There's been a lot of evidence recently that the Bush administration is causing (or perhaps amplifying) an ideological shift among the American public away from Reagan/Gingrich conservatism, towards something resembling social democracy. That might be a touch pollyanna, but check out the latest data from the massive Pew survey released last week. Kevin Drum runs down the most important data points: a sharp decline in the percentage of voters identifying themselves as Republicans, a significant increase in the percentage of people who think "government should help the needy even if it means greater debt," and similar decline in the percentage of people who think "school boards should have the right to fire homosexual teachers."

In other words the populace is getting a) more socially liberal b) more economically progressive c) more identified with the Democratic party.

Comments (47)

1. Are the Mormons and/or Utah ever going to get it?

   Posted by douginslc at 03/26/2007 @ 1:07pm

2. My elder brother (a partially disabled vet from Gulf War Uno) has always been a staunch conservative - until GWB - he now considers himself cured.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 03/26/2007 @ 1:09pm

3. Before you break out the champagne....

   A LOT of that is determinant on two different effects-

   1. the social libertarianism in the "youth vote", who have no problem with abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, etc. while the oldster social cons, like LVLIB, etc., are dying off.

   2. the failures of the Bush administration.

   None of that indicates a "mass return" to old style 60s liberalism, etc. but a rejection of conservatism as practiced under Bush and the GOP Congress. Even the carefully worded polls that show "65% want a universal health system" start to dry up as DETAILS of such a system are introduced into the mix (same thing that happened in 1993 with "Hillary-care"....lots of GOOD polls at the start, until the plans actually started to be revealed!)

   Plus it discounts key liberal issues that are still VERY unpopular....like gun control, affirmative action. Of course the Democrats have fairly abandoned those in response to such disapprovals.

   Am I saying the Republicans aren't going to take a licking in '08....nope. We'll be back to that "evil, anti-democratic ONE PARTY RULE" ...hehe...just the kind that liberals don't seem to mind as much (Democratic) in 2008.

   But spelling the doom of the Republicans is like saying the Democrats were "doomed" in 2000.....a exercise in folly and vanity.

   Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 1:13pm

4. Mask-Rudy favors gun control and is leading in the polls amongst conservatives.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 03/26/2007 @ 1:15pm

5. Posted by I'M NOBODY 03/26/2007 @ 1:15pm

   Sure, and not a "deal breaker", because if you've got Northern Republicans for it....but Southern Democrats against it (like Jim Webb)....the gun enthusiasts know it's not going any further than the assault rifle bans of the 90s.

   But you're not going to see ANY majority for a "social democratic" push for total gun registration or the utopian "ban all guns" move...for decades.

   Plus, even social cons like LVLIB have said they'll turn a "blind eye" to Rudy's pro-choice position, because "we're safer with ANY Republican".

   Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 1:25pm

6. CHRISTOPHER,

   If we are moving away from the intolerant, secretive, monarchial style of Bush Govt and are returning to a free thinking, Individualistic society with Private Property, Freedom of Expression, Individualism and a Common American Identity as the cornerstones, then YES we are winning. If we are merely moving towards the socialistic principles as expoused by this magazine, to be ruled by elitist men & women of "Reason" who will do what is "best" for us whether we need it or not, then we have simply exchanged a right wing dictatorship for a left one, and the battle for liberty continues!

   Chip

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/26/2007 @ 1:32pm

7. Of course people want social programs. Nobody wants endless war and no jobs or health care.

   Why do you think Bush and Rove wanted "loyal" US Attorneys to help taint elections? Because it's only by stealing them that Republicans can ever win.

   Then they needed to put those US Attorneys into judgeships -- the better to overturn those jury verdicts against Big Business.

   Florida 2000, Ohio 2004, and so many other close elections -- this is Karl Rove's math.

   By winning on November 7, despite the President's best effort to scare us into voting against our own best interests ("a vote for the Dems is a vote for the tair-ists"), the Democrats proved that they are the true majority. They won despite an elaborate racket that's been in place to make them lose.

   Posted by RLawrence at 03/26/2007 @ 2:16pm

8. Bush never has been and is no conservative and neither was his father...and I understand why many are turing away from Bush republicanism, I am a conservative and I never turn TOWARD it,..does this mean I think Edwards is now my man? Forget about it forever...it is not conservative....

   If the Repubs find a true conservative, then I can see the polls move again...one thing I have never seen in my 54 years is a clamouring move to the left by anyone...and certainly not a mass moment...let another Reagan appear on the scene annd the left will be in crisis mode again..

