And to the credit of the conservatives, they have never backed down from the principles they stand behind no matter how wacky or how much opposition they faced

A lot of conservatives held their noses and voted for the relatively moderate Romney in 2012, abandoning their principles.

Romney was in no way moderate. He was the only Republican they could get to make it to the general election.

The adage of running to the extremes in the primary, and then towards the center in the general election is one Republicans have followed.

Republican candidates of the last few decades have never shied away from running on extremes. As wacky as their stances can be, they have never repudiated the core principles of their platform out of fear like the liberals have.

Over a longer time frame, there were decades where they waited -- from the 1930s until 1980 or so -- they had to put up with social programs and much higher tax rates on the rich -- something like 90% marginal in the Eisenhower years. But they had more moderate positions and got elected to office for all of those years, and limited what liberals could do.

It's funny how even when liberals had control over Congress over the past two decades, they never limited what upper echelon conservative politicians did. "The Republicans made us do it" is the classic rationalization for modern day centrists/liberals to take the blame away from the fact that even when they controlled the Senate and the Oval Office simultaneously, they refuse to stand up to the conservatives, not only out of fear, but because they have learned to love many conservative policies and the power it promises to hold over the majority of society. So that excuse falls flat.

They may detest social security and medicare, but they haven't until recently taken an audible stand against them -- they were caving to public opinion.

It's because for a long time, the liberals rallied public opinion against such measures. Now Obama is seriously discussing cutting the budgets of both of these programs dramatically. When Bush and Cheney were in office, they never allowed public opinion to sway them away from pre-emptive war and other nasty conservative policies, such as turning social security into part of the stock market; in fact, many of those older voters whose wisdom you think is so pronounced voted for Bush and Cheney because they had no clue what their policies actually were. And Obama is now carrying on their legacy quite proudly, and being defended by much of his liberal base who derided these same policies and Bush/Cheney were behind them. This is what modern liberals have been reduced to.

Yes, I understand we have a fundamental difference in terms of strategy we'll just have to disagree about. You stick to your principles, and seem unperturbed if whichever Marxist party that is your favorite is seen as the tiniest fringe.

I stand behind them because I believe in their principles, not because they they are empowered by monetary interests to represent interests that do work against my own, and the betterment of society in my view.

I work with things the way they are and try for improvements that way. It is maddeningly slow.

I work with things as they are, but not for the purpose of keeping them that way indefinitely, or in some version of their present form into perpetuity. I know it's often maddeningly slow, but it only has to be that way then the majority refuses to believe their collective action can do anything about it.

the capitulation policies of the post-1970s liberals occurred in the same era that brought us the victimology craze; trash talk shows; a resurgence in hatred of the poor; the Satanic ritual abuse insanity

You have cause and effect reversed completely. If the post-1970s liberals had stuck to their principles as you wish, that all would have happened and far worse, as they would mostly been voted out of office and there would have no been no restraint on conservatives at all.

Huh?? If they had stuck to their principles, and continued to empower civil rights over protectionism and excuses to trample them, then the current moral panic would never have gotten nearly as bad as it did. How it would have gotten "worse" in a climate that respected civil rights is beyond me, and likely beyond you too. And the liberals were largely going along with the conservatives during the time, helping to spawn such wonderful things as the victimologists and the organized misandrists largely hi-jacking that era's feminist movement. They actually joined the wolves rather than restraining them.

"However exasperated we might be with voters, they get to decide who runs the country."
No, they don't decide that, and you know it, Ethan. A few powerful monied interests carefully vet and decide which two stooges of the ruling class we get to choose to vote for

Here you're thinking too narrowly. Those powerful monied interests do not in any direct way tell people who to vote for -- that framing of the situation assumes things cannot change. You can just ignore the monied interests and get the people to vote the way you want.

