|
Soon after the election in 2008, I made this thread to ask what people saw as the future of the Republican party. My OP is below in the spoiler:
+ Show Spoiler +
Following the results of the election, many have asked what the future of the Republican Party will be. Let’s explore the thoughts of TL.net.
Will there be a major realignment?
What WILL happen, and what do you think SHOULD happen?
Before answering (to minimize stupid answers), observe these facts:
1. Neither major party is going to die or become irrelevant. They have been around a LONG time and have both been in worse shape that either is in now. Observe how the 3 elections of the 80’s (2 Reagan and 1 Bush Sr) all were significantly bigger landslides than Obama’s recent victory…and yet the Democratic Party is still alive—it just changed.
2. Political parties and politicians change to survive. That’s the way things work. Observe elections in the past where the only states the democrats won were the deep South. Parties do change.
I want us to explore the future of the Republican Party. I am not interested in hearing about how all republicans are brain damaged. Those posts reflect poorly on the intellect of the author and contribute nothing.
This doesn’t mean you can’t be blunt or even offensive—that’s fine. Just don’t say things that add nothing of substance.
So…lets hear it! TL decides the fate of the Party of Lincoln…..
EDIT: also feel free to mention who might lead the party in the future: Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Schwarzzenneger, Sarah Palin, etc.
Many political specialists at the time where making statements that "the Reagan era had come to an end" and many considered the strong democratic showing a sign that the Republican Party needed to have a major realignment in order to survive and that a progressive era was starting. Most here at TL (on page 3 in my polls section) were of the opinion that the GOP needed to drop social issues and neocon foreign policy and focus purely on fiscal conservatism to survive.
So, now that a couple years have passed, a lot has changed. I won't bother to post polls or articles, because as anyone who has paid the slightest attention to political news knows, this is going to be a good election year for the GOP and a bad one for democrats. The only question is how bad will it be for democrats. Will it be bad enough that dems lose the House, for example?
So, now that a lot has changed we can ask:
1. Did the GOP abandon social issues and aggressive foreign policy? Was there a major realignment?
2. What did the GOP do and why are they polling so well now?
3. What will be the future of the GOP? Is this just a transient bounce-back against a true beginning of a liberal/progressive era?
Further, please also discuss the Tea Party and its effect on the GOP.
1. Is the Tea Party here to stay or will it disappear very quickly?
2. Will it be a dominate force in the GOP?
Make your predictions here and we'll see how we did 2 year from now.
So…lets hear it! TL decides the fate of the Party of Lincoln…..
|
Hope Jibba doesn't mind me starting this off with some of his thoughts. He posted this in the election thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=80236¤tpage=114
"So my school just had a round table discussion on what the election means, with our professors who are experts in a number of different areas. One talked about this being a historic reframing election in that the Reagan Republican era is over, just as the New Deal Democrat era was over after Carter (Carter would've lost no matter what, essentially.) Clinton essentially ran and governed as a republican (he would've been a Rockefeller republican in the 60s) and made their ideas democrat ideas, which is part of what angered so many Rs. Now that this era is over, in order to survive the Republican party is going to have to restructure itself, essentially cutting off the current head of the party and abandoning the 3gs (God, guns and gays.) It's important to emphasize that politicans do what works, and this worked brilliantly for Reagan, but as we saw last night there's just no way to pick up enough electoral votes based on the deep south.
VT and IN provide examples for this. Even though they went for Obama, their republican governors were both re-elected. Mitch Daniels and Jim Douglas both ran on jobs and moderate issues, not social issues, so that's what we're going to start to see. Right now is a fantastic time to be a young republican, because they're going to gain power within the party, which they've essentially never had since Goldwater/Reagan. The Palin fans will still exist, but they're no longer the focus and it's doubtful we'll see her in 2012. What McCain really should've done was bring her out as his VP to energize the base, but a week later introduce his picks for cabinet members like Sec. of Treasury who would be centrists. The problem the party is going to face is that redistricting comes up in 2 years and with the Ds doing so well, they're going to position themselves very nicely for the next decade."
|
Parties have changed in the past the republican party of civil war time is more allied with the democrat party. They'll just make minor adjustments usually when partys become unpopular which i dont think the party has they just change to fit a bigger spectrum. They just need to be more moderate then the recent years have tried.
|
The Republicans are going to have to make some tough decisions, because they really are essentially three parties in one. There are the pro-business Republicans who just want lower taxes and less market regulation, there's the social conservatives who are focused on abortion, gay marriage, and then there's the neo-cons who are interested in heavy defense spending, a hawkish foreign policy, and imposing our ideals around the world. In Europe, there's no way that a person like Sarah Palin and a person like Dick Cheney would be in the same political party.
To some extent, these three groups can agree on certain things, like lower taxes. But then there's libertarian-leaning Republicans who are disgusted by the increase in government power under Bush, and of course the financial conservatives can't stand the huge increases in deficits caused by all these military misadventures. Not to mention that the pro-business policies of recent Administrations are very detrimental to the rank-and-file of the party. (This is all "what's the matter with Kansas" stuff that's been known for a while.)