   Posted by john maasch at 03/26/2007 @ 2:18pm

9. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 03/26/2007 @ 2:18pm | ignore this person

   Blah, blah, blah. As if there was any big difference between the two. It's a one party system masquerading as two, both sides bent on an empire where money trumps people, the latter being nothing but simple automotons who aren't smart enough to know what's good for them.

   Posted by chimichenga at 03/26/2007 @ 2:30pm

10. the Democrats proved that they are the true majority.

    Posted by RLAWRENCE 03/26/2007 @ 2:16pm

    WHICH "Democrats" are those, RLAW? The "Out of Iraq" Caucus? Pelosi and the "Middle Way Out of Iraq"? Or the "Blue Dogs"?

    More and more when we get to that "one party rule" in 2008, Roger's Axiom ("I don't belong to any organized political party...I'm a Democrat"--Will Rogers) will come into play.

    Remember...we had a DEM Prez and a DEM Congress in 1993....and couldn't get "Hillary-care" out of committee.

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 2:32pm

11. Posted by MASK 03/26/2007 @ 1:13pm |

    BREAK OUT THE CHAMPAGNE!!!!!

    no - its not going to be KVH's dream, but it sure aint going to be the neocon dream.

    the downside is not that all socialism's dreams will NOT be realized, but that the marginal intellectually concrete objective coming of age thinker will now trend left instead of right...

    symbionese liberation army anyone? har har...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/26/2007 @ 2:34pm

12. If the Repubs find a true conservative, then I can see the polls move again...one thing I have never seen in my 54 years is a clamouring move to the left by anyone...and certainly not a mass moment...let another Reagan appear on the scene annd the left will be in crisis mode again..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Yeah, that's exactly what we need, a senile old fool that isnt' honest enough to actually tell people what his administration is doing. Used car salesmen from southern California, Joseph Goebbels style propaganda, irresponsible ideologues--all flash and no substance.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 2:57pm

13. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/26/2007 @ 2:34pm

    that "left or right" trend depends on how it's defined.

    Social conservatism is dead or on life support so that CRABWALK will want the plug pulled. Polls show BIG majorities of people under 50 have no problem with gay rights, abortion, etc. The LVLIB, RIO, Religious Right guys are disappearing...even with Pat Robertson leg-pressing 2000 lbs. (hehe)

    Neo-conservatism?....whoa, yeah. That's dead. No more adventures in democratization....but...none for the LEFT either. If the argument was "Why did we invade Iraq? They didn't attack us!"....why do the neo-connish liberals think they'll be able to sell going into Darfur? "Sudan didn't hit us on 9/11...why invade them?!?!?!" could come the retort.

    Universal health care (as I've noted on other threads) is a given. System is so broken now, we've got no choice...we're DOOMED to a Government-run system and despite the Utopians' promises, it'll be as BAD (maybe not worse, but who knows?) than what we have now.

    So what's left on WILL's "Liberal Agenda" that the people will go for? Massive restrictions on SUVs? Gas taxes to cut consumption? Paying our dues to Kofe Annan's Mob...I mean, the UN? Shutting down Wal-mart (catch Penn & Teller this weekend on Showtime to see how THAT would go over like a lead Hindenburg with the "working familes"!)? Public finance of politicians getting to interupt your favorite show on TV with stupid ads every 5 minutes come every other Autumn?

    Mr Hayes is being WILDLY optimistic about the "ideological shift...to social democracy". And, as we learned from "Mission Accomplished"...wild optimism usually cometh before the fall!

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 3:12pm

14. Chimi,

    "Blah, blah, blah. As if there was any big difference between the two"

    Looking at the situation today I am inclinded to agree with you.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/26/2007 @ 3:13pm

15. Posted by MASK 03/26/2007 @ 3:12pm

    We will, however, see carbon or green taxes on our payroll deductions and we will; all feel better that we will have solved the carbon crisis...we will pay $4. 00 a gallon of gas, but we will be saving the planet...another problem solved..and outr industrys, like EXXON and othe eveil corporations...they will shift more and more of theoir production and sales to other places who are business friendly as the "I gonna take those profits and give them to.." politicians gain power.....and we will have a real shortage of energy...so we will iuse less...

    but the rest of the world will not...there is enough crude to last for another 100 years if thgey go after it and we here in the uS may be colder in winter and warmer in summer....except our beloved politicians...

    Posted by john maasch at 03/26/2007 @ 3:21pm

16. MT,

    If thats your only take only Ronald Reagan then you've been reading this (and apparently ONLY this) magazine for too long.

