically, all it required was the ability to scare the bejezus out of the Soviets enough to make them think that it could practically come into play -- and it worked extremely well to this end. The Soviets thought he was crazy and just possibly mad enough to possibly do more than talk big. A great deal of it was really a performance in playing the cards just right. There's actually an excerpt from Reagan's diary after watching "The Day After" in a private screening with Nancy one evening where he writes (in October 1983 I believe it was, paraphrasing here): "Anyone who thinks a nuclear war can be won is truly mad. There's no potential for success in a nuclear confrontation."

He certainly came across as extremist to the weak detente ideology of former presidents -- and this was the necessary point that helped win the Cold War. Make them think you're not hesitant to take another step.

As far as social issues, I don't think Reagan was an extremist at all in his focus on family values and American tradition -- his desire to instill a powerful military (walking softly and carrying a big stick of ICBM's) or his values in faith. Reagan was a very religious faith-filled man -- but unlike many presidents (Carter and G.W.) Reagan never wore his faith on his sleeve. It was much deeper and more ingrained with him.

Honestly, I don't think you can compare Reagan's form of traditional values/ideologies so much with contemporary Neo-Con or Paleo-Con ideologies. As Edmund Morris (biographer) pointed out (paraphrasing): "The more I came to speak with the man [Reagan] the less I could figure him out." To attempt to label current political understandings/leanings on him I think would be a case of presentism without understanding the distinctions in time/place from today.

He certainly softened up with age to a point where a reporter came to ask him: "Mr. Reagan, do you still think the Soviet Union is still the Evil Empire?" (after years of perestroika and glasnost) and curtly responded with: "No." He certainly evolved with time in his presidency in realizing the distinctions of Russia from entering into his first term and leaving from his second term (events and actions that he helped shape into taking place, I would argue).

j.p.

What I mean is this: if you think the Tea Party movement is "extreme", then you must say the same thing about Reagan. There is no difference between them.

Ronald Reagan Speech - 1964 Republican National Convention

Originally Posted by Odin

No, Reagan was the first Neocon president. I find it hilarious you guys still fall for his Faux-Libertarian rhetoric.

His advisers did him in and he owed up to it. I respected him for that part. The circle is now returning and now over a 25+ years later, Rockefeller (Neo-Cons) are getting their just reward. It started with a dream, on August 29, 2008, with Ron Paul Convention to take back the GOP and bring back common sense. Neo-Cons have been running for the hills since.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

His advisers did him in and he owed up to it. I respected him for that part. The circle is now returning and now over a 25+ years later, Rockefeller (Neo-Cons) are getting their just reward.

Well said. Agreed. One of Reagan's primary failures was his more hands off approach with his cabinet. He wasn't concerned so much with the "little things" so much as the big picture -- and this came very close to pushing him over the edge (Iran-Contra). He should have been more focused on the details as opposed to "make it happen". Then again, sometimes it's good to distance yourself from some things (ahem, Nixon).

j.p.

Originally Posted by Odin

No, Reagan was the first Neocon president. I find it hilarious you guys still fall for his Faux-Libertarian rhetoric.

Anyone who becomes president has to deal with the realities of governing. Sometimes you have to compromise, and sometimes you lose fights. He had one or both houses of Congress controlled by the Democrats throughout his entire 8 years. That is not the same thing as being phony or dishonest about your stated views. Indeed, his views were quite outside the mainstream until the country came around to where he was. He never changed.

The "neo-con" label is a tricky one, which has changed over time. In general though, the neo-cons were/are not very socially conservative, and not very interested in limited government. They were simply Democrats who were opposed to communism and left the Democratic Party because it was adopting the pose of appeasement that it has retained to this day. In recent times, neo-cons were the authors of the notion that the way to prevent terrorism was to spread democracy in the Middle East, including doing so through military means.

Reagan does not fit that description, past or present. Simply adopting a tough posture toward the Soviets and increasing military spending is not enough to qualify someone as a "neo-con". He was not a military adventurist. I would not argue that he was a libertarian either, although he was heavily influenced by libertarian thought, in the form of Hayek, Friedman, and so on.

Here is an interview he did in 1975 with Reason magazine:
Inside Ronald Reagan

A Reason Interview

My political philosophy is very close to Reagan's. I'm just more strongly in the libertarian direction than he was in some areas.