Libertarian GOP vs. Technocratic Democratic Party

[WVdemocrat]

Let's say in the future, maybe 30 or 40 years from now (or whenever, the year is not important), libertarianism is the guiding ideology of the Republican Party, and the Democrats have taken on the position of "government can take positive action to improve people's lives" (through social programs and what-have-you). The Republican Party is represented by people like Rand Paul, and the Democratic Party is represented by people like Martin O'Malley, Cory Booker, and Kirsten Gillibrand. What do you think a typical election would look like in this political climate?

[Türkisblau]

So... SoCons go extinct, basically?

[WVdemocrat]

Basically, yeah.

In this scenario, a new generation of Republicans bring the party to the left on social issues, but the party maintains its laissez faire economics.

EDIT: Perhaps a third party is formed by disgruntled SoCons.

[Sumner 1868]

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

[Türkisblau]

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

lol

[Sumner 1868]

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

For a start, Reagan's domestic policies were pretty bad-brutal safety net cuts, radical deregulation, civil liberties violations, corporate welfare, etc, etc. But his authoritarian foreign policy, as well as his "secret government" drug-running and black market arms trade, play some role as well.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

For a start, Reagan's domestic policies were pretty bad-brutal safety net cuts, radical deregulation, civil liberties violations, corporate welfare, etc, etc. But his authoritarian foreign policy, as well as his "secret government" drug-running and black market arms trade, play some role as well.

Reagan Tax cuts and deregulating was needed at the time. Taxes were skyhigh and there where too many regulations. Too many regulations is bad and too little regulations is bad and Reagan deruglated to a level where it was required.

Reagan inherited the Worst Recession since the Great Depression and with 10% unemplyment and 12 % inflation and left with 5.4% unemployment and low inflation. Plus his foreign policy let the US to win the Cold War(Nixon deserves more credit fore this though)

[OSR stands with Israel]

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

lol

Historians Rank Clinton at 9 and Reagan at 11 higher then any president in the past 50 years

[Sumner 1868]

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

For a start, Reagan's domestic policies were pretty bad-brutal safety net cuts, radical deregulation, civil liberties violations, corporate welfare, etc, etc. But his authoritarian foreign policy, as well as his "secret government" drug-running and black market arms trade, play some role as well.

Reagan Tax cuts and deregulating was needed at the time. Taxes were skyhigh and there where too many regulations. Too many regulations is bad and too little regulations is bad and Reagan deruglated to a level where it was required.

Reagan inherited the Worst Recession since the Great Depression and with 10% unemplyment and 12 % inflation and left with 5.4% unemployment and low inflation. Plus his foreign policy let the US to win the Cold War(Nixon deserves more credit fore this though)

Nixon, Ford and Carter all signed deregulation bills, and each time it was a disaster (especially trucking deregulation) and worsened the economy. So, I don't accept there was hyper-regulation when he took office; he merely added more poison to cure the disease. He was expanding the policies of his predecessors.

Reagan tax cuts simply enriched corporations, who have had ridiculously token tax ever since. What helped the economy was when credit was loosened in 1983-1984 and a bubble formed for a few years. It had nothing to do with Reagan's policies, and in any case, many of the jobs created in the eighties were low-wage, burger-flipping jobs that had no health care, sick leave or pension.

It's interesting how people keep claiming that Reagan ended the Cold War. How? By aiding  the Contra terrorists? By bombing Libya pointlessly? By supporting Saddam Hussein? By supporting Khmer Rouge? By running drugs? The only halfway possible explanation I've ever heard is that the SDI was meant to bankrupt the Soviets. If that was the case, then it was simply more "secret government" scheming that just got lucky.

