What is your ideal demographic coalition?

[RFayette]

As for the OP,

Take the current GOP coalition. Kick out the lame mainline Protestants. Nathan doesn't count here. I'm talking about the fiscally conservative, socially liberal, Mom wants the kids baptized at St. Michael's Episcopal Church, mainliners. Add religious Hispanics, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as middle class, religious blacks.

RINO Tom cries.  Sounds like a good coalition to me though.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The vast majority of Nonreligious people, members of the working class that aren't strongly religious, (and this is where it gets interesting), the highly intelligent (especially the young ones , even more so the ones that rebel against some of society's bullsh**t\ don't conform), nonconformists in general,

scientists, the more liberal side of the tech industry(e.g. Larry page, Sergey Brin, not apple, and not Zuckerberg ), socially very left-wing suburbanites that aren't rich enough to vote for people who would criminalize things like being gay, being an independent woman, being an effeminate guy,  or using hair dye if they promised to cut taxes,

 feminists, BLM, polyamory supporters, members of the LGBTQ+ community (especially the TQ+ part), small farmers struggling against giant companies (esp. ones who practice humane/sustainable farming practices),

green energy companies, the portion of the rich who realize that they've been given an unfair advantage in life and want to change the system, people who have to live off welfare because there are no jobs they can do, young liberals, likely the children of millenials, Palestine activists, small artists, and people living in dense cities.

I would have strong opposition from catholics, mormons, upper-middle class people, exurbanites, the majority of the rich  (the bastards who fight to be able to screw everyone else over to make more money, give nothing to the needy, and buy private jets and such), evangelicals, people who strongly value conformity(they do exist, though they aren't as common as they once were), highly religious people in general,

 Israel hawks, neocons, Internet service providers and the corporate side of the tech industry(I support banning ad tracking software and staunchly oppose measures to end net neutrality), health insurance companies, for profit prisons, big farming corporations, the rich and powerful in general, idiotic "news" sites like breitbart, salon, fox, and MSNBC that do nothing but feed their readers biases and make them worse, and the alt-right.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh and I forgot to mention Asian-Americans and some higher-status bobo types to prevent whatever party this is (almost certainly the Democrats, but you never know) from going full Christopher Lasch. The bobos, especially, shouldn't be a demographically or ideologically dominant part of the coalition, but better have them with us than give them over to the Western Ukrainians.

Ideally LGBT issues as such would become less potently charged and subject to some sort of broadly-liberal consensus, the exact parameters of which I don't pretend to be qualified to determine, so that LGBT people would generally be able to and feel comfortable voting along preexisting ideological lines. The Rod Dreher types in my coalition can suck it.

Boo! Hiss!

On this particular issue. On other issues they/you would have much more of a say. I don't aspire to be a Patrick Brown of the economic left.

Glad to hear it! Would you mind elaborating though? What sort of stuff would the Dreherists have free rein on?

Well, you wouldn't have 'free rein' on things like First Amendment affairs or parental rights, but you'd have pride of price in deliberations of those issues. Education policy would be guided in light of my belief in the ideal of public education and desire to keep it a morally responsible institution. I'd try to build a consensus on beginning- and end-of-life issues that was broadly-conservative to a similar extent to that to which the LGBT consensus would be broadly-liberal. And a general strengthening of religion qua aspect of civil society. I'd at least consider scrapping the Johnson Amendment.

Of course I'd insist on balancing this with an aggressively interventionist and overtly redistributionist attitude towards most major socioeconomic evils.

tl;dr you wouldn't have total free rein on anything but neither would the bobos really ('broadly-liberal' for the LGBT consensus is meant to indicate 'in certain respects moderated'). The coalition is meant to be FISCALLY LEFTIST BUT SOCIALLY BROAD-CHURCH AND CLIENTELISTIC.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Oh and I forgot to mention Asian-Americans and some higher-status bobo types to prevent whatever party this is (almost certainly the Democrats, but you never know) from going full Christopher Lasch. The bobos, especially, shouldn't be a demographically or ideologically dominant part of the coalition, but better have them with us than give them over to the Western Ukrainians.

Ideally LGBT issues as such would become less potently charged and subject to some sort of broadly-liberal consensus, the exact parameters of which I don't pretend to be qualified to determine, so that LGBT people would generally be able to and feel comfortable voting along preexisting ideological lines. The Rod Dreher types in my coalition can suck it.

