the Youth Vote and the Republican Party

To really attract the young people the GOP would have to endorse an Anti-War candidate for President. 

It is certain that a John McCain presidency would result in rapid and massive escalation of the war effort on multiple fronts and the US would likely greatly expand troop deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan [AfPak], possibly Iran and who knows where else.  The current volunteer forces would not suffice to provide Cannon Fodder for this effort, so a McCain presidency would require reinstitution of the Draft and an obligatory death sentence for a more or less randomly selected subset of the young folks who would be subjected to conscription.   Only a few young people would dare vote for war where they might die, and particularly not for an ambiguous, perhaps even patently false, cause.  That doesnt make them cowards or unpatriotic.

None of the 3 (Obama, Clinton or McCain) offer any significant hope of release from the lifelong involunary tax servitude which our young people face.  None of the 3 offer any significant improvement in civil liberties or respite from government meddling with their lives. None offer anything substantive on the economy except for Hillary, who will give them Marxism.  McCain will give them more fascism and more socialism. Who knows for sure what Obama will give them?  

They should expect that the GOP should provide them an option, but with John McCain at the lead position in the ticket, the GOP offers the young people absolutely nothing at all except for a pathetically derisive CheneyCat sneer.

So given that there are no truly lesser evils, the ambiguous and vacuous Obama offers the only glimmer of hope that somehow in the soupy murkiness of his relativism a worthwhile idea might somehow be conjured up by accident.  So the young people will vote for Obama with a resounding solidarity.  And while they are doing so they will send the F-Bomb to most of the rest of the GOP candidates.  "They that wasted us required of us Mirth...."

Objections?  Questions?  Rebuttal?

IP, what does McCain know anything about besides War?  This is isn't Conspiracy Theorist Paranoia.  It's McCain's plan.

Robert, I am just addressing the question about how to attract young people to the GOP.  It is an important question.  The data available to me supports my opinion that Young People are en masse opposed to the war in Iraq. I would be quite pleased for you to present data supporting the contrary position.

My statement regarding McCain and troop buildup in Iraq and elsewhere is not my imagination.  It is drawn from one John S. McCain:  A greater military commitment now is necessary ...there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary ...Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops...The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran ...Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties.

and elsewhere...The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military ...

After they burn through another 4000 or so dead and a few 10,000 wounded and another subset worn out, it will become impossible to provide the buildup with volunteers & without a draft.  No Black Helicopters, just a little math and extrapolation.  Admittedly, extrapolation is what it is.  But Robert asked about the GOP.

"My statement regarding McCain and troop buildup in Iraq and elsewhere is not my imagination.  It is drawn from John S. McCain himsel"

Notice there's no mention of a draft.  Thank you for making my point for me.

"Admittedly, extrapolation is what it is."

You are drawing the conclusion that the only way to increase the number of troops in Iraq/Afghanizstan is by massively increasing the size of the military, and that the only way to increase the size of the military is via draft.

Neither is true. 

Again, there are lots of reasons to be opposed to McCain.  You don't need to fabricate more.

Notice there's no mention of a draft.

I did notice that but I clicked the wrong button to post rather than preview, and you were ready to catch me typos and all.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Not so fast, IP.  My point is that the "smart ones" are already starting to get away which has negative implications for a volunteer army.  An all-volunteer army is a cool idea in peacetime but it will start to fail a time of war, and indeed the all-volunteer concept is starting to fail and they sure ain't got enough R2D2's and C3PO's to take the place of pounds of flesh and pints of blood.  McCain doesn't say that we are going to have to waste a lot more circuit boards, wires, and generate more high tech junk.  If Clinton's war now become Bush's war becomes McCain's war the US will eventually be forced to reinstitute the draft because there wont be enough volunteers left over to feed the war machine.  Hillary and Obama offer roughly the same thing as previously noted.

The only way One important way for the GOP to truly differentiate itself is to oppose the war which is something very hard to get pushed past the neocons who have the keys and want to convince us Republicans that there are to be no other options.

