End of the big tent?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

The left wing story line is that Reagan's 'big tent' is over and done with BECAUSE there is a strong wave of right wing influence.



That's just another way of saying "It's ONLY a big tent if the left wing of the tent is in charge."

The entire Obama argument is never mind how left he is, he won! We get to drive for awhile!

Fine. So, some right wingers get to drive here and there, right?

It'll be interesting to see if any GOP'ers in tough races can handle this softball.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

The left wing story line is that Reagan's 'big tent' is over and done with BECAUSE there is a strong wave of right wing influence.



That's just another way of saying "It's ONLY a big tent if the left wing of the tent is in charge."

Somewhat true. It's only a big tent if left-wing ideas are freely allowed.

You're always going to hear the left proclaim that the right is finished or collapsing. The only time in my life I can remember otherwise was during Reagan's tenure, and then only sporadically. I recall newspaper articles declaring the end of the GOP right after Clinton was elected, sending Bush I back to Texas after a single term in office. We all remember how THAT one turned out.

The straight political fact is that big tent politics works, because while a small party may single out a single issue - say, the Right To Life party - a larger party can co-opt the issue and widen the tent.

The first time I recall hearing the GOP refer to itself that way was when they declared that you could be Republican and pro-choice. The abortion issue was no longer a litmus test for entry or party affiliation.

This tends to have a cyclical effect - as the parties widen their "tent", they begin to lose or alienate their base. We already see this with the Democrats and their fiscally conservative Blue Dogs versus the more left-wing members of their party. The press makes little mention of this, for reasons we've all discussed before.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

The left wing story line is that Reagan's 'big tent' is over and done with BECAUSE there is a strong wave of right wing influence.



That's just another way of saying "It's ONLY a big tent if the left wing of the tent is in charge."

The entire Obama argument is never mind how left he is, he won! We get to drive for awhile!

Fine. So, some right wingers get to drive here and there, right?
It'll be interesting to see if any GOP'ers in tough races can handle this softball.

Sure they will.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

This tends to have a cyclical effect - as the parties widen their "tent", they begin to lose or alienate their base. We already see this with the Democrats and their fiscally conservative Blue Dogs versus the more left-wing members of their party. The press makes little mention of this, for reasons we've all discussed before.

Absolutely. That is why, when you have the power, you exercise it because that time will most likely be fleeting.

The point is that you can have a big tent, conservative gays, single moms, Hispanic Americans, religious folks, pro lifers, etc, but someone still needs to be in charge. Someone needs to call the music. And I submit that most Americans will accept and respect long term right wing leadership if right wingers can only learn the music, be in tune and in time. We, the people, time after time after time, have proven to be a bit more right than left.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Absolutely. That is why, when you have the power, you exercise it because that time will most likely be fleeting.

The point is that you can have a big tent, conservative gays, single moms, Hispanic Americans, religious folks, pro lifers, etc, but someone still needs to be in charge. Someone needs to call the music. And I submit that most Americans will accept and respect long term right wing leadership if right wingers can only learn the music, be in tune and in time. We, the people, time after time after time, have proven to be a bit more right than left.

I don't know if it's "who is in charge". I think it matters eventually just how diluted or concentrated they are on issues that matter to the whole. You can be pro-choice or pro-life in the GOP only so long as its platform isn't committed to one side. Guns, drugs, immigration, affirmative action - these have been litmus tests in the past. Water it down enough, and the base of the party gets disgusted, just as the Republicans have observed in recent years.

Remember how we joked, in the past, of what a "moderate" party would look like? Come join the Moderate Party - we aren't for or against anything. That's what the bases of the Democratic and Republican parties see - that their party differences have become obscure and blurred. You join and support one party - say, the GOP - because you believe in smaller government. Over time you see other ancillary issues creep in and you dismiss them, because they don't compare to the overarching issue you care about - too much government.

Then they expand the government and its intrusion on your life and raise your taxes. Finally you say "dammit, what's the point? I might as well be a Democrat!" and you quit. What's the point of your allegiance to a party when they stand for NOTHING you believe in?

[chernmax (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

The left wing story line is that Reagan's 'big tent' is over and done with BECAUSE there is a strong wave of right wing influence.



That's just another way of saying "It's ONLY a big tent if the left wing of the tent is in charge."

The entire Obama argument is never mind how left he is, he won! We get to drive for awhile!

Fine. So, some right wingers get to drive here and there, right?

It'll be interesting to see if any GOP'ers in tough races can handle this softball.

The election tomorrow may be a turning point, especially if New Jersey falls it will be a big ego buster for Obama on what he can or cannot sell anymore.