Boo! Hiss!

On this particular issue. On other issues they/you would have much more of a say. I don't aspire to be a Patrick Brown of the economic left.

Glad to hear it! Would you mind elaborating though? What sort of stuff would the Dreherists have free rein on?

Well, you wouldn't have 'free rein' on things like First Amendment affairs or parental rights, but you'd have pride of price in deliberations of those issues. Education policy would be guided in light of my belief in the ideal of public education and desire to keep it a morally responsible institution. I'd try to build a consensus on beginning- and end-of-life issues that was broadly-conservative to a similar extent to that to which the LGBT consensus would be broadly-liberal. And a general strengthening of religion qua aspect of civil society. I'd at least consider scrapping the Johnson Amendment.

Of course I'd insist on balancing this with an aggressively interventionist and overtly redistributionist attitude towards most major socioeconomic evils.

tl;dr you wouldn't have total free rein on anything but neither would the bobos really ('broadly-liberal' for the LGBT consensus is meant to indicate 'in certain respects moderated'). The coalition is meant to be FISCALLY LEFTIST BUT SOCIALLY BROAD-CHURCH AND CLIENTELISTIC.

In what way? And what do you mean by keeping public education a "morally responsible institution". Our current public education system is broken. It teaches kids not to think, to accept what is told unquestionably and follow instructions. And not everyone believes in your god. And do you really think your bizarre religiosity can attract the majority of the LGBT community. I doubt it would help...

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The vast majority of Nonreligious people, members of the working class that aren't strongly religious, (and this is where it gets interesting), the highly intelligent (especially the young ones , even more so the ones that rebel against some of society's bullsh**t\ don't conform), nonconformists in general,

scientists, the more liberal side of the tech industry(e.g. Larry page, Sergey Brin, not apple, and not Zuckerberg ), socially very left-wing suburbanites that aren't rich enough to vote for people who would criminalize things like being gay, being an independent woman, being an effeminate guy,  or using hair dye if they promised to cut taxes,

 feminists, BLM, polyamory supporters, members of the LGBTQ+ community (especially the TQ+ part), small farmers struggling against giant companies (esp. ones who practice humane/sustainable farming practices),

green energy companies, the portion of the rich who realize that they've been given an unfair advantage in life and want to change the system, people who have to live off welfare because there are no jobs they can do, young liberals, likely the children of millenials, Palestine activists, small artists, and people living in dense cities.

I would have strong opposition from catholics, mormons, upper-middle class people, exurbanites, the majority of the rich  (the bastards who fight to be able to screw everyone else over to make more money, give nothing to the needy, and buy private jets and such), evangelicals, people who strongly value conformity(they do exist, though they aren't as common as they once were), highly religious people in general,

 Israel hawks, neocons, Internet service providers and the corporate side of the tech industry(I support banning ad tracking software and staunchly oppose measures to end net neutrality), health insurance companies, for profit prisons, big farming corporations, the rich and powerful in general, idiotic "news" sites like breitbart, salon, fox, and MSNBC that do nothing but feed their readers biases and make them worse, and the alt-right.

Thinking about it, perhaps I should edit this...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

omegascarlet, I wrote an effortpost and copypasted it into a Word document; would you have any good-faith interest in seeing it, or shall we just move on? I'd honestly rather just note that you're missing the point narrowly but completely and move on if it's all the same to you.

[White Trash]

Omegascarlet, I have no idea how you are going to get any element of the working class in your coalition. Everything you've listed seems pretty opposed to the values of the working class. However, your ideology and coalition seem much more suited for upper middle class, white "progressives".

I doubt union men and Black folks would support "polyamory" and the TQ+ part of the LGBTQ+ community.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

omegascarlet, I wrote an effortpost and copypasted it into a Word document; would you have any good-faith interest in seeing it, or shall we just move on? I'd honestly rather just note that you're missing the point narrowly but completely and move on if it's all the same to you.

I suppose if I'm missing some point you should probably see it. Post it.

[Bojack Horseman]

Blue collar Democrats who aren't on board with the whacko left's social engineering program. Pro choice, pro gay rights, pro-ripple-out economics, and what's now deemed a centrist on social issues.

[RINO Tom]

As for the OP,

Take the current GOP coalition. Kick out the lame mainline Protestants. Nathan doesn't count here. I'm talking about the fiscally conservative, socially liberal, Mom wants the kids baptized at St. Michael's Episcopal Church, mainliners. Add religious Hispanics, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as middle class, religious blacks.

