An Election Breakwater?

[markalot]

In 2002 and 2004, only 98 percent of incumbents were re-elected. Appalled, incumbents are working to eliminate that awful 2 percent.

By George 'Funk is not my middle name' Will
Newsweek

Feb. 27, 2006 issue - The electorate's dyspeptic mood about the nation's politics reflects the fact that, as is frequently the case, the party in power in Washington has done much to earn a rebuke but the opposition party has done nothing to earn a reward. Herewith a tour of the political horizon nine months before the November elections, and 33 months before the first presidential election since 1952 without an incumbent president or vice president running—and just the second in 28 years without a Bush on the ballot.

Democrats are hoping that an electoral tsunami in November will wash away the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. But Democrats have been complicit in building what may be a breakwater—Republican consultant Bill McInturff's term—that protects the hold that Republicans secured in 1994 after 40 years in the minority. And if Democrats do win a majority, they may regret it.

The breakwater has three components—gerrymandering, campaign-finance "reforms" and the particular form of profligacy known as earmarks. In state after state, redistricting after the 2000 Census proved that bipartisanship—ritually praised, rarely practiced—is often overrated. Democrats and Republicans collaborated in drawing congressional districts that would protect incumbents of both parties. Campaign-finance "reforms," which make raising money more difficult, are written by incumbents and work to the advantage of... well, take a wild guess. Here is a hint: In the last two election cycles, 98 percent of incumbents seeking re-election won. The explosive and utterly bipartisan growth of earmarks—federal spending directed by individual legislators to specific projects—is yet another advantage incumbents have as they toil to get rid of that offensive 2 percent.

Until then, they will have to be comforted by the fact that in 2004, just 21 incumbents (out of 435) won with 55 percent or less of the vote. In 2000 the number was 40. In 2004, 325 incumbents received 60 percent or more of the vote, and 146 received 70 percent or more.

But 2004 was the first time since 1866 that Republicans increased their House majority in two consecutive elections. They are unlikely to achieve a third increase this year. So, suppose the breakwater is overwhelmed and Democrats win control of the House.

Who then will control the Democrats' crazies? Give those guys committee gavels, and they will be as manic about investigating the Bush administration as Republicans were about investigating the Clinton administration. (Do you remember Whitewater? Can you say anything about what was at issue?) Furthermore, there might be a noisy and not negligible cohort pushing for impeachment of President Bush for such high crimes and misdemeanors as the premise of the war with Iraq and the presence of Dick Cheney. Short-term memory loss being a bipartisan affliction, Democrats probably would not remember that the public was so annoyed by Republican attempts to impeach Bill Clinton for his glandular excesses, Democrats actually gained House seats in the first post-Monica election.

For Democrats to gain, say, 20 seats, they would almost have to run the table of the at most 35 seats currently considered competitive. And if they do, they will have a five-seat majority, the smallest for either party since 1952. That will make it difficult to accomplish anything, so control of the House will only make Democrats look impotent—and complicit in whatever is displeasing people about Washington in 2008.

Presidential popularity, or lack there-of, tends to color an election year. Since 1962, when the president's job approval has been between 50 and 59 percent, the presidential party has lost an average of 12 seats in off-year elections; when his approval has been below 50 percent, the average loss has been 43 seats. President Bush's job approval is at a historic low for a sixth-year president not named Nixon, but this may not matter in November, and not just because of the breakwater. Voters can be very nimble at compartmentalizing their feelings about presidents and their feelings about lesser politicians. For example, in 1956, 1972 and 1984 Republican presidents won re-election landslides—yet Democrats gained one, two and two Senate seats, respectively.