"Gordy, not once have you contributed anything of substance."

Interesting that you think I've added nothing of substance to a site that I built and subsidize heavily out of my own pocket.

And exactly what have you contributed?

"You insult me, then I call you out on it, and make this ridiculous argument that you were insulting the sentence!"

If you can't understand the difference between belittling an argument and belittling the person who made it, this site is not for you.

"You never addressed the topic at hand which is about "Youth and the Republican Party.""

That's because your post is nothing but trollbait.

"I don't get it! ML has not even sunk this low!"

Then go start your own site.  Let me know when you attract as many readers at your new site as you're allowed to have access on here.

Robert,

If you want to whine any more about me and this thread, do so over email.

I think D.Boon has some substantive comments and questions for you.  Please respond to him instead of crying about me.

I wasn't aware that all of the youth in the country had "far-leftist professors" is this some new provision of the Kennedy-Bush educational platform?

Just stop already.

The way for Republicans to win is for them to become the Natural Law Party.  Then they would totally carry all fifty states and Porta Rica.

Protection of the environment, conservation of resources, etc. really depend upon how much each individual person is willing to sacrifice.  It is certainly convenient to sit back and denigrate the Bush Administration for ruining the environment, but Bush is not forcing you to make the choices you make every day that directly impact the environment.  Sell your SUV, buy a motorcycle.  Ride a bike around town.  Walk more.  Recycle.

Sure, and many of us do these things every day (with no end to the mocking and ridicule by the Republicans in our own community).  But these kinds of comments remind me of what this nation did during World War II.  We didn't have a President who left it up to us to decide how to best help the war effort.  We had a President who actively engaged the citizens in the effort through not only his own speeches and actions, but through various committees and branches of the government that reached out to Americans and helped them to help.  That is the difference here, and young people understand that.  Nobody is telling them to sacrifice.  Nobody is telling them to be engaged at all.  We have global warming, but nothing is being done about it?  What kind of message does that send to our kids?

Republicans (especially those in Champaign County) are respectful, inclusive, fair and open-minded.  It is a shame that we are labelled otherwise.  It's a perception that I work actively to reverse on campus.

I have no doubt that many Republicans are inclusive, but I don't think that means Republicans overall understand the problems of minorities in this country.  Many seem to think that racism no longer exists, and that black folks should just get their act together and take advantage of all the wonderful opportunities that the white folks in this country have.  They fight against affirmative action, they use race in campaigns to smear their opponents, they express outrage and shock that black pastors in inner-cities are filled with anger about the way America has treated black people, they rage against "illegal immigration".  There is a genuine disconnect between what Republicans say about race and what they do about it.

So I don't think this is just a perception problem.  I think that perception is there for a reason.  Which means if you want to start correcting that perception you would be well advised to take a look at the Republican platform first.

xian/dboon... If you expect the government to "do something" about it, a party that has a limited government philosophy (even if in practice they tend to fail miserably in many regards) isn't really who one would seek out for government solutions.  I'm big on limited central government philosophies in situations such as the United States where it should mostly be limited to national, international, and defense of rights issues more than anything else.  Where I tend to diverge with the GOP is when they attempt to become nanny statists on morals and where they attempt to restrict local and State government in extremely similar ways to the central government in ways that just don't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I think this gives the Democratic party a lopsided appeal to blacks who face a disproportionate load of the burden on issues such as poverty, education, violence, etc and how those tend to mute opportunity.  If the Democratic Party had better policies that were less divisive and more effective I think they'd do even better in this regard, especially on the local/State level.  Local/State GOPers tend to apply restraints on local government as if it was the limited central government and essentially offer nothing in this regard other than picking yourself up by your bootstraps... a concept that appeals to those who have it easier, but hardly nonexistant even among civil rights leaders dating all the way back to the abolitionist movement and many modern black conservatives.

