Ellison: A dangerous shift to the right
Last month, on this page, John Scrudato ’11 praised the candidacy of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman for New York’s 23rd Congressional seat (Politics of revenge, Oct. 29). He wrote, “The hope is that Hoffman’s success will encourage voters across the country to stop looking at politics as red versus blue and take a chance on something truly different.”
This idea is wholly inaccurate. Hoffman wasn’t outside of the red-blue dichotomy; he was at the far red end of it. His success came because Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava was not red enough, prompting conservative leaders...
When did Goldwater support same-sex marriage?
Oh, yeah, he didn't...
The black vote went for obama for....obvious reasons. I think that the novelty of this is wearing off fast. While absolute white majority my disappear, I think that as people get older they get over some of the idealistic stuff that drove droves to vote the way they did last year. You can't bring your idealism to the grocery store if you don't have a job and/or if your taxes allow you no dicretion in spending. And if the claim that the republicans are more right wing, it is certain that the guy in the white house is certainly borderline.., well let's just say a real socialist with all the trimmings. And his party more left than perhaps any in history.
Good analysis.
In seeking to explain this phenomenon, it might be good to take another look at the book "Victims of Groupthink", by Yale psychologist Irving Janis, e.g., his discussion of what he calls "Mindguards", or enforcers of orthodoxy, ruling out possible alternatives. Another feature of Groupthink is hubris and the assumption of invulnerability - certainly something that contributed to the decision to invade Iraq.
Mr. Ellison,
I never attempted to say that Hoffman somehow fell out of existing ideological spectrum. My point was that he does not belong to a dominant party and is not beholden to all of the patronage, special interests, and national party concerns that a Republican or a Democrat would be.
As for your argument that conservatism is falling out of fashion I think you are dead wrong. The Republican Party’s fortunes may rise and fall, but Conservatives are still the largest self-identifying ideological group in the country by a good margin. Linking conservatism to John McCain’s election loss is disingenuous. McCain was one of the most moderate Republicans. He didn't lose because he was "radical" (nor did Chris Shays for that matter). They lost because A. they shared a party with a deeply unpopular president and B. because they tried to attract voters by standing slightly to the right of the Democrats. They tried to be the less liberal alternative to Democrats and ended up alienating many conservatives while still losing most moderates and nearly all of the liberals; that’s not exactly a winning strategy.
After the rise of Goldwater, the "right-wing radical" label you and other folks keep using came into common usage. The prediction that the right will die is also not new, I could show you a book I have from 1963 arguing precisely the same thing you are; that conservatism was a dying ideology and those who championed it are dinosaurs. That author was wrong then just as you are now. I can show you poll numbers showing the number of registered Democrats outnumbered the registered Republicans in the 1960s by 2-1 (liberalism vs. conservatism for the party minded out there), yet conservatism still did not die.
I could go on all day arguing with you quoting facts and precedent as to why the Republican Party is not doomed simply because it is moving to the right. I'm not going to however, because there is no point. After all, we'll still likely disagree and the best litmus test is 2010 and 2012. Best of luck...
I always appreciate Democrats warning Republicans that they're too conservatives to win elections.
perfectly written.