Bush had a smaller electoral-vote margin than any re-elected president since 1916 (Woodrow Wilson), and every president re-elected since Wilson had a winning margin in the popular vote at least three times as large as Bush's in 2004 (2.5 percentage points). National politics seems frozen: All but three states (Iowa, New Hampshire and New Mexico) voted in 2004 the way they did in 2000. Nevertheless, 153 counties that had voted for Clinton in 1996 and Al Gore in 2000 voted in 2004 for Bush, who increased his margin in 24 of the 30 states he won in 2000 and reduced the Democratic margin of victory in 13 of the 20 states he lost in 2000. This trend will continue until, like every trend, it stops.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11435862/site/newsweek/

[tobedawg]

The Democrats aren't even going to come close to duplicating the Republican Revolution of 1994..

In 1994: The Republicans had a strong voice and got behind him, Newt Gingrich AND they had a clear plan, "The Contract With America"..

What do the Democrats have? Oh the whole.. "Lesser of Two Evils" card, DIDN'T work in 2002 or 2004, and it WON'T work this year.. Get a plan Democrats!

This Year Many Republicans are have a message about Immigration Reform, which is something that, especially in states like Arizona and California, are issues that COULD put them over the top..

I WAS registered Democrat from 2002 to 2006.. Today, I reregistered Independant..

[the happy prole]

This trend will continue until, like every trend, it stops.

Thanks for the insight, George. That's why they pay you the big bucks.

[markalot]

Thanks for the insight, George. That's why they pay you the big bucks.

The man is a visionary!

[markalot]

I can't bring myself to post another thread just for GFW, so here's his column from the post. Awesome. :D

Smile if (and Only if) You're Conservative

By George F. Will
Thursday, February 23, 2006; A19

To bemused conservatives, it looks like yet another example of analytic overkill by the intelligentsia -- a jobs program for the (mostly liberal) academic boys (and girls) in the social sciences, whose quantitative tools have been brought to bear to prove the obvious.

A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that conservatives are happier than liberals -- in all income groups. While 34 percent of all Americans call themselves "very happy," only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals.

Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole.

People in the Sun Belt -- almost entirely red states -- have sunnier dispositions than Northerners, which could have as much to do with sunshine as with conservatism. Unless sunshine makes people happy, which makes them conservative.

Such puzzles show why social science is not for amateurs. Still, one cannot -- yet -- be prosecuted for committing theory without a license, so consider a few explanations of the happiness gap.

Begin with a paradox: Conservatives are happier than liberals because they are more pessimistic. Conservatives think the Book of Job got it right ("Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward"), as did Adam Smith ("There is a great deal of ruin in a nation"). Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile -- touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones.

Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver.

On Jan. 3, 1936, FDR announced that in 34 months his administration had established a "new relationship between government and people." Amity Shlaes, a keen student of FDR's departure from prior political premises, says, "The New Deal had a purpose beyond curing the Depression. It was to make people look to Washington for help at all times." Henceforth the federal government would be permanently committed to serving a large number of constituencies: "Occasional gifts to farmers or tariffs for business weren't enough." So, liberals: Smile -- you've won.

Nevertheless, normal conservatives -- never mind the gladiators of talk radio; they are professionally angry -- are less angry than liberals. Liberals have made this the era of surly automobile bumpers, millions of them, still defiantly adorned with Kerry-Edwards and even Gore-Lieberman bumper stickers, faded and frayed like flags preserved as relics of failed crusades. To preserve these mementos of dashed dreams, many liberals may be forgoing the pleasures of buying new cars -- another delight sacrificed on the altar of liberalism.

But, then, conscientious liberals cannot enjoy automobiles because there is global warming to worry about, and the perils of corporate-driven consumerism, which is the handmaiden of bourgeoisie materialism. And high-powered cars (how many liberals drive Corvettes?) are metaphors (for America's reckless foreign policy, for machismo rampant, etc.). And then there is -- was -- all that rustic beauty paved over for highways. (And for those giant parking lots at exurban mega-churches. The less said about them the better.) And automobiles discourage the egalitarian enjoyment of mass transit. And automobiles, by facilitating suburban sprawl, deny sprawl's victims -- that word must make an appearance in liberal laments; and lament is what liberals do -- the uplifting communitarian experience of high-density living. And automobiles . . .

