The problem today is that so many people who aren't actually conservatives are whittling off chunks of conservatism and pasting it on themselves. Religious fundamentalists (“social conservatives”). Minarchists (“fiscal conservatives”). Libertarians. And so on.

There's probably not much of a true conservative moment in the U.S. We use it as shorthand for a lot of different things -- especially the social cons -- but more generally for the Ronald Reaganesque message. I'm not a SoCon or a Burkean but I don't necessarily reject that "conservative" label in the American context.

But really, this answer to Hal comment is just a bit too much:

I think by any reasonable measure, the living standards of Americans has been rising at a fantastic rate. It's true that a tiny handful at the top have fantastical incomes and lifestyles that are beyond the reach of even those of us who are relatively affluent.[ Posted by James Joyner | May 26, 2008 | 10:38 am ]

Now then, I am not an economist, and I prefer not to quote Wikipedia unless it really simplifies matters and provides enough references for the inquiring mind to ponder.

Let me present you and your readership with the Gini Coeffecient. The statistical data clearly shows mounting income mal distribution in the US over the past 20 to 30 years in the US. There is a ton of data out there that supports this contention.

In your April 10th post, “Middle Class Blues”, you pooh-poohed the mounting evidence of income mal distribution, and the increasing house hold debt of the populous. Did not understand it then, but I think I am getting it now.

First, you set the middle class income at between 75,000.00 to 120,000.00. Next, you ignore regional differences, fixed expenses which may be increasing at a higher rate then inflation or earned income, and accrued debt which has to be serviced. Finally go for average income rather than the median income, and mirabile dictu, there is no problem, once again proving the magic of the market place!!!

Now then, to simplify. Either there is, or there is not mounting income mal distribution. A prudent conservative, in examining this possibility, would favor a worse case scenario. After all, to become a Bill Gates, we would have to drop out of college!

Really, truly conservatives fit William F. Buckley's characterization: they're standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” To whom are they yelling? Practically everybody else.

The problem today is that so many people who aren't actually conservatives are whittling off chunks of conservatism and pasting it on themselves. Religious fundamentalists (“social conservatives”). Minarchists (“fiscal conservatives”). Libertarians. And so on.

I would like to see people address the definition of fiscal conservatism. It seems to have become "cut taxes". Whatever happened to fiscal responsibility? What about the debt? If I just look at the data since conservatives started in office (Reagan), I have to conclude that their idea of making the economy run is deficit spending.

Steve

'Other than democrat' has had the majority on every presidential election starting in 1948 to 2004 with the exceptions of 1964 and 1976 (and I noted the unusual events that helped produce those majorities).

In the last 10 election 1968-2004, the GOP received a majority of the votes in 1972 - 60.67%, 1980 - 50.75%, 1984 - 58.77%, 1988 53.37% and 2004 - 50.73%.

In contrast, the republicans had clear majorities 5 of those 10 elections.

Is that right? Or did "other than Democrat" have the majority?

I always do find it odd that using the fact that there is racism, that it's ugly and that it shouldn't exist is considered to be morally equivalent to exploiting racism, itself. Is that what you're asserting here?

I think both parties do both of these things.

I fully agree that aspects of the conservative agenda are also appealing to racists and even that some Republican strategists knowingly make use of that fact. So, too, Democrats actively exploit black and Hispanic fears of racism by smearing Republicans with that label.

What the Democrats do is, in my mind, more odious: Frame any disagreement with the "civil rights" agenda as "racist." There can be no reasoned opposition to affirmative action, bilingual education, hate crimes, or any number of things; opposition is deemed by definition racist.

These numbers represent the percentage of presidential voters who wanted the democrat (number on the left) compared to the number who wanted someone other than the democrat (number on the right) over the last 40 years. You will notice that only once did a majority of voters favor the democratic brand compared to all other possibilities.

In contrast, the republicans had clear majorities 5 of those 10 elections.

If you go back 60 years, the democrats have only garnered a majority of votes twice (1964 and 1976). Both majorities can at least in part be accounted for in things beyond the ideals of the democratic party (Kennedy assassination in 1964 and Watergate in 1976). Both majorities were followed by a Republican in the White House. Out of those 15 elections (1948 to 2004), republicans have had majorities 7 times.

Now explain to me again how the liberals really represent the majority of the country? The democrats haven't really represented a majority of the country since FDR.

I think you're simply making Thers' point here, James. You don't think there's a problem. That's fine, that is the republican party line, after all. However, this is quite a different thing than race. There simply is no argument about race. Reasonable people can argue as to whether there is an economic divide in the country and it seems like fair game to use it as a political position. Race, on the other hand is no such thing. Not even in the same category. So saying that "See? Democrats using economics as a divisive issue and the Right uses race as a divisive issue are really the same thing" is just not correct. It's an "apples and oranges" argument. Just because they are both "divisive" doesn't mean they are morally equivalent.

