Coalitions in American politics

[RR]

Someone (no idea if it was a poster here or an opinion piece ro what) once observed that the biggest difference between American government and toher governments is we form the coalitions prior ot the elections and other countries form a coalition after the election. With this in mind if fiscal conservatives wanted to get away from the religious right is there another group they could form a "coalition" with that would have a chance to get enough votes to win?

[Ricky_Bobby]

I'm racking my brain but everything I come up with sounds like the Libertarians.

If you take the religion/morality out of the Republicans you end up with Libertarianism, except for the hawkish foreign policy. Hmmmm....

If there was just a bunch of people pissed about Iraq, who like lower taxes, dislike government intrusions, and don't care about abortion/gay marriage.

Still sounds like the Libertarians. How can they not got more traction?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
fiscal conservatives wanted to get away from the religious right

[/ QUOTE ] What you are describing here is either a libertarian or a patrician; those two groups are already paired with the religous right in order to form what we today call the republican party. All three groups are united by one common goal: opposition to democratic economics.

Everyone in the U.S. is more or less either in one of these three groups or on the left economically; without the religous right, the "fiscal conservatives" would have no chance because their are more populists (left econ, right socially) in the U.S than libertarians, and their are even less patricians; some republicans are populists who think religious issues are far more important than economic ones, in fact.

A patrician, roughly speaking, is a non-religous conservative, beliving in collectivism, traditional institutions, the desirabiltiy of hierarchy, and the need to use government to advance these values.

Some patricians believe "the masses" should be religious, but primarily because religion is useful in furthering the other ends that they believe in, because it teaches morality and tradition to the masses and gives them a reason to follow the dictates of morality and tradition; a "Nobel Lie", if you will.

[peritonlogon]

If fiscal conservative Republicans distinguished themselves from Neo-conservative Republicans, then they could caucus with the neo-liberals of the Democratic party. But I doubt Neo-libs would want to chance it, since they're still of, if not the most powerful group in the Democratic party. I bet if fiscally conservative repubuicans thought about it long enough, they'd realize there's not all that much that distinguished them from neo-liberal Democrats.

I think what you're thinking about used to be considered the main stream in the 1990s.

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
What you are describing here is either a libertarian or a patrician; those two groups are already paired with the religous right in order to form what we today call the republican party. All three groups are united by one common goal: opposition to democratic economics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Libertarians generally align themselves with Republicans? Does anyone else find this very likely to be false?

If someone is a true libertarian, in voting for a modern day Republican (or Democrat) like George Bush he would be selling his political soul to the devil.

Moorobot, you make it seem as though there are hoards of libertarians that are significant contributors to the Republican cause. My guess would be that libertarians either vote Libertarian (go figure) or do not vote at all.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]


Libertarians generally align themselves with Republicans? Does anyone else find this very likely to be false?

[/ QUOTE ] The ones that are politicians who actually get elected are.

I think we are talking about a different level of intensity of belief; you even used the term "true libertarian". The libertarians that you are talking about don't vote or vote libertarian, but their are some classical liberals still in the republican party.

[bdk3clash]

I think the branch of mainstream American libertarians (like Libertarian Party members) that tends to vote Republican does so mainly out of the perception that they share their laissez-faire economic beliefs. Whether they actually do is another question.

[MrMon]

There was a significant book published in the last few years on this subject that I cannot recall the name of. (And if anyone knows what it is, please post it.) The basic thesis is that there have been 7-12 "interest groups" throughout American history and that their occasional reshuffling is what we know as political realignment. And yes, the "libertarians" have been aligned with the Republicans for some time, and it is their cutting loose from the Republicans that caused the recent election results. It may not be a permanent shift, but the libertarian vote is now up for grabs for the first time in a long time. Speculation is, it'll move back to the Republicans as Bush/Rove move out of the picture and the power of the Religious Right declines. There are quite a few articles on the whole thing out there right now.

[ShakeZula06]

If you take what Republicans have done for the last 6 years it's the antithesis of what libertarians support. However I would agree that in the past *some* number of libertarians have sided with the Republican party, casting aside (more likely under estimating, especially with things such as the war on drugs, and American interventionalism) some libertarian values the Republican party disagreed with in return for hope that the libertarian agenda would be pushed.

The problem is that the Republican pary is now decively controlled completely by the neoconservative agenda, who's goals unfortunately run counter to everything a libertarian would support. Neoconservatives are basically pro-interventionalist, moral authoritarian liberals.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Neoconservatives are basically pro-interventionalist, moral authoritarian liberals.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, don't try to pawn these douchebags onto us.