Wall Street Journal: Liberalism: An Autopsy - The heirs of the New Deal are down to 20% of the electorate.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 2:44 AM GMT
    By R. EMMETT TYRRELL JR. (Wall Street Journal, Opinion Section, December 4, 2010)

    Just including a few excerpts here. Full article linked.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312504575618691747039412.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    In the tumultuous history of postwar American liberalism, there has been a slow but steady decline of which liberals have been steadfastly oblivious. The heirs of the New Deal are down to around 20% of the electorate, according to recent Gallup polls. Conservatives account for 42% of the vote, and in the recent election the independents, the second most numerous group at 29% of the electorate, broke the conservatives' way. They were alarmed by the deficit. They will be alarmed for a long time.

    ......

    Then came the Republicans' wilderness years in 2006 and 2008—but not conservatism's. Conservatives remained more popular than liberals by about a 2-1 margin.

    ......

    Over the past two years the Democrats showed their true colors. Faced with an entitlement crisis, they rang up trillion dollar deficits. We now face an entitlement crisis and a budget crisis—and liberals have no answer for it beyond tax and spend. They still have support in the media, but even here they are faced with opposition from Fox News, talk radio and the Internet.

    As a political movement liberalism is dead. They do not have the numbers. They do not have the policies. They have 23 seats in the Senate to defend in 2012 (against the Republicans' 10) and Republican control of state houses and legislatures will give them even more seats in the future. Liberalism R.I.P.

    Mr. Tyrrell, a syndicated columnist, is editor in chief of The American Spectator. His current book is "After The Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery," published by Thomas Nelson.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 3:30 PM GMT
    Robert Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. (born December 14, 1943 in Chicago, Illinois) is an American Neo-conservative magazine editor. He is the founder and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator.

    In 2000, government investigations of The American Spectator caused Tyrrell to sell the magazine to venture capitalist George Gilder. In 2003, Gilder, having a series of financial and legal setbacks, resold the magazine to Tyrrell and the American Alternative Foundation, the organization under which the magazine was originally incorporated, for a dollar.

    oopsie..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 3:54 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidRobert Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. (born December 14, 1943 in Chicago, Illinois) is an American Neo-conservative magazine editor. He is the founder and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator.

    In 2000, government investigations of The American Spectator caused Tyrrell to sell the magazine to venture capitalist George Gilder. In 2003, Gilder, having a series of financial and legal setbacks, resold the magazine to Tyrrell and the American Alternative Foundation, the organization under which the magazine was originally incorporated, for a dollar.

    oopsie..

    Classic case - if unable to deal with the message, go after the messenger.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 4:13 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TropicalMark saidRobert Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. (born December 14, 1943 in Chicago, Illinois) is an American Neo-conservative magazine editor. He is the founder and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator.

    In 2000, government investigations of The American Spectator caused Tyrrell to sell the magazine to venture capitalist George Gilder. In 2003, Gilder, having a series of financial and legal setbacks, resold the magazine to Tyrrell and the American Alternative Foundation, the organization under which the magazine was originally incorporated, for a dollar.

    oopsie..

    Classic case - if unable to deal with the message, go after the messenger.
    Actually showing the BIAS.......... BTW the messenger if you will is only an OPINION....
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Dec 05, 2010 4:19 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TropicalMark saidRobert Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. (born December 14, 1943 in Chicago, Illinois) is an American Neo-conservative magazine editor. He is the founder and editor-in-chief of The American Spectator.

    In 2000, government investigations of The American Spectator caused Tyrrell to sell the magazine to venture capitalist George Gilder. In 2003, Gilder, having a series of financial and legal setbacks, resold the magazine to Tyrrell and the American Alternative Foundation, the organization under which the magazine was originally incorporated, for a dollar.

    oopsie..

    Classic case - if unable to deal with the message, go after the messenger.


    in this case, the message IS the messenger.

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 4:34 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidClassic case - if unable to deal with the message, go after the messenger.

    Merely revealing the messenger as a biased right-wing commentator, not a political historian, whose glee in reporting his dubious "facts" and opinionated conclusions can barely be contained. When you omit a disclaimer about the author, and someone unmasks him, that is not going after the messenger, but rather, being fair to the listener.

    But then your concept of "fair & balanced" is doubtless the same as FOX News: in reality, total right-wing propaganda, that deserves to be exposed for what it is here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 4:38 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness saidClassic case - if unable to deal with the message, go after the messenger.

    Merely revealing the messenger as a biased right-wing commentator, not a political historian, whose glee in reporting his dubious "facts" and opinionated conclusions can barely be contained. When you omit a disclaimer about the author, and someone unmasks him, that is not going after the messenger, but rather, being fair to the listener.

    But then your concept of "fair & balanced" is doubtless the same as FOX News: in reality, total right-wing propaganda, that deserves to be exposed for what it is here.