For the most part, we want to create opportunities and remove barriers rather than confiscating and redistributing.

Again, a statement that can be interpreted many ways. As I said, it's a legitimate part of the discourse of our elections. Race, not at all. And that was Thers' point.

Cringing at torture is near-universal. So, though, is thinking it's justified when used against really bad people who might harm the country. Those of us who are near-absolutists the other way are in a minority.

Again, I think when you make the question framed with "really bad people", you get one answer. When you frame it as it should be, considering the rather large number of people in Guantanamo which have - you know - turned out to not be really bad people even by the admission of our own government, you get quite another. However, Thers' point - if I may be so bold - isn't that there's a consensus to torture "really bad people", it's that one party - i.e. the republicans - contain a frightening proportion of people who go way beyond that. Indeed, they see no problem with breaking international treaties on torture (it's tying America's hands), don't think water boarding is torture (again, see the polls I linked to) and - as a party - have made torture a political issue. Rather, making *not* torturing a political issue.

The democrats, while perhaps timid and disgustingly milquetoast on the subject, are not - as a *party*.

I'm pretty sure race will be exploited by both sides in November.

Again, moral equivalence on your part. I always do find it odd that using the fact that there is racism, that it's ugly and that it shouldn't exist is considered to be morally equivalent to exploiting racism, itself. Is that what you're asserting here?

[B]y all economic measures, there actually *are* two Americas. Now, you can take the position that we should actually not bring this up, nor should we actually try to change that. That is, I believe the position on the right.

I think by any reasonable measure, the living standards of Americans has been rising at a fantastic rate. It's true that a tiny handful at the top have fantastical incomes and lifestyles that are beyond the reach of even those of us who are relatively affluent. But, really, so what? Bill Gates' ability to afford his own island doesn't impact me and he has managed to endow a huge charitable organization with his bucks.

It's not true that conservatives don't want to do anything about true poverty, it's just that we take a different approach. For the most part, we want to create opportunities and remove barriers rather than confiscating and redistributing.

On torture, I'd really like to find out where you're assertion of a mass, bipartisan consensus comes from.

A recent Pew poll asked "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?" 15% said often, 31% said sometimes, 17% said rarely. That's 63% compared to 32% who say never. A 2005 AP poll had similar findings: "61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions."

Cringing at torture is near-universal. So, though, is thinking it's justified when used against really bad people who might harm the country. Those of us who are near-absolutists the other way are in a minority.

I don't fully understand the visceral reaction to illegal immigration, even though there's a part of me that shares it. As a matter of practical policy, I think Huckabee and McCain are right. But there's a serious fear of illegals overtaking the culture, siphoning off pubic resources, and so forth.

I'm pretty sure race will be exploited by both sides in November.

On torture, I'd really like to find out where you're assertion of a mass, bipartisan consensus comes from. Pretty much every poll I've seen on the subject, shows the exact opposite. In fact, what the break downs almost always show is that self identified republican support torture by a broad majority. Heck, as the anecdote by Klein, watching a focus group on a Republican debate shows, bitchslapping the poor and pro-torture seem to be core republican values at this time in our political history

In the next segment--the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee's college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants--I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, "After all, these are children of God," the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted (30s). These Republicans were hard.

But there was worse to come: When John McCain started talking about torture--specifically, about waterboarding--the dials plummeted again. Lower even than for the illegal Children of God. Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go. Afterwards, Luntz asked the group why they seemed to be in favor of torture. "I don't have any problem pouring water on the face of a man who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11," said John Shevlin, a retired federal law enforcement officer. The group applauded, appallingly.

It's important to remember it's still May and due to the battle in the democratic party the national election has yet to begin. I like to think that McCain won't follow in the footsteps of previous Republican campaigns and adopt their strategies, but considering that he's got all the same people basically working for him, I don't hold out high hopes for the matter. Basically, given the polling trends - as you've pointed out - he'll have a fantastically uphill battle to fight and quite frankly when you're against the ropes I think it's going to be hard to resist pulling out racism. I mean, heck, his current strategy of dealing with Obama wrt national security hasn't been anything but a campaign of fear and resentment. I mean, Bush in the Knesset? McCain piling on that? Really, James, that's just a taste of what's to come...

1. Their candidates are promising to enact policies to lower fuel prices.

2. At the same time they are promising to do something to lower carbon emissions.

3. While whistling past the fact that the only effective way to reduce carbon emissions is to increase the cost of fuel.

“Intellectual movements” that end up unable to cope with empirical scientific data (global warming)

Illustrates the hubris that causes everyone lots of problems when liberals / progressives policies are unleashed on the real world.

The fact of the matter is that the end result of the vast majority of policies enacted to fight global warming have.

1. Increased carbon emissions

2. Caused massive environmental destruction

Once again the liberal desire to

1. Take government action to do something right now to fix a problem

2. Combined with their utter refusal to evaluate the possible negative results these actions might create

3. Leaves the original problem in place and creates new ones.