RINO Tom cries.  Sounds like a good coalition to me though.

Haha, too bad we're all stuck with each other for the foreseeable future!  Unless your types leave, that is.

[DavidB.]

Rural working-class whites, urban and suburban working-class minorities (though inevitably, Muslims would probably not want to be part of the coalition given my policies on Israel), the urban and suburban middle class (both white and minority), Jews, gays, young professionals who aren't too far to the right on economic issues, public sector workers (education, healthcare, police, army). For balanced, centrist and fair domestic policies and a prudent, strong foreign policy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

omegascarlet, I wrote an effortpost and copypasted it into a Word document; would you have any good-faith interest in seeing it, or shall we just move on? I'd honestly rather just note that you're missing the point narrowly but completely and move on if it's all the same to you.

I suppose if I'm missing some point you should probably see it. Post it.

Okay.

Oh and I forgot to mention Asian-Americans and some higher-status bobo types to prevent whatever party this is (almost certainly the Democrats, but you never know) from going full Christopher Lasch. The bobos, especially, shouldn't be a demographically or ideologically dominant part of the coalition, but better have them with us than give them over to the Western Ukrainians.

Ideally LGBT issues as such would become less potently charged and subject to some sort of broadly-liberal consensus, the exact parameters of which I don't pretend to be qualified to determine, so that LGBT people would generally be able to and feel comfortable voting along preexisting ideological lines. The Rod Dreher types in my coalition can suck it.

Boo! Hiss!

On this particular issue. On other issues they/you would have much more of a say. I don't aspire to be a Patrick Brown of the economic left.

Glad to hear it! Would you mind elaborating though? What sort of stuff would the Dreherists have free rein on?

Well, you wouldn't have 'free rein' on things like First Amendment affairs or parental rights, but you'd have pride of price in deliberations of those issues. Education policy would be guided in light of my belief in the ideal of public education and desire to keep it a morally responsible institution. I'd try to build a consensus on beginning- and end-of-life issues that was broadly-conservative to a similar extent to that to which the LGBT consensus would be broadly-liberal. And a general strengthening of religion qua aspect of civil society. I'd at least consider scrapping the Johnson Amendment.

Of course I'd insist on balancing this with an aggressively interventionist and overtly redistributionist attitude towards most major socioeconomic evils.

tl;dr you wouldn't have total free rein on anything but neither would the bobos really ('broadly-liberal' for the LGBT consensus is meant to indicate 'in certain respects moderated'). The coalition is meant to be FISCALLY LEFTIST BUT SOCIALLY BROAD-CHURCH AND CLIENTELISTIC.

In what way?

Well, in that it's a party that by design includes both a socon wing and a bobo wing and seeks to play their interests and values off against each other in creative tension. I don't understand why I need to reiterate/reword this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're very right. For 'keep' read 'make'.

For reference, my ideas about education policy do not start and stop at 'how can fantasy-me distinguish myself from Patrick Brown?' By any means. I'm familiar enough with the experience of Japan to know good and well that 'teaching to the test', rote fact regurgitation, constant evaluation on top-down, apodictic criteria, et cetera are not morally responsible ways to teach.

The allusion here, as with the references to Patrick Brown, is to the ongoing donnybrook over the sex education curriculum in Ontario. I'm obviously not a sex education specialist, nor would I like to become one, but I think what I would do in general would be to have a panel including people of varying moral and religious views draw up a curriculum to present a gender-neutral case for abstinence until adult commitment if at all possible and scrupulous monogamy* and contraceptive use if not, and then mandate that this material be taught by actual public school teachers rather than the creepy outside specialists to whom both liberal and conservative school districts are liable to farm things out. The goal is to balance moral principles with practical harm reduction, without reference to any specific religious tenets but also without the pretense that we live, can live, or should live in a completely value-neutral society. No, I don't particularly care to hear your opinion of this course of action.

*Just as DC's people can suck it on same-sex marriage, the polyamory crowd can suck it on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does anything I've said in this thread indicate that I think everyone does?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I at any point express a specific interest in 'the majority of the LGBT community'? I expressly said that my goal is to establish a political consensus on LGBT issues such that LGBT people feel free to vote on other things if they so desire. If the majority of the LGBT community is on board for experimental, interventionist, redistributionist political economy, great! If not, it's, you know, whatever; elements of my coalition (and not only the bobos!) are in there specifically so it won't militate against the LGBT community. And plenty of LGBT people are quite religious.