You see? Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.

georgewill@washpost.com



© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[the_birds]

Its as simple as this...

Ignorance is bliss.

Conservatives, especially Neo Cons don't bother with insignificant details like inaccurate intelligence, playcating imbeciles bent on power (Chalabi), or soldiers lives. Conservatives, just live in their pollyannic fantasies and take their kids to soccer practice and eat at their suburban chain restaurants, and read their Wall St. Journals. They are happy as long as they are told everything is okay. Thinking? They think Thinking for anything but their portfolios is for suckers.

Of course they're happier than Liberals. Liberals think and consider consequences. Liberals worry. Liberals and Democrats will have to clean up this mess.

Oh and one other thing. I mentioned a few months back, that we might as well leave Iraq, because they will descend into Civil War as soon as we leave and undo most or all of our "improvements" there. I was wrong. They are going to descend into Civil War before we leave. It would be a good time to bring our troops home now.

No big deal, just another colossal failure of the Administration and their invented "intelligence." Problem is they won't admit it until more of the "little green army men" get killed. This is why Liberals aren't happy. Soldiers dying for oil, oops, scratch that. Soliders dying for NOTHING, that's horrible.

But not for conservatives, just keep waving your little flags and get another yellow ribbon magnet for your car, f*ckers...

[markalot]

I think you're confusing ignorance with just plain not caring.

A liberal drives and SUV and acts concerned about the environment. A conservative drives an SUV and doesn't care. Both drive SUV's, both are doing the same damage, one is unhappy.

[tobedawg]

A liberal drives and SUV and acts concerned about the environment. A conservative drives an SUV and doesn't care. Both drive SUV's, both are doing the same damage, one is unhappy. '

good point markalot..

[the happy prole]

A liberal drives and SUV and acts concerned about the environment. A conservative drives an SUV and doesn't care. Both drive SUV's, both are doing the same damage, one is unhappy.

Naw, you want to make like liberals are these huge hypocrites but it's only because you portray them in these clownish ways. Plenty of liberals don't give a crap about the environment but are more drawn to the left by race issues. I'm thinking there's a lot of rich black dudes who are legitimate liberals driving around in SUV's and not feeling guilty about it at all.

You think Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter are happy? Because I don't. For that matter George F. Will's rather bitter himself.

[markalot]

Naw, you want to make like liberals are these huge hypocrites but it's only because you portray them in these clownish ways. Plenty of liberals don't give a crap about the environment but are more drawn to the left by race issues. I'm thinking there's a lot of rich black dudes who are legitimate liberals driving around in SUV's and not feeling guilty about it at all.

You think Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter are happy? Because I don't. For that matter George F. Will's rather bitter himself.

I've been thinking how to respond, but there is no response. You know I don't protray them in clownish ways anymore that conservatives are protrayed in clownish ways. Liberals are mostly hypocrites, they've boxed themselves in and they hate it. Social conservatives are also hypocrites.

[the happy prole]

Actually no, you've boxed them in. You can make any large group of people look like hypocrites if you assume they are all supposed to believe and act in the same way.

Then all you need to do is carve out a little exception for yourself. Everyone else fits neatly in a box except for you. For whatever reason, that seems to be your MO nowadays.

Here, watch:

Fiscal conservatives hate government, yet they avail themselves of government services on a daily basis.

[markalot]

Actually no, you've boxed them in. You can make any large group of people look like hypocrites if you assume they are all supposed to believe and act in the same way.

Then all you need to do is carve out a little exception for yourself. Everyone else fits neatly in a box except for you. For whatever reason, that seems to be your MO nowadays.

Here, watch:

Fiscal conservatives hate government, yet they avail themselves of government services on a daily basis.

They do? Then those cuts to all the government programs the conservatives just rammed through must have been a figment of my imagination.

Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.

[the happy prole]

I wasn't actually talking about conservative politicians. But hey, if you want to claim those are fiscal conservatives in government right now overseeing this unprecedent government budget, feel free to play yourself.