    As a serious Carter man I had a tough time accepting that Reagan and people like him are what a healthy US is all about. But I did it. And thats no reflection on Carter. Still like the man, did the best he could.

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/26/2007 @ 3:32pm

17. but the rest of the world will not...there is enough crude to last for another 100 years if thgey go after it and we here in the uS may be colder in winter and warmer in summer....except our beloved politicians...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    You are such a selfish, self centered creature. All you ever think of is yourself. Me, me, me. You're worse than a three year old.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 3:32pm

18. Posted by CHIP THORNTON

    Reagan did more damage to this country than anyone in a long time. He was a senile old fool and his administration was all nothing more than a big pr campaign. Southern California trash like him and his cronies are not what this country needs.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 3:35pm

19. The pendelum must swing back to the left after the disaster that the neo-cons have created. Some good will come of it, but then it will swing back the other way. After the republican deficits that have benefitted only their cronies, arguments against social programs such as universal healthcare won't have much credibility. But the person warning of "optimism...before the fall" is right. Any optimism must be qualified by the fact that the Republican defeat in November wasn't nearly as bad as their incompetence warranted. This is a fickle country prone to being misled by the "pretended patriots" that Elbridge Gerry warned of so long ago.

    Posted by sdslaw at 03/26/2007 @ 3:42pm

20. Posted by MTSPENCE05 03/26/2007 @ 3:32pm

    Yeah, JOHN....quit being so selfish and just thinking about yourself....and uh, 300 million other people in the United States!!!

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 3:42pm

21. Well, Spence, you just told me in every sentence your OPINION of him. So now give me some hard facts. In what way did he "cause more damage" to this country. And please tell me something other than all our problems in the 90's came from the '80's cause thats bullshit. And I guess restoring our prestige in the world after 20 years of Johnson, Nixon and Carter screwing it up doesn't matter? It matters to me. I like being #1

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/26/2007 @ 3:52pm

22. BTW Spence, who DO you think the country needs? The hypocrite Gore? The Loud Mouth Dean?, The Socialist Clinton?, The Dreamer Kuchnich?I'm finished with Bush but my biggest fear is one of the clowns listed above, or someone like them, will be elected.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/26/2007 @ 3:56pm

23. Some of Reagan's great works:

    Increases in crime, poverty and homelessness Unnecessary slaughters in Nicaragua (30,000 dead), El Salvador (75,000 dead), Guatemala (150,000 dead)and Honduras (thousands dead and disappeared). American nuns and missionaries among the casualties. Ridiculous invasion of Big Bad Grenada, the world's top nutmeg exporter Increased drug use despite the "Say No" campaign Steady growth in inequality and sickly individualism across the land Using "Born in the USA" as a slogan without understanding the song one bit

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/26/2007 @ 4:09pm

24. All those dead in Latin America are his fault, huh? How are they his fault? I'm more inclined to think their inability to go 12 hours a day without trying to kill each other is part of it. I'll go along with ya on the drug thing: He couldn't get that right. But since individuality is the key to maintaining independence in thought and action, I'll take it, sickly or otherwise over collectivism any day. I'm my brothers keeper when I'M decide I am, not Govt.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/26/2007 @ 4:21pm

25. I've lived in Latin America for many years, unlike you, and made Honduras my home for three of those years. You have no idea what you're talking about. To think any of those impoverished nations was a threat is one more example of the big elephant fearing mice, and inventing them even after they were all exterminated.

    And if you think you have "independence in thought and action", well, just try reading your posts. Your comments on Latin America smack of what Brittany Spears might say when asked about her political views. What you say sounds very similar to anything your favorite town-crier, image-maker or talking head might pound you over the head with day after day. No freedom in reiterating talking points, Little Shot. Funny you equate "freedom" with a system that encourages everyone to think and act alike - even dress alike when possible. Thanks for proving my point about the definition of freedom there (being groomed to repeat slogans, be a gourmand and shop until you drop). You greatly overestimate your worth, but so long as you praise your government you are a model citizen...