Bush was able to get out the base because his conservative social views and personality were attractive to the social conservatives/religious right, and because his policies were strongly pro-business. The Republican party has been using social issues for a long time to motivate their base, without any real commitment or results in pushing these agendas. This makes sense, because it's fairly clear that long-term trends favor the liberal position on things like gay marriage. Does anyone think that the debate on gay marriage is not going to continue to shift towards acceptance and increased rights for gay couples?
Whereas it seems like most of the Democratic party, at least recently, can agree on a core set of principles (improved access to healthcare, improved environmental regulations, alternative energy policies, etc), the Republicans are a party that seems as if it's being pulled in all directions. I have no idea how this turns out, but I think that's the major issue that will have to be resolved.
|
Jibba mentioned that he thinks that they (we) will change away from the 3 G's. I don't think that is going to happen. As long as the courts are trying to decide things rather than the popular vote (abortion and gay marriage), people are gonna be angry and look for a party to voice their anger at being passed over.
I'll tell you what I think SHOULD happen. The GOP have always been reliable tax cutters. However, they have gotten a bad reputation recently because with those tax cuts, they don't cut spending. They increase spending just the same as Democrats. But the Democrats don't cut the revenues as much so the GOP is most responsible for recent additions to the national debt.
The GOP should become the party of fiscal responsibility. That worked for Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. I think people like that. They like knowing that one party is reticent to spend money.
Also, I see the neocon movement as primarily a foreign policy movement mirroring Bush's foreign policy. The foreign policy needs to change. We cannot afford to be thought of as the party of war.
|
i think that much of the Republican party's failings has to do with their being the party of "gut feelings". right wingers have almost been ashamed to appear looking "too smart".
i think the Republican party can't be afraid to show their brains.
Ultimately, i feel this country is a conservative thinking nation. if the republicans prove to be scrappy and resourceful during these lean years and serve as an intelligent counterpoint to the democratic gov, i think the country will swing towards in their favor.
but it's time to leave "gut feelers" like Bush and Palin behind. this is what particularly worries me about Palin's potential ascension in 2012.
|
On November 07 2008 04:07 d_so wrote:
but it's time to leave behind "gut feelers" like Bush and Palin behind. this is what particularly worries me about Palin's potential ascension in 2012.
I'm a Republican and I plan on opposing her "political ascension" in 2012. I'd rather have an analyst like Mitt Romney.
I think she is a good person overall, but you probably have a point here.
|
On November 07 2008 04:03 Savio wrote:
The GOP should become the party of fiscal responsibility. That worked for Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. I think people like that. They like knowing that one party is reticent to spend money.
This. Although I'm more conservative than liberal and typically support the Republican party (relative to the Democratic), it's my opinion that the Republican party is making terrible economic blunders by running up the national debt and spending like mad regardless of what money they actually have. Printing and/or borrowing more money needs to be greatly curtailed, especially given the current debt/economic issues.
The religion and big business associations aren't helping either, but I'm not sure they can be shed quickly.
|
For starters, I think the republican party in America should try being conservative.
|
you can't just give up religion.
but is it possible to be religious as a party and still appeal to the intelligent? i say yes; but no one's been able to straddle the two.
republicans are also gonna need to show if they relaly are fiscally conservative. and yes, going to war counts as a government expenditure
|
I want to support the republican party because I am all for lowering taxes, spending less money, and having less government in general. But instead of representing these ideas, the republicans of today cater to the evangelicals and the hayseeds of America for votes. I just can't be assoicated with those types of people.
|
The Republican party is the natural party that Americans want to be associated with. Its basic principles are more in line with what this country was founded on: individualism, responsibilty, equal opportunity (rather than Equal Outcome), limited government, competition, economic freedom, and faith.
They don't need to realign themselves or come up with something "new". They already speak to the heart of Americanism more than Democrats do. All they have to do is be true to their real principles.
I think this is what you will see. A backlash against "compassionate conservatism", and a return to the ideals that made it the Grand Old Party.
|
On November 07 2008 04:03 Savio wrote:
The GOP should become the party of fiscal responsibility. That worked for Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. I think people like that. They like knowing that one party is reticent to spend money.
I totally agree that this is the best thing for Republicans to lean on. Balancing the budget isn't a "sexy" centerpiece for a party platform, but I feel that it's something a lot of Americans, moderates and liberals included, could warm up to. Personally, this is a VERY important issue to me; even more important than universal health care at this point.
If the Republicans want to capture the center they need to focus their efforts here. As a liberal, of course, I think the budget savings should come from marginal increases on the top tax bracket, and a small increase on cap gains taxes, coupled with reduction in the defense budget and a general restraint on the growth in other areas. I'm not sure the Republicans OR Democrats could ever support a cut in the defense budget, but I think the Republicans have a better shot at being able to do it and surviving politically. Because the defense budget is larger than all other discretionary spending combined, any serious attempt at balancing the budget HAS to start here.
|
Remember these death knells were sounded when the Democrats lost the 2004 elections. Chances are, things won't seem as dire 3 or 4 years later as they do now. In any case, hopefully the idea that you can just appeal to the fundamentalist voters will die out, and we have some more reasonable candidates.
|
I really wish the Republicans would ditch the religious loonies and get back to the anti spending stuff. I have no problem voting for them on a local level, because overall, they tend to be better with curtailing rising budgets (but everyone just votes down the party lines like assholes anway. Dems stayed in power in the county, despite a 20 fucking million budget shortfall).
