California perestroika?
Please see http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/06/is-perestroika-coming-in-california/
Change for the better will only happen when a majority of California voters realize the connection between electing Dems and the results they are getting. Change for the better will only happen when a majority of California voters realize that liberalism, socialism, prorgressive’ism, social justice, or whatever name the left wants to put on their policies, does not work.
Using the Soviet Union perestroika analogy in the above linked article, the communist party could not reform itself or the Soviet Union. It had to fall and be replaced. Similarly, California’s “ruling troika” has to fall and be replaced.
Change for the better will only happen when a majority of California voters decide to return public policy to the values and principles that made America and California (in the past) great, free and prosperous.
4 years with a conservative (not Rep) governor and legislature would produce such economic progress, it would make your head spin. If you couple pro business and pro job policies with California’s (weather) climate and other advantages, you would see an explosion of economic growth, especially if the Obama regime falls. Even if the Obama regime stays in power, Texas shows what pro business and pro job policies can do on a state level.
Until then, California can only serve as a warning to the rest of America.
The Soviet Union/perestrioka analogy is from the linked article. The question is whether the ruling "troika" in CA, the Dems, the greens and government employee unions, can reform themselves and CA any better than the Communist Party could reform itself and the Soviet Union. And this assumes they want to. The article concludes Brown and the Dems have not even tried. My point is that even if they try, ala Gorbachev, CA's ruling troika will not be any more successful at reform than was Gorbachev and the CP in the USSR. Gorbachev and the CP needed to be replaced and CA's ruling troika needs to be replaced for there to be any progress or improvement.
At any rate, the Republicans are just as intransigent as the Democrats; it's just that they're outnumbered. A Republican-driven "perestroika" would hardly be a solution... we'd just wind up with the Texas model you described: more sub-living-wage jobs, no protection of the public commons, and still no solution to the income divide. I will partially agree with you on these points: Democrats are not coming up with any pragmatic solutions (I suspect because they are too busy tacking against Republican extremism), public unions will face their own demise if they do not share in the sacrifice (as in WI), and there need to be limits on state-mandated sustainability. I suspect that our main point of contention is that you seem to advocate for a revolution/restructuring and I advocate for a measured, rational approach to reform. Your strategy requires fear, anger, and Party allegiance (using Soviet imagery borrowed from Mr. Kotkin), mine requires statesmanship, reason, and the deconstruction of both Parties. Your approach, admittedly, is probably easier.
CA is crumbling and decaying and needs major reform analogous to the USSR in the early 1980s. The linked article suggests the recent election shows signs reform in CA (pension reform passing by 2/3 in San Jose and San Diego) that the author analogized to Perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev's attempts to reform the USSR and CP. The article concludes Brown is more like that "Yuri Andropov, an aged hegemon desperately trying to save a dying system" than Mikhail Gorbachev. My point is that even if Brown wanted to reform CA and ruling "troika" in CA, (the Dem party, greens and government employee unions) he will not be any more successful than Gorbachev was. Again, using an analogy, to make progress, the CP in the USSR had to be replaced, and the ruling troika in CA will have to be replaced.
BTW, who is "Pete" when someone says, "For Pete's sake"? (I really do not know) Thank you kindly
People who don't work don't have money to pay taxes Less employers, less workers , less tax base
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/We-can-t-afford-to-cut-education-1691329.php
The MSM are virtually all liberal, and they are advocates rather than journalists. Without looking at the data, I'll bet Texas does better at educating its children at a lower cost than does CA.
We fundamentally disagree on what type of country we want and the values and principles on which it should be based. We disagree on ends, not only means. Conservatives want an America based on the values and principles that made America great, free and prosperous. First and foremost they are liberty (political, religious and economic), E Pluribus Unum, and In God We Trust. They would not publicly admit it, but Dems, Libs, the Left disagree with every one of them. The left believes in: 1. Equality (although of course some animals are more equal than others). 2. Government control. They, the Left, are smarter, wiser and morally superior to everyone else so they, the Left, should control the economy and people’s lives. 3. Instead of E Pluribus Unum, the Left believes in multi-culturalism. 4. Instead of In God We Trust, the Left believes in secularism and in government we trust. They want as many people dependent on government as possible. The less people are bitterly clinging to religion, the more likely they will accept dependence on big government. Hence, the Left’s 50 year “war on religion.” There is another key difference between right and left, we see people as individuals. The left sees people according to their group identity.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577464681763370856.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Are the definitions of liberalism and conservatism static or dynamic depending on the issues upon these concepts are applied and to whom these concepts are applicable?
thes are not complicated questions i hope.