I'm not sure what it is that makes my religiosity 'bizarre'; care to enlighten me?

[HisGrace]

Republicans- Get a stranglehold on the middle class and up white vote by bringing in subgroups they currently alienate (women, younger people) with softer social issue rhetoric. Offset the loss of low income/education whites by bringing in middle class/aspirational Hispanics. A good long term strategy given the growth of the Hispanic middle class.

Democrats- More or less keep their current coalition while absorbing suburban, college educated, middle class whites defecting from the GOP in the wake of Trump. This would likely turn the Dems into a economically center/center-right, socially liberal party in the vein of the Lib-Dems in the UK. Leave the GOP to a be a hive of scum and villainy.  This seems like the much more likely outcome based on recent events.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

omegascarlet, I wrote an effortpost and copypasted it into a Word document; would you have any good-faith interest in seeing it, or shall we just move on? I'd honestly rather just note that you're missing the point narrowly but completely and move on if it's all the same to you.

I suppose if I'm missing some point you should probably see it. Post it.

Okay.

Oh and I forgot to mention Asian-Americans and some higher-status bobo types to prevent whatever party this is (almost certainly the Democrats, but you never know) from going full Christopher Lasch. The bobos, especially, shouldn't be a demographically or ideologically dominant part of the coalition, but better have them with us than give them over to the Western Ukrainians.

Ideally LGBT issues as such would become less potently charged and subject to some sort of broadly-liberal consensus, the exact parameters of which I don't pretend to be qualified to determine, so that LGBT people would generally be able to and feel comfortable voting along preexisting ideological lines. The Rod Dreher types in my coalition can suck it.

Boo! Hiss!

On this particular issue. On other issues they/you would have much more of a say. I don't aspire to be a Patrick Brown of the economic left.

Glad to hear it! Would you mind elaborating though? What sort of stuff would the Dreherists have free rein on?

Well, you wouldn't have 'free rein' on things like First Amendment affairs or parental rights, but you'd have pride of price in deliberations of those issues. Education policy would be guided in light of my belief in the ideal of public education and desire to keep it a morally responsible institution. I'd try to build a consensus on beginning- and end-of-life issues that was broadly-conservative to a similar extent to that to which the LGBT consensus would be broadly-liberal. And a general strengthening of religion qua aspect of civil society. I'd at least consider scrapping the Johnson Amendment.

Of course I'd insist on balancing this with an aggressively interventionist and overtly redistributionist attitude towards most major socioeconomic evils.

tl;dr you wouldn't have total free rein on anything but neither would the bobos really ('broadly-liberal' for the LGBT consensus is meant to indicate 'in certain respects moderated'). The coalition is meant to be FISCALLY LEFTIST BUT SOCIALLY BROAD-CHURCH AND CLIENTELISTIC.

In what way?

Well, in that it's a party that by design includes both a socon wing and a bobo wing and seeks to play their interests and values off against each other in creative tension. I don't understand why I need to reiterate/reword this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're very right. For 'keep' read 'make'.

For reference, my ideas about education policy do not start and stop at 'how can fantasy-me distinguish myself from Patrick Brown?' By any means. I'm familiar enough with the experience of Japan to know good and well that 'teaching to the test', rote fact regurgitation, constant evaluation on top-down, apodictic criteria, et cetera are not morally responsible ways to teach.

The allusion here, as with the references to Patrick Brown, is to the ongoing donnybrook over the sex education curriculum in Ontario. I'm obviously not a sex education specialist, nor would I like to become one, but I think what I would do in general would be to have a panel including people of varying moral and religious views draw up a curriculum to present a gender-neutral case for abstinence until adult commitment if at all possible and scrupulous monogamy* and contraceptive use if not, and then mandate that this material be taught by actual public school teachers rather than the creepy outside specialists to whom both liberal and conservative school districts are liable to farm things out. The goal is to balance moral principles with practical harm reduction, without reference to any specific religious tenets but also without the pretense that we live, can live, or should live in a completely value-neutral society. No, I don't particularly care to hear your opinion of this course of action.