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/26/2007 @ 4:32pm

26. Now, careful CHIP....remember CHIMI IS in favor of US intervention in Central America on SOME occasions...

    "I DON'T SUPPORT FIDEL CASTRO OR CUBA. What is more, I WOULD SUPPORT A US INVASION OF CUBA IN ORDER TO TAKE OUT FIDEL AND TRULY LIBERATE THE 11 MILLION PEOPLE SUFFERING UNDER HIS REGIME."---Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/20/2006 @ 2:07pm44

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 4:39pm

27. Posted by CHIP THORNTON

    Number 1? Like I said, it was all flash, no substance--the America of today. A bunch of ideologues came into the executive branch with the intention of destroying government. Why? Because they were convinced government can do no good. Bother to scratch the surface of the administration you admire so much and you'll find rotting, stinking decay beneath. Just take a look at his EPA or Interior Department staff and you'll get some idea of what these fools were attempting. Yeah, Ronnie loved to wrap himself in the flag, but the old fool had no appreciation or understanding of the Bill of Rights, our Constitution, unless he was pandering to the NRA. And Ronnie marked the beginning of the religious right's domination of the Repub party (I can deal with a country club Repub, but the religious zealots cannot be reasoned with). Rather than taking the country forward, Ronnie took it way back. Jingoist nationalism, dismantling the Fed Gov without addressing the issues, problems that created many of the New Deal era programs small time business schmucks and corporations so despised, and bringing the religious right into American politics is not a legacy to be proud of. But of course, all most people ever saw were the carefully staged photo ops in Time and Newsweek.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 4:42pm

28. Posted by MASK 03/26/2007 @ 4:39pm | ignore this person

    And? What's your point, Skellum? Do you not realize Cuba is in the Caribbean and NOT Central America? I've seen Cuba with my own eyes and saw an island of tired people. Not that they're all miserable, for they have one of the most vibrant cultures I have seen, but they know they were duped. Geography has aided the revolution more than anything...

    But to think Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras or Nicaragua were threats is ridiculous. But hey, you probably went along with Edward Bernay's elocuent invention to oust Jacobo Arbenz in Guate back in 1954, and buy your government's fearmongering wholeheartedly. This despitet the fact that you've never been anywhere but on this web page. Can you say "Engineering of Consent"?

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/26/2007 @ 4:45pm

29. I like being #1

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON

    What are you, 18? Grow up! Nationalism is not patriotism.

    Oh yeah, did you forget about Ronnie trading arms with the evil Iranians? All flash--talk--no substance.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/26/2007 @ 4:47pm

30. Do you not realize Cuba is in the Caribbean and NOT Central America?

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/26/2007 @ 4:45pm

    Well, Venezuela isn't part of Central America either....but that doesn't stop you from rah-rah'ing for Hermano Hugo, does it?

    ROFL!

    Actually, CHIMI, I should argue from YOUR LEFT and ask...why you think Cuba should be liberated from Castro, but DON'T think that El Salvador should be liberated from "Tony" Saca?

    or do you?

    Whoops, but wait. El Salvador is in Central America, not the Caribbean!!!!

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 4:49pm

31. I don't think any race on earth is as good at totally missing the truth - or denying it once they're smacked in the head with it - than the Americano. Without self-deception and collective ignorance, life would be pretty hard to endure in the US... that is, for those with a care for the other 95% of the world...

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/26/2007 @ 4:54pm

32. Posted by MASK 03/26/2007 @ 4:49pm | ignore this person

    You're a knave, plain and simple. What do you know about Latin America besides a few soundbytes and the regular omission of the horrors committed by your "allies" (Uribe is a great example), and the usual bombast hurled at people like Chávez who do nothing to harm the US, though you believe he's knocking down your roof?

    Fuck Venezuela!! Do you have any idea what is occuring in Colombia? That it's lead the hemisphere in human rights abuses for 15 years straight, while being the biggest recipient of US aid in the hemisphere? That the man Bush just visited in Bogotá is in cahoots with the death squads and cast deeper into murderous scandal every day? MASK - GET YOUR FUCKING HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS. There are no death squads in Venezuela, nor are there massive cocaine or poppy plantations. Venezuela hasn't killed US contractors or held them hostage for four years as has Colombia. How dumb are you? Read a fucking book on Colombia before you come here to repeat your childish rants about what someone said someone said about Hugo. Me cago en la puta que te parió.

    Posted by chimichenga at 03/26/2007 @ 5:00pm

33. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 03/26/2007 @ 5:00pm

    So...should the US invade Colombia?

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 6:58pm

34. As a serious Carter man I had a tough time accepting that Reagan and people like him are what a healthy US is all about. But I did it. And thats no reflection on Carter. Still like the man, did the best he could.

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 03/26/2007 @ 3:32pm | ignore this person

    Chip, Ronald Reagan did this nation NO good. He...