Personally, one of my big beefs with the GOP is that they fail to offer realistic and effective government solutions on the local and State level where the government isn't so limited and could do some good in this regard.  They rightly lose the vote of those who disproportionately deal with and live with the effects of our unequal and often brutal policies of the past.  While I think the local and State Democrats offer poor and typically ineffective solutions, they at least offer something.  While some see this as pandering, I think it is a mix of pandering and good intentions that fail to recognize that the policies they've implemented are failing miserably.  What's the alternative though?  Nothing.  That doesn't help the GOP.

While some may rant and rave about the GOP's federal policy, I really don't see the federal government having much, if any influence, on dealing with these issues in an effective way.  I'm more concerned with the local and State policies, where minorities dealing with a disproportionate share of our society's hardships have a choice between ineffective and divisive solutions or no solutions at all.  Not much of a choice, but if you have to choose, one side will obviously win out.  Unfortunately, in the end, they still lose.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

"Well, forgive my disagreement, but I've read several threads on this very blog that have ridiculed the idea of recycling. "

Really?  Threads which ridiculed the very idea of recycling, huh?  I must have missed those, which is strange since I recycle and I think I would have noticed. 

"Not to mention the folks who have continually argued that global warming is a myth (Joan, you out there?)."

I haven't seen anyone argue that global warming is a myth.  I've seen people who question whether human activity is the primary/major cause of it, or whether this is part of a normal cycle of warming.

"And didn't we have a recent thread about what a waste of taxpayer money it would be to put in bike paths?"

Arguing that it's a waste of taxpayer money to install bike paths isn't the same as ridiculing an individual for bicycling.

"Maybe we need a new definition of "ridiculed"?  You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe?"

Maybe.  Questioning the economics of recycling doesn't quite rise to the level of ridiculing those who do it, but you may feel that it does.

"Getting past the idea of the hairs you are splitting, here's a great thread by Joan Dykstra in which she pretty much argues that global warming is a myth."

Meh.  This is pretty mild if you think this is mocking you for recycling or claiming that the earth is not warming for any reason.

"This kind of stuff is all-too-common in Republican/conservative circles, and young people know that."

I agree.  I just disagree with your characterizations of it as "ridiculing or mocking" the individuals engaged in it.

Boon suggests that a move of the GOP toward the centre will fix its troubles with America's youth.  He does correctly note that the majority of young people will shun the GOP if it stays on its present course.  Both Boon and Xian bemoan the loss of civil liberties...  And if nothing is done and done fairly soon, the GOP will die by attrition as Time destroys its aging membership  like so many of Robyn Hitchcock's Mexican Gods.  Of course we hope for better thinks than that.

Actually, opposition to War is a conservative position traditionally associated with the GOP, while the Democrat party was traditionally the War Party.  Our current aggressive wars of imperialistic intervention (so-called pre-emptive war) have come about since the rise of neoconservatism in the GWBush administration.  That was not the GWBush of the 2000 election.

Neoconservatism emphasizes foreign policy as the paramount responsibility of government, seeing the America's role as the world's sole superpower was indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order.  The roots of  Neoconservativism are actually liberals who crossed over hence the neo- appellation.  Most neoconservatives of today are Republicans, hence the unfortunate association of neocon warmongering with the GOP. 

The conservative Republican position is as follows: 

Every policy should be studied in the light of the regulations which it may involve, and in the light of its cost in taxation.  War by its very nature tended to concentrate power in the hands of the central state, and thus threatened the cherished American ideals of limited government and separation of powers...[the U.S. had only entered World War II in order] "to maintain the freedom of our own people.... Certainly, we did not go to war to reform the world. - Robert A. "Mr. Republican" Taft (1889-1953)

"Taft was remarkably prescient on many of the problems inherent in a highly interventionist foreign policy: unprecedented accretion of power in the hands of the executive branch of government, curtailment of civil liberties at home, the charge of "imperialism" arising from American influence abroad, and most importantly the danger of ... "imperial overstretch"—the extension of overseas commitments beyond the ability of a nation to meet them."   - John Moser, 1999, Ohio History, Volume 108, pp. 177-192. 