*Just as DC's people can suck it on same-sex marriage, the polyamory crowd can suck it on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does anything I've said in this thread indicate that I think everyone does?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I at any point express a specific interest in 'the majority of the LGBT community'? I expressly said that my goal is to establish a political consensus on LGBT issues such that LGBT people feel free to vote on other things if they so desire. If the majority of the LGBT community is on board for experimental, interventionist, redistributionist political economy, great! If not, it's, you know, whatever; elements of my coalition (and not only the bobos!) are in there specifically so it won't militate against the LGBT community. And plenty of LGBT people are quite religious.

I'm not sure what it is that makes my religiosity 'bizarre'; care to enlighten me?

By bizarre I meant nonstandard.

And I honestly don't care if you want to hear what I have to say. Education shouldn't be about teaching your personal viewpoint, especially not sex education. School is not a place for social brainwashing, and teaching sex ed  by pushing abstinence  (that is the thing you teach as the ideal, teaching how the pill works doesn't negate that) and "polyamory is bad" because of your own personal opinion on it.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The vast majority of Nonreligious people, members of the working class that aren't strongly religious, (and this is where it gets interesting), the highly intelligent (especially the young ones , even more so the ones that rebel against some of society's bullsh**t\ don't conform), nonconformists in general,

scientists, the more liberal side of the tech industry(e.g. Larry page, Sergey Brin, not apple, and not Zuckerberg ), socially very left-wing suburbanites that aren't rich enough to vote for people who would criminalize things like being gay, being an independent woman, being an effeminate guy,  or using hair dye if they promised to cut taxes,

 feminists, BLM, polyamory supporters, members of the LGBTQ+ community (especially the TQ+ part), small farmers struggling against giant companies (esp. ones who practice humane/sustainable farming practices),

green energy companies, the portion of the rich who realize that they've been given an unfair advantage in life and want to change the system, people who have to live off welfare because there are no jobs they can do, young liberals, likely the children of millenials, Palestine activists, small artists, and people living in dense cities.

I would have strong opposition from catholics, mormons, upper-middle class people, exurbanites, the majority of the rich  (the bastards who fight to be able to screw everyone else over to make more money, give nothing to the needy, and buy private jets and such), evangelicals, people who strongly value conformity(they do exist, though they aren't as common as they once were), highly religious people in general,

 Israel hawks, neocons, Internet service providers and the corporate side of the tech industry(I support banning ad tracking software and staunchly oppose measures to end net neutrality), health insurance companies, for profit prisons, big farming corporations, the rich and powerful in general, idiotic "news" sites like breitbart, salon, fox, and MSNBC that do nothing but feed their readers biases and make them worse, and the alt-right.

Are we really that uncommon?  People who are repulsed by edgy-ness and things like blue hair, nose piercings, and the like?

My coalition is easy.  I want everyone to share my values.  My Republican Party would probably do better than the current Republican Party with Hispanics and some blacks due to a strong focus on the family more than on stuff like immigration.  We would still do pretty well with the rich due to a near abolition of taxation, but we would probably suffer with secular working-class whites, as protectionism would be a non-starter.  But, it wouldn't be too far off the June 15, 2015 GOP coalition (the day before Trump announced his candidacy).

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The vast majority of Nonreligious people, members of the working class that aren't strongly religious, (and this is where it gets interesting), the highly intelligent (especially the young ones , even more so the ones that rebel against some of society's bullsh**t\ don't conform), nonconformists in general,

scientists, the more liberal side of the tech industry(e.g. Larry page, Sergey Brin, not apple, and not Zuckerberg ), socially very left-wing suburbanites that aren't rich enough to vote for people who would criminalize things like being gay, being an independent woman, being an effeminate guy,  or using hair dye if they promised to cut taxes,

 feminists, BLM, polyamory supporters, members of the LGBTQ+ community (especially the TQ+ part), small farmers struggling against giant companies (esp. ones who practice humane/sustainable farming practices),

green energy companies, the portion of the rich who realize that they've been given an unfair advantage in life and want to change the system, people who have to live off welfare because there are no jobs they can do, young liberals, likely the children of millenials, Palestine activists, small artists, and people living in dense cities.

I would have strong opposition from catholics, mormons, upper-middle class people, exurbanites, the majority of the rich  (the bastards who fight to be able to screw everyone else over to make more money, give nothing to the needy, and buy private jets and such), evangelicals, people who strongly value conformity(they do exist, though they aren't as common as they once were), highly religious people in general,

 Israel hawks, neocons, Internet service providers and the corporate side of the tech industry(I support banning ad tracking software and staunchly oppose measures to end net neutrality), health insurance companies, for profit prisons, big farming corporations, the rich and powerful in general, idiotic "news" sites like breitbart, salon, fox, and MSNBC that do nothing but feed their readers biases and make them worse, and the alt-right.

