Also, that Rahm Emanuel quote is instructive, because it points to something that I eventually discovered was MUCH more true of the center-left than any component of the right: thinkers on the left are a lot more concerned with “finding real solutions to real problems,” because despite Russell Kirk's definition of conservatism as the “negation of ideology,” the postwar American Right has always been a fundamentally ideological movement. Especially on economic policy–on the left there simply is no ideologically pro-regulation counterpart to the ideologically anti-regulation movement on the right.

————————————————–

“Do Libertarians Fit in a Liberal World?”
And if they do, are they still libertarians?

Todd Seavey | November 5, 2008
…
Hayes said he thinks more ideologues of all stripes are beginning to notice that real-world government tends toward neither a social-democratic nor libertarian ideal. “The problem of the U.S. economy in the past eight years has been a kind of corporate socialism…[a] hydra-headed monster of corruption and malfeasance.” He added, “In the current financial crisis, the two groups who come out looking good are the Marxists and the Austrians,” since both schools of economists predicted that government will tend to come to the aid of the already-wealthy amidst cyclical booms and busts.

Those were the only kind words said about Marxism during the panel, however, as the three Woodrow Wilson School sociology professors generally defended middle-ground, mixed-economy views.
…
Brown University political science professor John Tomasi offered a plan for bringing together such feuding factions. Theatrically arranging three cups in front of himself on the podium, Tomasi encouraged libertarians (and liberals) to drink three metaphorical cups of potentially strange-tasting philosophical ideas: (1) Accept that there is a real distinction between classical liberals (who share a somewhat flexible bundle of ideas such as democracy, constitutionalism, and individual rights) and libertarians, adherents of a strict version of property rights that “not many people believe;” (2) accept that some version of “social justice” will seem intuitively appealing to most political thinkers and must be part of our agenda; and (3) recognize that once 1 and 2 are accepted, a friendly empirical conversation about economic policies can proceed.
…

What's amusing about the election of Obama is that he and his market and emotional appeal (still the object of adoring-media excess this week, as a rule) may act as a defense against co-opting of him and his administration by the Dem Congress. Ironically for poor Ms. Pelosi, she is now the most powerful speaker since Newt Gingrich after 1994, yet she and fellow overreacher-already Harry Reid are somewhat constrained, because it's Obama that has more appeal than the Dem Congress and Obama who often will get his way rather than the Congress. (Note that the combative chief of staff Obama has chosen may indicate not so much feelers directed toward the Dem Party leadership, who was all for Clinton rather than for him this year, but defense of Obama against extra-excessive zeal by the Dem Congress. Already there also are some concessions to the very well accomplished fact of Obama's election — Howard Dean, of the party machine leadership, is quitting, and may well be replaced by a more Obamian person. To the extent that this is compounded by a willingness by Obama to work with the Clintons and vice versa, this will add more intrigue as this year and next year unfold.)

Hopefully Obama and the Dems won't rush to bail out dinosaur Detroit and its long-failed business model, “ask” us to “contribute” to paying for the UAW or retirees' bloated pension or health plans — Detroit needs to go through Chapter 11. The following site not only discusses this (with a lot of great reader remarks with each article) but some of its photos are suitable for people on this site to use when describing the current state of the Republican Party.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/category/news-…

The balanced view is, Obama is good, obviously, was better and ran a better campaign than McCain, the GOP is dysfunctional and needs to return to its best modern ideological to ephemeral roots (shrinking, not bloating, Washington, and constraining and limiting its scope as well as size), while we have to not fall prey to panic, but be observent as much as wary about what Obama and the Dems will do. They are in charge, Obama _is_ intriguing, and we're on the sidelines concerned with damage control. (Hopefully the wackier left wing of the Dems will be muzzled.)

Are we concerned that Obama's lack of experience (likely the least of any president in the past 100+ years) and suspicious political past (Ayers, Rezko, Wright/black liberation theology) will lead to a low-quality presidency, or do we expect that the continuation of the apparent failure of Bush conservatism would be worse?

Just curious what the balanced views of moderates might be, since the far left and far right are pretty clear about what they think.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/category/edito…

Obama and his team are starting to get to work, such as with Guantanamo (see below). This is the opposite of GOP dysfunctionality and gives Americans confidence in the new President-elect. (Nobody I've talked to doubts his competence, and he is working with people of good reputation, already.)

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gLy-7Qsm2KeE…

I have followed your journey for a couple of years now and am hugely admiring of what you have put yourself through and your candor while doing so.

The Republican Party as it is now constituted will not miss you. Perhaps it will be able to welcome you back — and you it — further on down the road.

I went through a similar metamorphose almost fifteen years ago. At the time I attributed it to how 'my party' (republican) was handling, and seeming to enjoy, the Clinton Impeachment… Mountains and Mole Hills.

However, looking back it may have been my turning fifty and seeing my republican friends yielding to mean-spirited talking points and giving up their intellectual and political curiosity… Closing their hearts and minds to any and all that didn't think and act as they did.

Congratulations and welcome, you'll find that you're in reasonably good company.

Steve

I'm looking for the party that's socially left-of-center (meaning hands-off on my private life,) fiscally and foreign policy right-of-center. And I don't think that's schizophrenic. The libertarians are appealing in many ways, except I think the worse-off in society are a little left out of the equation with the libertarian party and I can't support that. Some final fiscal financial net must exist in excess of the mercy of affluent people in churches, because when affluent people of churches are themselves fiscally strapped, handouts decline (as seen with the recent economic downturn.)

To the degree that the GOP has become the mouthpiece for the fundamentalist religious Right, they have lost me for good. Because ultimately if that agenda were pursued, it leads to more government involvement, more government prohibitions, more government intrusion into private lives, and the state becoming some “moral” policeman. Finally, look at the result of the “values voters” for the last 8 years.

And I'm fascinated with the talk of Palin because she doesn't just represent a “surprise” VP candidate pick, she represents (for many of us) the culmination of anti-intellectualism, polarizing political style, fundamentalist-pushing agendas, and most frustratingly the idea-pushing that about half the US population is “anti-American.” This must stop. The GOP has won decades of elections on the politics of fear, and demonization extraordinaire, and people hopefully are cooling down off of it.

I agree with Andrew Sullivan, that part of the “relief” of this election is a potential situation that allows us not to have to think of politics, all the time. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to wonder each day afresh whether or not some constitutional issue was broached, or whether we're violating some American sense of morality, or seeing another example of checks and balances thrown to the wayside?

That's what I'm hoping this election means. Not some pathway to nirvana, but a light at the end of a very long, dreary 8 year tunnel.

Trying to maintain a Republican brand as the U.S. becomes less white and less conservative is insanity. Why not take people who know how to turn out to vote and show up to meeting and put them to work taking over the Democratic Party. Then the elite white progressives coudl start their own, all white, all upper middle class Green Party along with the college progressors and acitivist. Of course, a Green party is not any more sustainable than a conservative party.

I'm thinking that its possible that a third party of former supporters and conservative Democrats could form in its place. By refusing to change to fit the times, the Grand Old Party risks going the way of the Whigs in the mid 19th century.