<p>
[quote]
I agree...it will have a role, but "in the end", meaning at the end of almost every fight, liberalism will prevail.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why do you think that is so?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Human nature does change actually. Yes, we may repeat the same mistakes from one generation to another, but the brutality of slavery is almost entirely wiped off the planet, except Yemen, and some African nations. Slavery was a deep rooted practice that ended, and it changed the world. Women never had a voice until 1800+, now they can vote and be the President in almost every first and second world country. Humans change. Cultures change.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Slavery was an economic practice that took advantage of the even ratio of performance to productivity; that is to say, slave labor was effective for doing manual and simple work, such as farming. It gradually died out because that kind of work was becoming de-emphasized. The world was moving away from an agriculturally dominated economy to an industrial economy. In the new industrial economy, slave labor was inefficient. Slaves had not the skills, motivation, or productivity to be cost-effective in the emerging fields. A similar pattern can be observed today in the services industry. Companies are learning that, by keeping employees well-paid, well-trained, and happy, they can reap huge gains in productivity and cost-effectiveness. This, along with a few other changes (particularly outsourcing and competitive pressures from globalization, as well as what Thomas Friedman has eloquently termed "flattening"), is gradually leading to another paradigm shift in the structure of the labor force.</p>
<p>Thus, it was not a change in human nature that was the downfall of slavery, but a change in the nature of the economy. Incidentally, slavery-like conditions are most prevalent in countries that are economically backward, and least prominent in those that have more developed economies.</p>
<p>As for the change of the role of women in society, you have a point. But I'd like to proffer an alternative explanation. It's been suggested by anthropologists (pretty persuasively, from what I've seen) that society was originally matriarchal. For some reason or another, this system was replaced by a patriarchal system that had an institutional bias against females (both because they used to rule and also because women are better child-rearers). Thus it is only natural that the system would eventually return to a state of equilibrium and balance.</p>
<p>Or, looked at from another perspective, this can demonstrate just how powerful tradition is. Women, representing about 50% of the population, are a truly massive resource for society to tap into. For millennia, this resource has gone unexploited, and human society has lost immeasurably because of it. It is so economically and intellectually advantageous to welcome women as coequal partners that it's almost shocking it didn't happen earlier. If heritage and culture could prevent such a massive resource as women from being tapped, imagine what power it has over relatively less important issues.</p>
<p>Again, I'm not saying cultures don't change. But I think if you examine their histories very closely, a fundamental cultural paradigm remains throughout. Japan, for instance, is seemingly very modern and Western on the surface. Yet look a little deeper and the fundamental power of authoritarian Confucianism and traditional Asian values becomes clearly apparent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the major issue for the next election will be the economy. No more Iraq this time. Personal accounts, social security, medicare, all these things, and taxes, and inflation will be the main issues. We are going to shift from foreign to domestic policy, which inevitable leads to a democratic victory. Its not a coincidence that those elections focused on foreign policy lead to a Republican win, most of the time, and those geared towards domestic policy such as 1976 and 1992 lead to Democratic victories.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Voters focus on the economy when its performing very badly. When the economy is copacetic (or, in this case, merely decent), voters tend not to pay as much attention to it. In any case, I think the intensity of the cultural reactionism that has been unleashed is stronger than during most of the country's history. People feel that their fundamental beliefs are being threatened, and that's a captivating call to action. Note the historic turnout during the 2004 election.</p>
<p>In any case, Bush is going to either lose outright on his social security proposals or (more likely) have them scaled back to the point of insignificance. Due to the forces of dealignment, he simply cannot marshall support in the senate, where the legislators feel at risk from local anger.</p>
<p>As for your point about which issues favor each party, I think it's a generalization that's becoming less relevant. The trend of dealignment is, again, a very potent force on this front. More people are voting split-ticket, and the parties are losing their traditional cohesion on the issues. It's certainly possible that, as a domestic-issues election, the Democrats will be favored in 2008. I don't, however, think that it's a provable generalization to make.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with your assessment of the GOP candidates, although I think Frist has a slightly better chance than you pinned him at. I totally disagree with your assessment of Hillary and Richardson. Hillary is very smart and very popular with democrats, true. But she is no Bill Clinton. She is a true liberal, and I don't think she can successfully sell herself as a third way moderate candidate. She's also not nearly as charismatic as Bill, which was one of his most endearing traits. But what really hurts her is that she inspires extreme hatred from the right--she is an incredibly polarizing candidate. Whereas Frist on his own would only attract a mediocre showing, having Hillary running against him would increase Republican turnout exponentially. It would be tough for Hillary to overcome this.</p>
<p>Richardson, on the other hand, is popular across the board. He's Hispanic, a proven moderate, intelligent, and non-polarizing; I'd personally vote for him over someone like Frist. He, not Hillary, represents a return to Bill Clinton's third way.</p>