    Why don't you and the others above, state what facts he presents are, in fact, dubious. Then after correcting his facts, use those facts to come up with an alternate, credible opinion, and see how it flies.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 05, 2010 4:45 PM GMT
    Hmm ... why doesn't the so called "messenger" in this piece try and gauge the popularity of his Neo-Con agenda

    For 30 years the term liberal has been denigrated on countless talking head shows and 24 hrs a day on FOX News
    so does that number surprise me ? ... no

    But ask the American public where they stand on Social Security
    on Medicare
    on Civil Rights Issues ..... Racial - Gay - Gender

    They ARE ... and I know how much you're gonna hate this .... Liberal

    Thing is .....

    Wishing for something doesn't make it true
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 5:39 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness saidClassic case - if unable to deal with the message, go after the messenger.

    Merely revealing the messenger as a biased right-wing commentator, not a political historian, whose glee in reporting his dubious "facts" and opinionated conclusions can barely be contained. When you omit a disclaimer about the author, and someone unmasks him, that is not going after the messenger, but rather, being fair to the listener.

    But then your concept of "fair & balanced" is doubtless the same as FOX News: in reality, total right-wing propaganda, that deserves to be exposed for what it is here.

    Why don't you and the others above, state what facts he presents are, in fact, dubious. Then after correcting his facts, use those facts to come up with an alternate, credible opinion, and see how it flies.
    Why doesn't the "messenger" reveal his 'facts' and the COMPLETE polling data? Kinda hard to point out incorrect data if it isnt presented.

    An 'opinion' of selected data does indeed point toward the bias..
    without complete datum, his opinion is..........
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Dec 05, 2010 5:45 PM GMT
    It is definitely true in Georgia that those exponents of the New Deal are down to 20% of the electorate based upon their percent representation in the Georgia State Legislature. I am assuming the New Dealers are a sub-group of the 20 percent of seats in the legislature held by Democrats.

    In the upcoming session, every single conservative Democrat in the state senate fled to the Republican Party.

    While this is not true and likely will never be true in states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington and a few others, Barack Obama has given a great nation a clear picture of how his kind (the New Deal of old Democrat) want you to live.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 6:36 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidThanks for posting this, very interesting piece.

    And I notice that none of the liberals have tackled the substance of the piece yet.... which I'm not sure is due to lack of mental faculties on the part of the RJ liberals who have "replied" so far... or if that is really all they can do in the face of such a "disappointing" piece.
    You dont read too well do you?

    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness saidClassic case - if unable to deal with the message, go after the messenger.

    Merely revealing the messenger as a biased right-wing commentator, not a political historian, whose glee in reporting his dubious "facts" and opinionated conclusions can barely be contained. When you omit a disclaimer about the author, and someone unmasks him, that is not going after the messenger, but rather, being fair to the listener.

    But then your concept of "fair & balanced" is doubtless the same as FOX News: in reality, total right-wing propaganda, that deserves to be exposed for what it is here.

    Why don't you and the others above, state what facts he presents are, in fact, dubious. Then after correcting his facts, use those facts to come up with an alternate, credible opinion, and see how it flies.
    Why doesn't the "messenger" reveal his 'facts' and the COMPLETE polling data? Kinda hard to point out incorrect data if it isnt presented.

    An 'opinion' of selected data does indeed point toward the bias..
    without complete datum, his opinion is..........
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 05, 2010 6:42 PM GMT
    This is a classic case where the presentation will influence the reader's view on the matter.

    "Down" to 20% of electorate.

    Well, if you look at it that way, I can equally say that self-described liberals are "up" to 20% from the early 1990's when it was 17%:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx
    iglnwvn0jeaslencabs5iq.gif

    If anything, the only consistent trend is that moderates are slightly tipped in favor of "conservatism" (economic most likely, but not social conservatism). Any conservative mandate is a mirage:
    psoqdieiw0ujtbe5agw84a.gif

    I'm not even going to go into the various fallacies in the article.
    E.g. as if Kennedy's use of the missile gap was not a product of the times rather than a purely "liberal" tactic; as we've all seen, Republicans can use public fear with great success, e.g. 911 and Iraq.
    As if that "stance" that led to Vietnam wasn't in Eisenhower's doctrine to combat communism militarily anywhere in the world. As if Nixon wasn't the one who started the EPA, OSHA, a 10% tariff on all imports, and expanded SSI in 1972--all very liberal things to do. His characterization of the court victory of Bush is especially telling:
    "In 2000, Clinton's vice president lost to the governor of Texas despite prosperity and peace. "
    As if the 14 trillion dollar crisis hasn't been worsened by Bush's ongoing wars ($2 billion/week in Afghanistan TODAY)
    As if the internet is all conservative, and Fox News/talk radio is the gold standard to measure media fairness (yes, Fox News is the gold standard of the power of money in elections):
    "They still have support in the media, but even here they are faced with opposition from Fox News, talk radio and the Internet."