What is perhaps is the biggest problem with Reagan is that he added absolutely nothing to the debate. Neoliberal economics had already been gradually adopted since Nixon, tax cuts had been in the political realm since Truman, and his foreign policy goals were consistent with other Cold War presidents. He has no legacy, and it's time this be admitted.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

For a start, Reagan's domestic policies were pretty bad-brutal safety net cuts, radical deregulation, civil liberties violations, corporate welfare, etc, etc. But his authoritarian foreign policy, as well as his "secret government" drug-running and black market arms trade, play some role as well.

Reagan Tax cuts and deregulating was needed at the time. Taxes were skyhigh and there where too many regulations. Too many regulations is bad and too little regulations is bad and Reagan deruglated to a level where it was required.

Reagan inherited the Worst Recession since the Great Depression and with 10% unemplyment and 12 % inflation and left with 5.4% unemployment and low inflation. Plus his foreign policy let the US to win the Cold War(Nixon deserves more credit fore this though)

Nixon, Ford and Carter all signed deregulation bills, and each time it was a disaster (especially trucking deregulation) and worsened the economy. So, I don't accept there was hyper-regulation when he took office; he merely added more poison to cure the disease. He was expanding the policies of his predecessors.

Reagan tax cuts simply enriched corporations, who have had ridiculously token tax ever since. What helped the economy was when credit was loosened in 1983-1984 and a bubble formed for a few years. It had nothing to do with Reagan's policies, and in any case, many of the jobs created in the eighties were low-wage, burger-flipping jobs that had no health care, sick leave or pension.

It's interesting how people keep claiming that Reagan ended the Cold War. How? By aiding  the Contra terrorists? By bombing Libya pointlessly? By supporting Saddam Hussein? By supporting Khmer Rouge? By running drugs? The only halfway possible explanation I've ever heard is that the SDI was meant to bankrupt the Soviets. If that was the case, then it was simply more "secret government" scheming that just got lucky.

What is perhaps is the biggest problem with Reagan is that he added absolutely nothing to the debate. Neoliberal economics had already been gradually adopted since Nixon, tax cuts had been in the political realm since Truman, and his foreign policy goals were consistent with other Cold War presidents. He has no legacy, and it's time this be admitted.

He ended the Cold War becuase he put pressure on the Soivets to spend more and more even though they cant as they have no free market plus he aided the Rebels in Afganistan which bankrupted the Soviet Union.

[Sumner 1868]

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

For a start, Reagan's domestic policies were pretty bad-brutal safety net cuts, radical deregulation, civil liberties violations, corporate welfare, etc, etc. But his authoritarian foreign policy, as well as his "secret government" drug-running and black market arms trade, play some role as well.

Reagan Tax cuts and deregulating was needed at the time. Taxes were skyhigh and there where too many regulations. Too many regulations is bad and too little regulations is bad and Reagan deruglated to a level where it was required.

Reagan inherited the Worst Recession since the Great Depression and with 10% unemplyment and 12 % inflation and left with 5.4% unemployment and low inflation. Plus his foreign policy let the US to win the Cold War(Nixon deserves more credit fore this though)

Nixon, Ford and Carter all signed deregulation bills, and each time it was a disaster (especially trucking deregulation) and worsened the economy. So, I don't accept there was hyper-regulation when he took office; he merely added more poison to cure the disease. He was expanding the policies of his predecessors.

Reagan tax cuts simply enriched corporations, who have had ridiculously token tax ever since. What helped the economy was when credit was loosened in 1983-1984 and a bubble formed for a few years. It had nothing to do with Reagan's policies, and in any case, many of the jobs created in the eighties were low-wage, burger-flipping jobs that had no health care, sick leave or pension.

It's interesting how people keep claiming that Reagan ended the Cold War. How? By aiding  the Contra terrorists? By bombing Libya pointlessly? By supporting Saddam Hussein? By supporting Khmer Rouge? By running drugs? The only halfway possible explanation I've ever heard is that the SDI was meant to bankrupt the Soviets. If that was the case, then it was simply more "secret government" scheming that just got lucky.