Are we really that uncommon?  People who are repulsed by edgy-ness and things like blue hair, nose piercings, and the like?

My coalition is easy.  I want everyone to share my values.  My Republican Party would probably do better than the current Republican Party with Hispanics and some blacks due to a strong focus on the family more than on stuff like immigration.  We would still do pretty well with the rich due to a near abolition of taxation, but we would probably suffer with secular working-class whites, as protectionism would be a non-starter.  But, it wouldn't be too far off the June 15, 2015 GOP coalition (the day before Trump announced his candidacy).

Conformity for conformity's sake is stupid.  There's nothing wrong with things like  blue hair and piercings.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

All liberal, all the time. What mix of demographics achieves that I couldn't care less about.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

omegascarlet, I wrote an effortpost and copypasted it into a Word document; would you have any good-faith interest in seeing it, or shall we just move on? I'd honestly rather just note that you're missing the point narrowly but completely and move on if it's all the same to you.

I suppose if I'm missing some point you should probably see it. Post it.

Okay.

Oh and I forgot to mention Asian-Americans and some higher-status bobo types to prevent whatever party this is (almost certainly the Democrats, but you never know) from going full Christopher Lasch. The bobos, especially, shouldn't be a demographically or ideologically dominant part of the coalition, but better have them with us than give them over to the Western Ukrainians.

Ideally LGBT issues as such would become less potently charged and subject to some sort of broadly-liberal consensus, the exact parameters of which I don't pretend to be qualified to determine, so that LGBT people would generally be able to and feel comfortable voting along preexisting ideological lines. The Rod Dreher types in my coalition can suck it.

Boo! Hiss!

On this particular issue. On other issues they/you would have much more of a say. I don't aspire to be a Patrick Brown of the economic left.

Glad to hear it! Would you mind elaborating though? What sort of stuff would the Dreherists have free rein on?

Well, you wouldn't have 'free rein' on things like First Amendment affairs or parental rights, but you'd have pride of price in deliberations of those issues. Education policy would be guided in light of my belief in the ideal of public education and desire to keep it a morally responsible institution. I'd try to build a consensus on beginning- and end-of-life issues that was broadly-conservative to a similar extent to that to which the LGBT consensus would be broadly-liberal. And a general strengthening of religion qua aspect of civil society. I'd at least consider scrapping the Johnson Amendment.

Of course I'd insist on balancing this with an aggressively interventionist and overtly redistributionist attitude towards most major socioeconomic evils.

tl;dr you wouldn't have total free rein on anything but neither would the bobos really ('broadly-liberal' for the LGBT consensus is meant to indicate 'in certain respects moderated'). The coalition is meant to be FISCALLY LEFTIST BUT SOCIALLY BROAD-CHURCH AND CLIENTELISTIC.

In what way?

Well, in that it's a party that by design includes both a socon wing and a bobo wing and seeks to play their interests and values off against each other in creative tension. I don't understand why I need to reiterate/reword this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're very right. For 'keep' read 'make'.

For reference, my ideas about education policy do not start and stop at 'how can fantasy-me distinguish myself from Patrick Brown?' By any means. I'm familiar enough with the experience of Japan to know good and well that 'teaching to the test', rote fact regurgitation, constant evaluation on top-down, apodictic criteria, et cetera are not morally responsible ways to teach.

The allusion here, as with the references to Patrick Brown, is to the ongoing donnybrook over the sex education curriculum in Ontario. I'm obviously not a sex education specialist, nor would I like to become one, but I think what I would do in general would be to have a panel including people of varying moral and religious views draw up a curriculum to present a gender-neutral case for abstinence until adult commitment if at all possible and scrupulous monogamy* and contraceptive use if not, and then mandate that this material be taught by actual public school teachers rather than the creepy outside specialists to whom both liberal and conservative school districts are liable to farm things out. The goal is to balance moral principles with practical harm reduction, without reference to any specific religious tenets but also without the pretense that we live, can live, or should live in a completely value-neutral society. No, I don't particularly care to hear your opinion of this course of action.