    ...took $80B deficits (2.5% of GDP) and turned them into $200B deficits (nearly 6% of GDP)

    ...changed the US from 'the worlds largest creditor' nation to 'the worlds largest debtor'

    ...basically caused Bush 1's downfall when GHWB had to raise taxes to service the debt the Dufus Prince ran up...we're actually paying roughly $100B per year NOW to service the debt that Ronald Reagan ran up

    ...moved the US away from the practice of Americans financing our own debt (through the purchase of US bonds) and initiated the new practice of selling our assets to foreign investors

    ...cut taxes on the wealthy (by nearly half) while shifting to burden to Americas workers by increasing (nearly doubling) social security taxes

    ...cut federal assistance for low cost housing from $32B to just $7B resulting in a HUGE increase AND slashed spending for a variety of social services, including public health, drug rehab and food stamps resulting in one of the largest increases in homelessness in our history...then claimed that they were homeless by choice!

    ...refused to even acknowledge the coming AIDS crisis, let alone do anything at all about it, not even uttering the word 'AIDS' in public until 1987

    ...claimed tress caused polution

    ...claimed ketchup was a vegetable

    Posted by Lillian at 03/26/2007 @ 9:25pm

35. Posted by LILLIAN 03/26/2007 @ 9:25pm

    and he won twice over both Southern moderate and Northern liberal Democrats....and despite TWO DECADES of attempts to besmirch the man, irritatingly to the Left...he still ranks in the Top 5 Presidents in most polls.

    But, no doubt, they'll keep trying....just as the Right will to continue to attack Clinton.

    Posted by Mask at 03/26/2007 @ 9:32pm

36. ...and he won twice over both Southern moderate and Northern liberal Democrats.

    Just like GWB. I guess that of itself proves his greatness. His legacy will necessarily be viewed in the continuation of the Reagan vision through the lens of his protege. I can already hear the choirs singing hosannas.

    Posted by canaar at 03/27/2007 @ 12:02am

37. Mask,

    I seemed to have opened the floodgates here. Good thing I am not into self flagellation and have a think skin :)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/27/2007 @ 08:19am

38. WELL LILLIAN, your're the only one so far who came out with some specific gripes instead of just unsubstantiated bitching:

    1. Raising deficits is certainly not an action limited solely to Reagan, nor is the switch from creditor to debtor. Your "tax" reasoning seems partisan: You blame him for Bush's tax increase, and condemn him for lowering them in his own administration, and claim they only went to the rich, which is not so. Tax decreases are done proportionately to income, as are increases: If the rich got more because they make more, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (Why you guys always want to penalize people for the "crime" of making too much is beyond me)

    I don't know enough to dispute your facts in the "low cost housing" paragraph. If your source was The Nation, though, I'd want to see another source first.

    What is "tress"

    and last but not least:

    The USDA considers the Tomato a vegatable. Perhaps thats' what he meant

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/27/2007 @ 08:36am

39. Posted by CANAAR 03/27/2007 @ 12:02am

    Not an indicator of greatness....but an indication that the Democrats threw BOTH kinds of Democrats at the man, and he beat them both.

    More an indication of the IRRITATION that RR causes the Left. Can't blame those losses on either "being too centrist" (in the case of Mondale) or "too liberal" (in the case of Carter)....so, no excuse left.

    Posted by Mask at 03/27/2007 @ 09:15am

40. Posted by MASK 03/27/2007 @ 09:15am

    What we recognized in him from the mid 60s was his eagerness to engage in the politics of alienation and marginalization - two characteristics that are anathema to democratic (small d) ideals.

    Success is of itself, not proof of desirability.

    Posted by canaar at 03/27/2007 @ 09:34am

41. Posted by CANAAR 03/27/2007 @ 09:34am

    Non-partisanly, most would agree that some "void" was left open by Democrats and liberals, CANAAR....a void that Reagan filled.

    Call it evil bigotry or call it national pride or call it whatever you like.....the supposedly "smarter" Left ignored it or abandoned it and let Reagan and the Right pick it up.

    And you can bemoan "success" all day...but in the end...in politics...it's what really matters, not high ideals that go NOWHERE.

    Posted by Mask at 03/27/2007 @ 11:13am

42. At the end of the day, it's not the politics that matters. It's the impact of the existent politics on our lives. This is the signal truth that Reagan was able to exploit in following Brother Jimmy. "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

    As usual, you put a value statement in my mouth that isn't there. I do not "bemoan" success. Rather, the view is that politics is not the end of itself, even when our politicians intend it as such.