But I can't bring myself to vote for them in any capacity that will deal with civil rights. That stuff is huge for me, and most Republicans scare the shit out of me because they seem to think the bible is something everyone should live by.
Religion and politics don't mix, but over the last couple decades, the Red guys have done it. If the party gets away from the Huckabees and the Palins of the world and sticks with the more moderate, traditional guys, they will be a lot better off.
|
On November 07 2008 05:53 Savio wrote:
The Republican party is the natural party that Americans want to be associated with. Its basic principles are more in line with what this country was founded on: individualism, responsibilty, equal opportunity (rather than Equal Outcome), limited government, competition, economic freedom, and faith.
They don't need to realign themselves or come up with something "new". They already speak to the heart of Americanism more than Democrats do. All they have to do is be true to their real principles.
I think this is what you will see. A backlash against "compassionate conservatism", and a return to the ideals that made it the Grand Old Party.
That is the old school Republican party. Nowadays they are the neocon christian right, whos political platform is one of fear and hate and it has corrupted the party in a bad way. It will be a while before we see anything good come out of that party.
If you truely believe that some of their old values wee individualism and equal opportunity they really need to drop their whole anti gay policy.
|
I also think that the worst aspect of the Republican party at this moment is the seeming dearth of intelligent and rational arguments. I meet very few conservatives who can actually argue major Republican points in a reasoned fashion (Savio, you are one considerable exception to this). It seems like Democrats have recently been the party of the "policy wonk", at least up until the 2008 campaign. No one can deny that Al Gore, for example, is immensely smart and knowledgeable on the issues. Obama also seems very smart, although he has so far avoided the minutiae of issues to this point. Hillary Clinton obviously knew policy points back and forth, and would often bore people to death during the campaign by dropping endless strings of facts and figures on people at rallies. I don't see anyone on the Republican side who is comparable to these people. McCain is clearly very good on foreign policy. But for domestic issues, it seems there's a lack of experts in high places.
And Republicans will never have my respect as long as large portions of the party are so willfully ignorant on black-and-white scientific issues (evolution, global warming, etc.). I feel that the party would do well to cede ground on these fronts.
|
On November 07 2008 06:00 Hawk wrote:
I really wish the Republicans would ditch the religious loonies and get back to the anti spending stuff. I have no problem voting for them on a local level, because overall, they tend to be better with curtailing rising budgets (but everyone just votes down the party lines like assholes anway. Dems stayed in power in the county, despite a 20 fucking million budget shortfall).
But I can't bring myself to vote for them in any capacity that will deal with civil rights. That stuff is huge for me, and most Republicans scare the shit out of me because they seem to think the bible is something everyone should live by.
Religion and politics don't mix, but over the last couple decades, the Red guys have done it. If the party gets away from the Huckabees and the Palins of the world and sticks with the more moderate, traditional guys, they will be a lot better off.
QFT. My thoughts exactly.
|
On November 07 2008 06:01 cava wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 05:53 Savio wrote:
The Republican party is the natural party that Americans want to be associated with. Its basic principles are more in line with what this country was founded on: individualism, responsibilty, equal opportunity (rather than Equal Outcome), limited government, competition, economic freedom, and faith.
They don't need to realign themselves or come up with something "new". They already speak to the heart of Americanism more than Democrats do. All they have to do is be true to their real principles.
I think this is what you will see. A backlash against "compassionate conservatism", and a return to the ideals that made it the Grand Old Party. That is the old school Republican party. Nowadays they are the neocon christian right, whos political platform is one of fear and hate and it has corrupted the party in a bad way. It will be a while before we see anything good come out of that party
Yeah, the old school guys weren't bad at all. Even if they did eliminate the neo-cons, they are still, overall, a little too hawkish for my taste, but I'd at least consider it. Because right now, I basically scoff at the notion of someone who has the backing of that party running the country. I really think that pre 08 election McCain wasn't that bad at all. It was his pandering to the religious people that killed him with the independents. I still think he would have picked up the religious people if he stuck to his guns, cuz where else where they going to go? Certainly not blue.
I just wanna echo the comments above, that I don't hate all Republican supporters here, provided you can give arguements to why. Aka, headbangaa, savio. (hell, I hate my own who voted for no other reason than HES BLACK, etc).
And I certainly don't 100% support democrat. I fancy myself as an indepentent thinker. Dems got it more right, but I think that the government should be there to help you, but not totally prop you up.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 07 2008 04:03 Savio wrote:
Jibba mentioned that he thinks that they (we) will change away from the 3 G's. I don't think that is going to happen. As long as the courts are trying to decide things rather than the popular vote (abortion and gay marriage), people are gonna be angry and look for a party to voice their anger at being passed over.
People will be angry, but not enough people to win.
They alienate most moderates when they use these issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
