Talk:New Right (United States)

Jeez, this is way too NPOV. Somebody snark it up. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline

Is it really declining that much? If "anything that comes out of the mouth of Rick Santorum" is still considered New Right, shouldn't it still be doing okay (since he almost won the first caucus)? What would today's brand of conservatism be called then (the obstructionism we see in Congress, the batshit social positions seen in the current presidential field, etc). Would it all fall under the same brand? Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum's success in Iowa is meaningless. He was the beneficiary of good timing. A bit earlier, it would've been Gingrich; a bit later, it would have been whomever came next as the Anyone But Romney crowd moved from Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich to Santorum to whoever would have been next in line. Nothing to see here folks. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 05:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I just put those headers up because the article needs some. Feel free to change them to something better. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 05:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not so sure decline is the right word. It mutated into something nastier in the age of talk radio and since. Think I'll change this to "post-Cold War" or something like that. Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Did I write that bit about anything coming out of the mouth of Rick Santorum? Eew. Just eew. Secret Squirrel (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party

My totally subjective impression is the Tea Party is more the product of 1990s style populism, that previously welled up during the Perot campaigns and the militia movement. I won't revert as I know we're trying to de-emphasize CP, but in this case the very first thing I ever thought about Conservapedia was that it was a throwback to the kind of conservatism that last played during St. Ronnie's first term. Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the Tea Party being removed, if it doesn't really fit. But don't put CP back in there; it is an example of nothing beyond itself and represents absolutely nothing more than the opinions of five people, none of whom are of any social or political significance. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 15:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Post-Reagan

Where do the neo-cons fit into this part of the story? PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 15:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A big area for future expansion of the article. :) Secret Squirrel (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

fondness for such batshittery as young Earth creationism

Was Saint Ronnie a YEC? also, was the fondness for YEC a core value of the New Right, or a way to facilitate a politically-expedient marriage of convenience with Christian fundies? PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 15:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

More the latter. I'm thinking that should be changed to just creationism in general though. Many of those websites - AIM, Heritage Foundation - promote creationism and IDiocy but not necessarily YEC. Will do so now. Secret Squirrel (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)