[DaHood]

I think you're confusing ignorance with just plain not caring.

A liberal drives and SUV and acts concerned about the environment. A conservative drives an SUV and doesn't care. Both drive SUV's, both are doing the same damage, one is unhappy.
Much like the 'Live simply so that others my simply live' sticker I saw on the back of a Grand Cherokee.

And I agree that is a problem with a lot of liberals, how they pretend to care. But some really do and I can respect that even when I don't agree.

At least I know where the conservatives stand. They just don't give a shit.

[markalot]

Much like the 'Live simply so that others my simply live' sticker I saw on the back of a Grand Cherokee.

And I agree that is a problem with a lot of liberals, how they pretend to care. But some really do and I can respect that even when I don't agree.

At least I know where the conservatives stand. They just don't give a shit.

Right, and I'm not dissing the 'ideals' of the left, just how hypocritical they are. I wish more fiscal conservatives cared for the environment because if they did they would see the importance ($$) in protecting it.

edit: i hate laptop keyboards

[tobedawg]

Right, and I'm not dissing the 'ideals' of the left, just how hypocritical they are. I wish more fiscal conservatives cared for the environment because if they did they would see the importance ($$) in protecting it.

I agree with Markalot..

After living on California's Central Coast for 10 months, one of the most LEFTIST Coasts in the nation, yet VERY affluent.. I left and moved back to the VERY Red Central Valley..

Why? First, the people here are a hell of alot friendlier.. The people on the Central Coast were some of the most petty self-rightgeous miserable hypocrites that I have EVER met! Sure, they'd talk about why they "Hate Bush" and go off on a "Fuck Bush" mantra AND even had their BMW SUV's decorated with Anti-Bush stickers or their Porsches, Jaquar's or whatever..

Their trust fund kids were a bunch of whiney little assholes too ..

The jobs unless you had a Master's degree, paid significanlty LESS than what I was making in the Central Valley yet the cost of living was 3 times what I had paid in the Central Valley..

Most of the Cities had ANTI-WAL-MART ordinances passed, and cited WAL-MART's "Shitty Wages" as a reason why, YET small businesses in Carmel paid shittier wages and didn't offer health insurance to their employees.. AND If one were to go to Carmel, it becomes painfully obvious that the REASON why they don't want WAL-MART is because they DON'T want to attract low income people to their town.. Nice Liberals!

[QuasEye]

Actually, funny that someone mentioned both SUVs and the Law of Unintended Consequences.

My parents raised my brother and me quite ably driving an Olds Delta 88 and an old regular-size pickup truck. I mentioned that to them once, wondering aloud why everyone now seems to think that when they have kids, they need an SUV. The response? "We never could've fit the safety seats that they require these days into that car."

So, there you go. The government increased regulation to raise standards on childs safety seats, and the unintended consequence is that more people are driving vehicles that would otherwise be total overkill.

Incidentally, I know that some people are thinking, "well, why don't people drive station wagons for their kids instead?" Same thing - they raised regulation on wagons "to protect the children", the car companies stopped being able to make as much of a profit on them, so they stopped pushing them. SUVs are still considered trucks (even if only a minority of them are used like a truck, some people still need that kind of vehicle), so they get a pass.

Slight tangent. The law in Illinois is now that kids have to be in a safety seat until they're seven. Now, does it seem weird to anyone else that when a first-grader rides in his parents' car, he has to be in a safety seat, but he also has to ride a school bus twice a day without even a seat belt?

[yoshomon]

Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads.

markalot, I want to congratulate you for giving it 110%

[the happy prole]

I agree with Markalot..

After living on California's Central Coast for 10 months, one of the most LEFTIST Coasts in the nation, yet VERY affluent.. I left and moved back to the VERY Red Central Valley..

Why? First, the people here are a hell of alot friendlier.. The people on the Central Coast were some of the most petty self-rightgeous miserable hypocrites that I have EVER met! Sure, they'd talk about why they "Hate Bush" and go off on a "Fuck Bush" mantra AND even had their BMW SUV's decorated with Anti-Bush stickers or their Porsches, Jaquar's or whatever..