    Non-partisanly, it would be just as accurate to assert that Reagan "occupied" a void.

    Posted by canaar at 03/27/2007 @ 11:55am

43. Posted by CANAAR 03/27/2007 @ 11:55am

    The endless debate over the collapse of Democratic politics from 1980 (or further back, if you like) goes on and on...and is typically partisan.

    Repubs/cons claim the philosophy was/is innately flawed....Dems/libs claim it was "bad timing", "misfortune", "not their fault" (mostly referring to Carter's term in the late 70s), "Republican lies" (odd given it seems "the truth" would simply negate that), or "the Media".

    I think Republicans might do better to accept they won "by default" in some of that Democratic "misfortune", not just having a "better philosophy"....but it might do the Democrats, especially liberal ones, that they MIGHT have a flaw or two as well!

    Posted by Mask at 03/27/2007 @ 1:01pm

44. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 03/27/2007 @ 08:36am | ignore this person

    Well Chip, while I agree that "Raising deficits is certainly not an action limited solely to Reagan" the reality is that Reagan raised the national debt higher than all other's before him...combined. It looks to me like you've tried to trivialize something quite significant.

    And, your depiction of "...the switch from creditor to debtor" nation would seem a GROSS trivialization of the change from the US being the LARGEST creditor nation to the LARGEST debtor nation in just a few short years.

    Reagan borrowed immensly and, the reality os that we are still paying the bill. Bush realized he HAD to raise taxes to start paying that debt or face potential recession...and he got reamed for it by the R base.

    Actually, the tax cuts DID go to the richest Americans...sorry Chip, that's a fact. And paying taxes isn't 'punishment' Chip. Those who benefit most, pay the most...that's entirely fair. And payroll taxes were raised to make up the difference...also a fact. That's a massive shift of the tax burden from the rich to workers...any way you care to slice it.

    My source on the housing isn't The Nation...several sources actually.Try google.

    Tress is obviously a typo...should be trees.

    The USDA may consider the tomato a vegetable, but if you recall, Reagan termed ketchup a vegetable to justify cuts in school lunch subsidies. He was trying to make the ridiculous assertion that kids nutritional needs would be met by ketchup. Apparently, you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt there...I didn't then and don't now.

    Posted by Lillian at 03/28/2007 @ 12:55am

45. Blah, blah, the US is conservative by nature, blah, blah, people really, truly do believe that "corporations are people" too...but only in rights, not obligations. No, no one minds that there's always money for war and for bailing out some demonic industry, but never enough for school books or hungry kids. Yessirree, it's a conservative nation!

    But to hell with all that. Does anyone honestly think we'll ever have a left-leaning government? I don't mean "bullshit left-leaning", I mean real left-leaning...

    Can you imagine it? The proud new liberal President is sworn in... In a statement moments later, he begins by saying "I am proud to serve this great nation. We will put people first, and corporations will take a back seat. The bankers will no longer..."

    Then BAM! Three in the head, you know he's dead.

    Oh sure, "we're winning".

    Posted by Left is Right at 03/28/2007 @ 02:04am

46. Posted by LEFT IS RIGHT 03/28/2007 @ 02:04am

    LIR, see it's not just "sinister forces"....it IS possible that, in SOME cases and on SOME issues....you don't have THE PEOPLE with you either.

    Posted by Mask at 03/28/2007 @ 12:39pm

47. If the Repubs find a true conservative, then I can see the polls move again...one thing I have never seen in my 54 years is a clamouring move to the left by anyone...and certainly not a mass moment...let another Reagan appear on the scene annd the left will be in crisis mode again... Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    And just what would a TRUE conservative look like? This is a country that, since the Gettysburg address, has believed it is founded on principles of "Equality," something conservatives like Robert Bork and Edwin Meese think is actually outside the true intentions of the U.S. Constitution. Try running on the truly conservative principle that all men are not created equal. Even Burke said that men have equal rights, just not equal rights to equal things.

    If you are seeing Americans moving back toward the idea of equality through economic justice it is because they never abandoned equality, they just see the laissez-faire liberalism won't deliver it to them. Voters came to distrust government involvement in economic affairs, they did not abandon the idea of economic justice. Reaganomics hasn't give them what they wanted. Tax cuts do not an economics make. Neither do deficits, as all of those conservative deficit hawks have shown us. What makes a philosophy, be it economic or social, is principles of equality. We Americans have never forfeited those.

    Posted by hhemwm at 04/01/2007 @ 5:53pm