conservatives won't control for 60 years, NY TIMES letter Dec 2 2003

[Eric J in MN]

letter published in NY TIMES Dec. 2, 2003, contradicts conservative David Brooks prediction that Republicans will control government for the next 60 years.



To the Editor:

Re "The Promised Land," by David Brooks (column, Nov. 29):

The reason conservatives will not stay in power long is simple: the majority of voters do not agree with their basic tenets. Their success must therefore rest on deception. Eventually, voters will unmask the truth.

Americans do not want to dismantle environmental regulations. They don't want to favor big business over consumers and taxpayers. They don't want to starve the Social Security and Medicare programs. They don't want a foreign policy that shuns international cooperation. They don't want increasing concentrations of wealth.

It may take voters a few more years of George W. Bush to figure out what's happening. But it won't take 60 years.
KEN SWENSEN
Pound Ridge, N.Y., Nov. 29, 2003

[ZenLefty]

1. Nice.

:thumbsup:

That sums it up pretty nicely.

The one factor that I would add to that analysis is money. Since big business leans republican, the republicans have more money than we do on our side, thus enabling them to practice the deception that their success relies so much on. If not for this disparity, they would have a lot less power than they do right now.

[coda]

2. LOL

Conservatives aren't in power now.

[Manix]

3. good point!!...the true traditional conservatives are on the sidelines..

as well.

[CShine]

4. Mr. Letter-Writer missed a very important point.

The GOP is moving to the left on social programs. Geeez, just look at their prescription drug bill. It's classic LBJ-style leftist social spending. The GOP has a very obvious strategy. They stake out the extreme right on issues like religion, guns, gay right, etc., and then when it comes to social spending programs, they suddenly go way over to the left. They're trying to cover their asses on social spending by moving into left-wing territory and offering big government-funded benefits there while at the same time playing to the bigoted hate-mongers on the far right on issues that don't involve much government spending. This is not a true right-wing party. If it was, you wouldn't have the libertarian wing of the GOP fighting so hard against Bush's spending programs. Bush is trying to be a moderate on issues that involve big dollars (and he's having some success there). It's only on the issues that don't involve huge federal spending that Bush is trying to turn the country toward xenophobia and bigotry.

[dani]

5. I disagree

I think it's very slowly becoming more clear to the average person that the Republicans have a revolutionary agenda which includes the privatization of many of those services you allude to. Repub dogma states privatization is good for everyone, but the reality is that it primarily benefits huge corporations and the ultra-wealthy -- that reality will take much less than 60 years to sink in, Republican subterfuge to the contrary. For example, I think the vast majority of Americans will balk when the Repubs start to push the privatization of the US Postal Service. That's why I think Swensen's letter is right on.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Throwing money at drug companies and letting them maintain their

outrageous prices, while leaving many seniors worse off then before, is not "socialism."

[tom_paine]

6. That presupposes a Healthy Republic with a Free Press and reliable voting

systems.

And I'm not sure we have ANY of those things right now, let alone all three.

[Cocoa]

8. "their success must therefore lie in deception"

how appropriate for a letter about a David Brooks column. This letter really nailed it beautifully.

[SmokeyBlues]

9. A few more years of * hole before the deception is uncovered?

Let's work to make sure that this doesn't come true! Hell, just thinking about one more year of *hole in the White House makes me ill.