Their trust fund kids were a bunch of whiney little assholes too ..

The jobs unless you had a Master's degree, paid significanlty LESS than what I was making in the Central Valley yet the cost of living was 3 times what I had paid in the Central Valley..

Most of the Cities had ANTI-WAL-MART ordinances passed, and cited WAL-MART's "Shitty Wages" as a reason why, YET small businesses in Carmel paid shittier wages and didn't offer health insurance to their employees.. AND If one were to go to Carmel, it becomes painfully obvious that the REASON why they don't want WAL-MART is because they DON'T want to attract low income people to their town.. Nice Liberals!

And how would this make any of them hypocrites, necessarily? I'm rich, I have my Master's degree and I demand to be paid for it. And with that money, I'm going to try to move into a better neighborhood. I'm a liberal, not a communist.

The way I see it, everyone wants something for nothing from the government. I don't know if it's hypocritical or stupid, but it's certainly not limited to liberals.

[markalot]

And how would this make any of them hypocrites, necessarily? I'm rich, I have my Master's degree and I demand to be paid for it. And with that money, I'm going to try to move into a better neighborhood. I'm a liberal, not a communist.

The way I see it, everyone wants something for nothing from the government. I don't know if it's hypocritical or stupid, but it's certainly not limited to liberals.

Correct, but like I said before. You're liberal, you going to take path A, someone is conservative (whatever that means anymore) and will take the same path.

One of you is less happy because you're guilty about the path chosen. You tore down trees to build that oversized home, you're wasting gas, you're doing things that liberals speak against.

[yoshomon]

Liberalism, as an ideology, has nothing to do with "conserving resources" or anything like that. It's annoying that in political discourse nowadays "social democrat", "leftist", "environmentalist", and "liberal" all get tossed around as though they mean the same thing.

[markalot]

Liberalism, as an ideology, has nothing to do with "conserving resources" or anything like that. It's annoying that in political discourse nowadays "social democrat", "leftist", "environmentalist", and "liberal" all get tossed around as though they mean the same thing.

Where do you get your definition? I believe most liberals consider themselves environmentalists.

[yoshomon]

Where do you get your definition? I believe most liberals consider themselves environmentalists.

And some environmentalists consider themselves conservative. Actually, a lot of environmentalists are really socially conservative and take conservative positions on things like immigration.

[the happy prole]

Well, then you should feel guilty every time you pay your taxes, and every time you receive a government benefit of any kind-- and you would be extremely unhappy and guilt-ridden.

[markalot]

Well, then you should feel guilty every time you pay your taxes, and every time you receive a government benefit of any kind-- and you would be extremely unhappy and guilt-ridden.

I feel no guilt taking my money back.

[the happy prole]

And I don't feel any guilt over my house and my car.

[markalot]

And I don't feel any guilt over my house and my car.


You need to re-red the thread, slowly.

Why would a conservative or a libertarian feel guilty about using government services? Anything the government does they do so with some of my money. Take it away, swell, but while it's there I'll use it becaue I PAYED for it. I don't see how this ties in.

[yoshomon]

Where do you get your definition? I believe most liberals consider themselves environmentalists.

To go further, a liberal position would be for more open borders and free trade... which is opposed by (some) social democrats and leftists (and also by the right, though for different reasons).

The thing is that both the left and the right wing of capital are two sides of the same coin, and when shit hits the fan, they are more than happy to unite in defense of their common goals (essentially, maintaining the current order of things in one way or another). During social crisis the State has no problem working with the 'extremists' of either wing.

Luckily, we are capable of acting for ourselves instead of merely petitioning politicians or other representatives to act "for us".

[the happy prole]

Why would a conservative or a libertarian feel guilty about using government services? Anything the government does they do so with some of my money. Take it away, swell, but while it's there I'll use it becaue I PAYED for it. I don't see how this ties in.