Are we to believe that Kissinger is as hated in conservative circles as he is in liberal circles? 

I think that everyone can dislike John McCain's advisor Kissinger.   Here are some of his sound bites.

• Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.
• The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
• It [The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions.
• Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people; control money and you control the world.
• America doesn't have friends, America only has interests.

That Robert McNamara couldn't find a larger speaking fee at the AEI than he could at the Nation?

The AEI is a nest of neocons.  Are you making my point for me?

Boon, I should say first of all that you and I probably agree on more things than we disagree about. 

I would definitely agree wholeheartedly that the grievously misguided GWBush policy choices as driven by the Kristol and Strauss schools of thought (so-called neoconservativism) are precisely what has got us into this Iraq mess.  There is a sense in which the most pacifist among us will defend those things that we hold dear and worthwhile.  The magnanimous willingness to give oneself vicariously for a great cause is one of the things that made us strong and successful as a nation.  This patriotism taken to an irrational extreme by emotions of fear and bellicosity can turn into xenophobia and jingoism.  The neocons were able to capture and pervert the wave of jingoistic hysteria that occurred post-9/11 and they were highly effective in leading the country out onto the quicksand of interventionist war in which we are now flailing about.

Hayek is to me more libertarian than conservative as I understand his ideas so I dont really much associate Hayek with contributing to this damned Iraq fiasco. 

More later.

Robert - the problem with Goldberg is that he does not understand the academic definition of a word like fascism.  Fascism is political ideology that is opposition to democracy and especially individualism.  It advocates the subordination of the individual to the will of the state, or the cause, which is usually rooted in a ahistorical understanding of the history of that state.  Fascists are usually focused on extreme form of patriotism, reject progressivism, and shun free market capitalism in favor of a unified, government-controlled economy.  Though I should add that most fascist countries have engaged in free market international trade.

So, if that is an apt description of fascism, how does 1930s/40s America fit that description?  Where, for example, is the attempt to control the means of production by the state?  Where is the extreme patriotism that is used to quell and intimidate the progressives?  Moreover, where is the attempt to subvert the democratic processes and install a totalitarian leader?

Goldberg points to some rallies with some banners.  He criticizes the New Deal, which was merely an attempt to create a respectable welfare state, as an attempt to control the economy (do I need to list the thousands of men and companies that became filthy rich during WWII?).  He tries to paint FDR as a power made dictator.  It is all ludicrous.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing the old Left.  There are definitely places where they deserve very harsh criticism.  But throwing terms like "fascism" around without a basic understanding of the history of that term, nor a solid argument to support your use of that term, just drags the debate to a lower level.  Goldberg seems to have phoned this book in.  Unable or unwilling to do the real research necessary to make his case, he falls back on old and suspect examples to try to paint the entire foundation of modern progressivism as an ally of European fascists.  It is a shameful, embarassing book, and it is the kind of thing that should reduce the credibility of not only Goldberg, but also NRO in the eyes of serious political analysts.

Unfortunately, it will most likely just disappear from the bookshelves and we'll all go on pretending Mr. Goldberg has something intelligent to say about the world.

Boon, I would just argue that with ideological values like "conservatism" or "feminism", the core idea cannot be judged by how it's been appropriated and perverted.

Xian - my take is that the appropriation of conservatism has been fairly consistent with the ideology.  Reagan is a better example than Bush, for certain, but even Bush has overwhelmingly chosen policies that have been summarized for him by a variety of think tanks in DC.  He is not charting a new path, or creating a new conservativism.  He is just pushing forward ideas that have been in the works for decades.

The seminal text on this issue is probably Conservative Intellectual Movement in America by George Nash.  It was written in 1976, but could have been written in 2006.  Outlines the basics of conservative intellectualism and it isn't much of a stretch to see how these basics are integrated into Reagan and the Bush's terms.  Well worth your time this summer if you have the time.