I've got a thought about how the recent past can predict the future of presidential races. Let's look at the big picture for a moment at what's actually been happening since 1992. Basically, the two parties in the two-party system have been fighting tooth and nail to grab the "center" from the other since Bill Clinton more or less invented the style of becoming 100% centrist on all issues. Prior to that time, although politicians obviously gravitated toward the center, they had at least maintained the basic ideals of their parties, at least in the written platforms, be it liberal or conservative. Well, regardless of how you feel about third parties, they have been the difference in '92 and '00, 2/3rds of the last 3 elections (assuming Dubya wins). In '92, George Bush Sr. had basically abandoned the fiscally conservative part of the republicans, and it cost him the election because Perot grabbed this ground (no one disputes that Perot cost Bush the election). Likewise, Algore abandoned the liberals environment-wise and anti-big-business-wise in '00, and Nader grabbed this ground, and this cost Gore the election (I believe no one will dispute that Nader blew it for Gore, assuming Dubya wins). So basically, the politicians from the duocratic parties have paid a heavy price for abandoning certain parts of their base, materially enough, and for long enough. BUT, the Republicans have NOT YET paid the price for abandoning us gun owners (as they repeatedly have - Gingrich et al. voted for the '94 gun bans - I could go on and on). Though they have not yet paid the price for abandoning us (because of course they THINK we have "no place to go"), at least NOW they will begin to BELIEVE they will ultimately pay the price in the future if they don't change. Some third party person is always going to grab up the discontented segment's issue under thier banner, be it Perot or Buchanan or Harry Browne or Howard Phillips or whomever. So this can obviously work to our advantage in the future, both during Dubya's administration and thereafter. We must demand absolutely NO compromise of gun rights during Bush's time, and repeatedly threaten to abandoned the Repubs if they don't support this right, and create circumstances to make our threats credible, such as showing support for pro-gunners such as Buchanan or Browne at the slightest misstep. Then of course we must follow through and actually cost them the election if they don't take notice, just as Perot did with the fiscal conservatives in '92. We must look big picure now. In other words, I guess I've come round to the vote-your-conscience crowd. But this is not vote-your-conscience, damn-the-consequences. Rather, it is vote-your-conscience because this will bring about a net gain of positive consequences in the long run. I know this is preaching to the choir, as average Joe gun owner THINKS the Repubs are in favor of gun rights. They don't realize the Repubs are on the bandwagon for slowly eliminating the rights, just over a longer period of time....
[Edited by Futo Inu on 11-25-2000 at 05:26 PM]
[Edited by Futo Inu on 11-25-2000 at 05:26 PM]