If you don't get it, then go read some Ayn Rand. You won't believe me if I explain it to you.




edit: That came across kind of jerky. It's not like I don't think you're capable of understanding or that my time is too precious or whatever. I just don't think I have any ability to convince you since it's obvious I'm not a libertarian. Read some hardcore libertarian literature and see for yourself.

[tobedawg]

And how would this make any of them hypocrites, necessarily? I'm rich, I have my Master's degree and I demand to be paid for it. And with that money, I'm going to try to move into a better neighborhood. I'm a liberal, not a communist.


It does make liberals hypocrites when they are constantly whining and crying about how much we need equality and diversity when yet they live in gated suburbs.. OR when they say that we should "give to the poor" and get preachy about people in poverty, when yet they drive their bmws and what have they actually done for people in poverty?

Yes, congratulations to you on your masters degree.. I'm glad that you came from a priviledged background that allowed you the opportunities that you have today, Just don't preach to Mr. Conservative Corporate Executive about he should spend his money or how he should pay his employees, OR (the ultimate sin) try to push enviornmental regulation on him.. Liberals are just as much what is wrong with the system as conservatives are..

[purple_octopus]

Every once in awhile I think yosh might be right, and I contemplate stockpiling ammo for the revolution.

[purple_octopus]

little frightening isn't it?
I bet you're the only person in the universe who realized I wasn't joking.

[the happy prole]

Yes, congratulations to you on your masters degree.. I'm glad that you came from a priviledged background that allowed you the opportunities that you have today, Just don't preach to Mr. Conservative Corporate Executive about he should spend his money or how he should pay his employees, OR (the ultimate sin) try to push enviornmental regulation on him.. Liberals are just as much what is wrong with the system as conservatives are..

I'm kind of an environmentalist. I like trees a bit more than the next guy. I'm also a bit of a liberal, which means I like income equity more than the next guy. At no point have I ever felt like every tree has to be saved, or that we
must all live equally. I have no problem with you cutting down trees to make a nice house for yourself. In fact if you make more money than me go and you want more land, then I'm cool with you using more natural resource than me.

If I were as extreme in my views as Yoshomon, then I would be a gigantic hypocrite to live the way I do. But I'm not.

I also know plenty of conservatives who are bigger environmentalists than I do. The only difference between me and them is they think the private marketplace works better than the government. If they thought regulation was effective, they'd be all for it.

[the happy prole]

Every once in awhile I think yosh might be right, and I contemplate stockpiling ammo for the revolution.

Yeah, I feel you. For you to be a happy libertarian, you have to have a very high opinion of people in general, and a very low opinion of the government. I would say that most libertarians have a low opinion of the government, but that's reflective of their dislike of people to begin with.

I'm not saying libertarians are wrong. I'm just saying that what most libertarians really want is to be left alone. And libertarianism isn't going to do that for you. All it does is transfer power. Instead of being beholden to government, you're beholden to public opinion and the rich.

It's a harsh philsophy in that respect, but when I pointed that out everyone argued with me except (ironically) Orville Wrong who at least had some idea where I was coming from.

I think that moderate conservatives are probably the happiest of people. They're happy not only with their individual lot in life, but with how they got there. They don't see a reason to change because everything works out and it seems quite fair.

Anyone who is sort of idealist (whether that's libertarian or communist) is less likely to be happy.

[markalot]

Yeah, I feel you. For you to be a happy libertarian, you have to have a very high opinion of people in general, and a very low opinion of the government. I would say that most libertarians have a low opinion of the government, but that's reflective of their dislike of people to begin with.

I'm not saying libertarians are wrong. I'm just saying that what most libertarians really want is to be left alone. And libertarianism isn't going to do that for you. All it does is transfer power. Instead of being beholden to government, you're beholden to public opinion and the rich.

It's a harsh philsophy in that respect, but when I pointed that out everyone argued with me except (ironically) Orville Wrong who at least had some idea where I was coming from.