Not when those monied interests carefully vet and determine which two candidates are allowed to make it into the primaries, and pour huge amounts of money into their campaign coffers so that any third party candidates are hardly visible. They they are totally beholden to those monied interests while in office, with those in the Senate often passing legislation in their favor. Even the Supreme Court did that with the dreaded Citizens United decision a few years ago. People do not tend to ignore the best paid propaganda, and the monied interests know this. And the liberals fully capitulate to this when running for office, including refusing to support and accept equal public funding for any and all candidates. This is why a slightly left-of-center liberal candidate and former "socialist" like Bernie Sanders will not make it to the primaries over Hillary Clinton, and why after that loss he and his team will start endorsing her as the ideal Democratic candidate. And the liberals will consider her a champion of everything she and most other liberals no longer stand for, to convince the progressive base to stand behind her. In other words... the usual.

Of course I know what you're saying (it's right up the pragmatist's alley), but my statement was that ULTIMATELY it's the voters who decide.

Those who make up the Electoral College, and also the Supreme Court, would like to have a word with you about that. As would the many Senators who are paid to ensure that only well vetted candidates for each major party would ever get those electoral votes that carry considerably more weight than the citizens' vote in the first place, which is more a symbolic gesture than anything else.

Actually, the only one who expresses a view at length that is not also currently spouted loudly by anyone else. You can't say the same for the libertarians and anarchists on the board, so you do not yet single any of them out in this manner.

I have listened carefully and not heard any coherent message from libertarians and anarchists on this board.

Then you clearly have not listened clearly enough to Dante, Baldur, and JackSummers, who are libertarians/anarcho-capitalists. I wonder how you managed to miss their posts.

If I did, I would reply to it to the extent I disagreed with it. I can't reply to Dante because he doesn't stay coherent long enough.

Because you don't like to listen to him. He's hardly difficult if you read carefully.

How about e-mailing the numerous open political and sociology boards who routinely delete any pro-choice views spoken when this issue is broached, while allowing the nastiest things from the other side to be said

Another possibility to consider is that the view is wrong and people see that.

Or, of greater importance to the average person these days, the view is simply not popular and people see that. Just like most people in the United Colonies liked Britain prior to the days prior to the American Revolution. Or they are so absorbed into their personal lives that they care not a whit for any particular viewpoint, only concerned that their football games and soap operas air on time.

I think you've got some serious problems with your quantifiers here towards the end -- you know, "all", "none", and "some".

Says you! And why did you separate this section of your post with the dots?

calling us unfair and guilty of epistemic closure is the height of hypocrisy.

This is in response to your implication that NONE of the GC readers would benefit from reading my posts, that they ALL know these views already. I am suggesting that epistemic closure might be an issue for SOME of you.

Maybe for some of us who have lived in a cave, or the land of Oz, for the past 30 years. I guess that's possible for a number of us.

Hence, it's safe to assume that ANYONE on this board have actually never or rarely heard the anti-choice view, and have NEVER actually considered it. [emphasis mine]

I'm only allowing for the likelihood that SOME have not taken the liberal view seriously lately.

I'm sure if they haven't, they couldn't possibly have had a good reason. That's what they get for paying too much attention to the liberal view and actions over the past 30 years! For shame!

I do know many of them, several from way back, and I do believe I have seen more than enough evidence that they have adroit, reasonable minds that have long considered and mentally digested status quo rhetoric

Right, SOME of them are like that. But suggesting they are ALL like that isn't justified.

Then you have a lot less faith in their critical thinking skills and common sense than I do. Fair enough, I suppose.

but lurkers won't read a single thing from you that they haven't heard numerous times elsewhere in numerous different places. At least not those who weren't living in a cave somewhere for the past 30 years.

Not a SINGLE thing, you say. ALL the lurkers are exposed to these ideas.

I think "some" is much more plausible on all these questions than "all".

Do people in the West commonly live in caves, or get whisked off to Oz, for extended periods of time that I haven't been aware of? Or simply refuse to read any given publication, or watch any given news or talk show, for the past 30 years? I need to make sure I don't accidentally fall into one of these apparently plentiful caves or portals to Oz! Thanks for the heads-up, Ethan!