*Just as DC's people can suck it on same-sex marriage, the polyamory crowd can suck it on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does anything I've said in this thread indicate that I think everyone does?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I at any point express a specific interest in 'the majority of the LGBT community'? I expressly said that my goal is to establish a political consensus on LGBT issues such that LGBT people feel free to vote on other things if they so desire. If the majority of the LGBT community is on board for experimental, interventionist, redistributionist political economy, great! If not, it's, you know, whatever; elements of my coalition (and not only the bobos!) are in there specifically so it won't militate against the LGBT community. And plenty of LGBT people are quite religious.

I'm not sure what it is that makes my religiosity 'bizarre'; care to enlighten me?

By bizarre I meant nonstandard.

And I honestly don't care if you want to hear what I have to say. Education shouldn't be about teaching your personal viewpoint, especially not sex education. School is not a place for social brainwashing, and teaching sex ed  by pushing abstinence  (that is the thing you teach as the ideal, teaching how the pill works doesn't negate that) and "polyamory is bad" because of your own personal opinion on it.

Okay, but considering that society itself is not value-neutral I hardly think that advancing a very general, public-language version of a slightly-more-restrained sexual ethic is really any more ideologically inflected than is the (itself ideological) project of maintaining the fiction of value-neutrality in the face of a promiscuity-drenched culture industry.

Having multiple sex partners at a young age with a not-fully-developed risk-assessment part of the brain is bad--objectively, instrumentally. That's how you get the clap.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

All Protestant, all the time.

You disgust me.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Individuals from all walks of life. 

[RFayette]

The vast majority of Nonreligious people, members of the working class that aren't strongly religious, (and this is where it gets interesting), the highly intelligent (especially the young ones , even more so the ones that rebel against some of society's bullsh**t\ don't conform), nonconformists in general,

scientists, the more liberal side of the tech industry(e.g. Larry page, Sergey Brin, not apple, and not Zuckerberg ), socially very left-wing suburbanites that aren't rich enough to vote for people who would criminalize things like being gay, being an independent woman, being an effeminate guy,  or using hair dye if they promised to cut taxes,

 feminists, BLM, polyamory supporters, members of the LGBTQ+ community (especially the TQ+ part), small farmers struggling against giant companies (esp. ones who practice humane/sustainable farming practices),

green energy companies, the portion of the rich who realize that they've been given an unfair advantage in life and want to change the system, people who have to live off welfare because there are no jobs they can do, young liberals, likely the children of millenials, Palestine activists, small artists, and people living in dense cities.

I would have strong opposition from catholics, mormons, upper-middle class people, exurbanites, the majority of the rich  (the bastards who fight to be able to screw everyone else over to make more money, give nothing to the needy, and buy private jets and such), evangelicals, people who strongly value conformity(they do exist, though they aren't as common as they once were), highly religious people in general,

 Israel hawks, neocons, Internet service providers and the corporate side of the tech industry(I support banning ad tracking software and staunchly oppose measures to end net neutrality), health insurance companies, for profit prisons, big farming corporations, the rich and powerful in general, idiotic "news" sites like breitbart, salon, fox, and MSNBC that do nothing but feed their readers biases and make them worse, and the alt-right.

Are we really that uncommon?  People who are repulsed by edgy-ness and things like blue hair, nose piercings, and the like?

My coalition is easy.  I want everyone to share my values.  My Republican Party would probably do better than the current Republican Party with Hispanics and some blacks due to a strong focus on the family more than on stuff like immigration.  We would still do pretty well with the rich due to a near abolition of taxation, but we would probably suffer with secular working-class whites, as protectionism would be a non-starter.  But, it wouldn't be too far off the June 15, 2015 GOP coalition (the day before Trump announced his candidacy).

The two bolded things don't go together, I'm afraid.  There's a reason that even socially conservative blacks and Hispanics weren't raving for Rubio, Cruz, Rand, etc., and a further-right approach on fiscal policy would only compound the problem, unfortunately.

[RINO Tom]

All Protestant, all the time.

You disgust me.

Protestant Majority, BIOTCH!

[Thunder98 🇮🇱 🤝 🇵🇸]

Moderates and Suburban voters

[Dr. MB]

Barely matters so long as you support the policies.

But, I’d love a redneck-black coalition in the south (if only that was feasible).

[darklordoftech]

Sexual liberty, alcohol liberty, tobacco liberty, against age restrictions, etc. A coalition of "anti-puritans". I'm not sure what coalition would best achieve this.