What is perhaps is the biggest problem with Reagan is that he added absolutely nothing to the debate. Neoliberal economics had already been gradually adopted since Nixon, tax cuts had been in the political realm since Truman, and his foreign policy goals were consistent with other Cold War presidents. He has no legacy, and it's time this be admitted.

He ended the Cold War becuase he put pressure on the Soivets to spend more and more even though they cant as they have no free market plus he aided the Rebels in Afganistan which bankrupted the Soviet Union.

The Soviet economy had been crashing since at least 1971. And Carter started aid to the rebels. Speaking of which, the end result of Carter-Reagan Afghanistan aid was this:



So, I take back my last paragraph. Reagan has a legacy after all.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

For a start, Reagan's domestic policies were pretty bad-brutal safety net cuts, radical deregulation, civil liberties violations, corporate welfare, etc, etc. But his authoritarian foreign policy, as well as his "secret government" drug-running and black market arms trade, play some role as well.

Reagan Tax cuts and deregulating was needed at the time. Taxes were skyhigh and there where too many regulations. Too many regulations is bad and too little regulations is bad and Reagan deruglated to a level where it was required.

Reagan inherited the Worst Recession since the Great Depression and with 10% unemplyment and 12 % inflation and left with 5.4% unemployment and low inflation. Plus his foreign policy let the US to win the Cold War(Nixon deserves more credit fore this though)

Nixon, Ford and Carter all signed deregulation bills, and each time it was a disaster (especially trucking deregulation) and worsened the economy. So, I don't accept there was hyper-regulation when he took office; he merely added more poison to cure the disease. He was expanding the policies of his predecessors.

Reagan tax cuts simply enriched corporations, who have had ridiculously token tax ever since. What helped the economy was when credit was loosened in 1983-1984 and a bubble formed for a few years. It had nothing to do with Reagan's policies, and in any case, many of the jobs created in the eighties were low-wage, burger-flipping jobs that had no health care, sick leave or pension.

It's interesting how people keep claiming that Reagan ended the Cold War. How? By aiding  the Contra terrorists? By bombing Libya pointlessly? By supporting Saddam Hussein? By supporting Khmer Rouge? By running drugs? The only halfway possible explanation I've ever heard is that the SDI was meant to bankrupt the Soviets. If that was the case, then it was simply more "secret government" scheming that just got lucky.

What is perhaps is the biggest problem with Reagan is that he added absolutely nothing to the debate. Neoliberal economics had already been gradually adopted since Nixon, tax cuts had been in the political realm since Truman, and his foreign policy goals were consistent with other Cold War presidents. He has no legacy, and it's time this be admitted.

He ended the Cold War becuase he put pressure on the Soivets to spend more and more even though they cant as they have no free market plus he aided the Rebels in Afganistan which bankrupted the Soviet Union.

The Soviet economy had been crashing since at least 1971. And Carter started aid to the rebels. Speaking of which, the end result of Carter-Reagan Afghanistan aid was this:



So, I take back my last paragraph. Reagan has a legacy after all.

I think the Cold War was going to be a victory since Nixon brought China to the US side which put lots of pressure on the Soviets to try to get as many Neutral countries on their side which let Reagan have the Green Light to Spend More on New Weapons which forced the Soviets to do so as well while being mired in Afganistan bankrupting them. So yes Reagan desrves some credit but not as much as he gets.

Ill just leave it at this

Reagan is ranked 11th by historians
Clinton is ranked 8th

Pretty Good


Here's the Source for that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/16/new-ranking-of-u-s-presidents-puts-lincoln-1-obama-18-kennedy-judged-most-over-rated/

 

[Sumner 1868]

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

For a start, Reagan's domestic policies were pretty bad-brutal safety net cuts, radical deregulation, civil liberties violations, corporate welfare, etc, etc. But his authoritarian foreign policy, as well as his "secret government" drug-running and black market arms trade, play some role as well.