I think that moderate conservatives are probably the happiest of people. They're happy not only with their individual lot in life, but with how they got there. They don't see a reason to change because everything works out and it seems quite fair.

Anyone who is sort of idealist (whether that's libertarian or communist) is less likely to be happy.


I DO see where you're coming from, don't get me wrong, it really boils down to the type of the idealism. Liberals (the way I paint them and IMO the majority who answered the study) tend to 'play' uncompromising idealists who in reality compromise all the time. Other groups tend to be more realistic in their wants and needs and while they might be unhappy with the compromise at least they aren't lying about it.

The happy scale is a sliding one. Saying liberals are unhappy doesn't imply that conservatives are happy, just happier. Whatever that means.

[the happy prole]

If we pit the biased idealogue liberal vs. the biased idealogue fiscal conservative, I can agree that there is a difference perhaps in how they lie to themselves.

The liberal is prone to flowery speeches, and tends to be weak on hard data and ignores the costs. Like talk to an ardent environmentalist and they'll talk to you about the beauty of forests or how tragic it is that people are poor.

The conservative will have no shortage of facts, but they'll manipulate or outright make up figures to support their case. They'll totally ignore the facts that aren't in their favor. The perfect example is job creation. Anyone who understands economics will tell you that the number of people you employ doesn't mean shit, but you hear that argument time and again.

Jesse Jackson=flowery speeches
Rush Limbaugh= Made up facts

I don't know which situation you want to consider to by hypocritical, but they're both wrong. One side refuses to quantify, the other side quantifies poorly.

[markalot]

Rush is a blow hard lieing DJ. Why does Rush represent conservatives?

The perfect example is job creation. Anyone who understands economics will tell you that the number of people you employ doesn't mean shit, but you hear that argument time and again.

Nice fact. :rolleyes:

[george]

Jesse Jackson=illegitimate children
Rush Limbaugh=prescription drug addiction


Fixed that for you.

[the happy prole]

Rush is a blow hard lieing DJ. Why does Rush represent conservatives?

Why do you gotta be Mr. Pink?

Because Rush Limbaugh has a very popular radio show and he identifies himself as a conservative, as do the vast majority of his listeners and those who agree with him. I did you the service of 1) at least noting that Rush Limbaugh is an ass, and 2) saddling liberals with Jesse Jackson. I'm giving you a fairer shake than you gave me.

As for the employment numbers, I *is* a fact. Number of people employed is an input measure. What we really need to be concerned with is outputs, and output efficiency. Give me $1,000,000 a day and I'll pay 1,000,000 people $1 a day to sit on their ass. Impressed? Didn't think so. Put it another way: if you think jobs are so important than why are you advocating drastically slashing the largest employer (by far) in the US?

[markalot]

I don't consider government positions jobs :p

SO THERE SUCKA!

[the happy prole]

Nice. I agree, actually. :D See, I'm secretly a fiscal conservative at heart. Any position that isn't or can't be supported by the free market isn't a job.

I really want to write a manual for proper fiscal conservative theory, addressing these myths:

1) The distribution of wealth is not important. Anything that helps big business or small business or the wealthy is not efficient.

2) Job creation and number of people employed is not important.

3) Government is not inefficient in the way most people think. If what you want is widgets, the government can (and I would argue often does) produce widgets cheaper than the private economy. It's *still* inefficient.

4) From an economic standpoint, national defense and roads are no different than the protection of the environment. They are all "tragedy of the commons" externalities.

5) Unfunded mandates are not bad things. They are quite often very good things.

[the happy prole]

Veblen's more up Yosh's alley, though I kinda like him as well.

I'm not that meta. I'm simply saying that fiscal conservatives who argue those five points don't even understand the economic theory they are supposedly championing. Every single libertarian free-market conservative neo-classicist Chicago School of Economics scholar would agree with me. Even Thomas Sowell wouldn't argue with it; he just chooses to blame it all on liberals. supply side economics=shit. job creation=shit.

And damn, you read a lot.