Reagan Tax cuts and deregulating was needed at the time. Taxes were skyhigh and there where too many regulations. Too many regulations is bad and too little regulations is bad and Reagan deruglated to a level where it was required.

Reagan inherited the Worst Recession since the Great Depression and with 10% unemplyment and 12 % inflation and left with 5.4% unemployment and low inflation. Plus his foreign policy let the US to win the Cold War(Nixon deserves more credit fore this though)

Nixon, Ford and Carter all signed deregulation bills, and each time it was a disaster (especially trucking deregulation) and worsened the economy. So, I don't accept there was hyper-regulation when he took office; he merely added more poison to cure the disease. He was expanding the policies of his predecessors.

Reagan tax cuts simply enriched corporations, who have had ridiculously token tax ever since. What helped the economy was when credit was loosened in 1983-1984 and a bubble formed for a few years. It had nothing to do with Reagan's policies, and in any case, many of the jobs created in the eighties were low-wage, burger-flipping jobs that had no health care, sick leave or pension.

It's interesting how people keep claiming that Reagan ended the Cold War. How? By aiding  the Contra terrorists? By bombing Libya pointlessly? By supporting Saddam Hussein? By supporting Khmer Rouge? By running drugs? The only halfway possible explanation I've ever heard is that the SDI was meant to bankrupt the Soviets. If that was the case, then it was simply more "secret government" scheming that just got lucky.

What is perhaps is the biggest problem with Reagan is that he added absolutely nothing to the debate. Neoliberal economics had already been gradually adopted since Nixon, tax cuts had been in the political realm since Truman, and his foreign policy goals were consistent with other Cold War presidents. He has no legacy, and it's time this be admitted.

He ended the Cold War becuase he put pressure on the Soivets to spend more and more even though they cant as they have no free market plus he aided the Rebels in Afganistan which bankrupted the Soviet Union.

The Soviet economy had been crashing since at least 1971. And Carter started aid to the rebels. Speaking of which, the end result of Carter-Reagan Afghanistan aid was this:



So, I take back my last paragraph. Reagan has a legacy after all.

I think the Cold War was going to be a victory since Nixon brought China to the US side which put lots of pressure on the Soviets to try to get as many Neutral countries on their side which let Reagan have the Green Light to Spend More on New Weapons which forced the Soviets to do so as well while being mired in Afganistan bankrupting them. So yes Reagan desrves some credit but not as much as he gets.

Ill just leave it at this

Reagan is ranked 11th by historians
Clinton is ranked 8th

Pretty Good


Here's the Source for that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/16/new-ranking-of-u-s-presidents-puts-lincoln-1-obama-18-kennedy-judged-most-over-rated/

 

I'm not denying his ranking. I just don't think it's deserved.

[MATTROSE94]

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

For a start, Reagan's domestic policies were pretty bad-brutal safety net cuts, radical deregulation, civil liberties violations, corporate welfare, etc, etc. But his authoritarian foreign policy, as well as his "secret government" drug-running and black market arms trade, play some role as well.

Reagan Tax cuts and deregulating was needed at the time. Taxes were skyhigh and there where too many regulations. Too many regulations is bad and too little regulations is bad and Reagan deruglated to a level where it was required.

Reagan inherited the Worst Recession since the Great Depression and with 10% unemplyment and 12 % inflation and left with 5.4% unemployment and low inflation. Plus his foreign policy let the US to win the Cold War(Nixon deserves more credit fore this though)

Nixon, Ford and Carter all signed deregulation bills, and each time it was a disaster (especially trucking deregulation) and worsened the economy. So, I don't accept there was hyper-regulation when he took office; he merely added more poison to cure the disease. He was expanding the policies of his predecessors.

Reagan tax cuts simply enriched corporations, who have had ridiculously token tax ever since. What helped the economy was when credit was loosened in 1983-1984 and a bubble formed for a few years. It had nothing to do with Reagan's policies, and in any case, many of the jobs created in the eighties were low-wage, burger-flipping jobs that had no health care, sick leave or pension.

It's interesting how people keep claiming that Reagan ended the Cold War. How? By aiding  the Contra terrorists? By bombing Libya pointlessly? By supporting Saddam Hussein? By supporting Khmer Rouge? By running drugs? The only halfway possible explanation I've ever heard is that the SDI was meant to bankrupt the Soviets. If that was the case, then it was simply more "secret government" scheming that just got lucky.

What is perhaps is the biggest problem with Reagan is that he added absolutely nothing to the debate. Neoliberal economics had already been gradually adopted since Nixon, tax cuts had been in the political realm since Truman, and his foreign policy goals were consistent with other Cold War presidents. He has no legacy, and it's time this be admitted.

He ended the Cold War becuase he put pressure on the Soivets to spend more and more even though they cant as they have no free market plus he aided the Rebels in Afganistan which bankrupted the Soviet Union.

The Soviet economy had been crashing since at least 1971. And Carter started aid to the rebels. Speaking of which, the end result of Carter-Reagan Afghanistan aid was this:



So, I take back my last paragraph. Reagan has a legacy after all.

I think the Cold War was going to be a victory since Nixon brought China to the US side which put lots of pressure on the Soviets to try to get as many Neutral countries on their side which let Reagan have the Green Light to Spend More on New Weapons which forced the Soviets to do so as well while being mired in Afganistan bankrupting them. So yes Reagan desrves some credit but not as much as he gets.

Ill just leave it at this

Reagan is ranked 11th by historians
Clinton is ranked 8th

Pretty Good


Here's the Source for that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/16/new-ranking-of-u-s-presidents-puts-lincoln-1-obama-18-kennedy-judged-most-over-rated/

 

My major concern about the list is the fact that Andrew Jackson is ranked as one of the greatest Presidents.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I couldn't see the Dem party surviving without taking an antistatist shift. Elizabeth Warren is a fraud and Cory Booker isn't good enough on foreign policy issues. He champions issues such as support for minorities, but what democrat doesn't sell that to their constituents? Ultimately, dems are going to have to be more progressive and mean it.

In 12 years, I can see a shift in the GOP becoming more "Conservatarian" and the Dem Party becoming more "Liberaltarian" or Anti-statist progressives. You can sort of see the shift now already

Really? If anything I feel like liberals have shifted away from that, that there was more libertarian pro civil liberties sentiment in the Democratic Party when Bush was president.

[RINO Tom]

I couldn't see the Dem party surviving without taking an antistatist shift. Elizabeth Warren is a fraud and Cory Booker isn't good enough on foreign policy issues. He champions issues such as support for minorities, but what democrat doesn't sell that to their constituents? Ultimately, dems are going to have to be more progressive and mean it.

In 12 years, I can see a shift in the GOP becoming more "Conservatarian" and the Dem Party becoming more "Liberaltarian" or Anti-statist progressives. You can sort of see the shift now already

Not happening. Baby Boom Republicans in the seventies were more liberal on social issues, but took a massive rightward shift during the Holy Saint Actor's presidency, and I expect a similar trend will happen eventually. Being socially liberal is simply the conformity of the hour and will fade eventually, just like how everybody predicted the religious right would take over the world in the mid-80s and again during 2003-2005.

Why do you hate Reagan so much, He is been one of the best presidents in the past 50 years along with Clinton

lol

Historians Rank Clinton at 9 and Reagan at 11 higher then any president in the past 50 years

Lol at using Historians to rank presidents. Reagan and Clinton were both awful presidents. Sadly, they are both top 3 after World War II.

You're pretty harsh on Presidents, then.  As for this map, I'm assuming the OP is describing a socially liberal, fiscally conservative GOP and a socially liberal, fiscally liberal Democratic Party - essentially making social and cultural issues irrelevant in the voting booth.  I'd guess a base map would look like this: