The Republican Party Going Forward

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, especially after the brief discussion in the Presidential thread, and I do think that we'll see a new party rise from the ashes of the current Republican party, eventually. Either the Fundies will leave the party or the non-fundies will, and the two will essentially form their own parties.

How this will help them though, I don't know, because they certainly wouldn't wield as much power separate as they would together. It would require a lot of work to convince liberals that their a New Republican Party, and I'm not sure how quickly they could garner support for their candidate.

And lets just hope that the future Fundamentalist Party never gets any power.

A farther move to the right would just continue their downward spiral into irrelevancy.

Many of the ideals social conservatives hold dear are now archaic and backward. Fighting progress has shown what has happened to the party as of late.

Hopefully Republicans will finally actually start being conservative.

It would be a welcome change.

What flavor of conservative?

Those waiting for the Christian wing to be torn asunder and cast out of the party are kidding themselves. They're the only thing holding the party together at this moment.

But they weren't strong enough or relevant enough to deliver the victory. Two elections in a row, now.

The Repblicans will drive them out when they decide they really want to play ball again. Up until then, any attempts to build a party around them will result in defeat. Their time is over.

When the "future" of the Republican Party is commonly held to be the Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford and John Thune's it's hard to accept your line of thinking. The Republican's lost badly in youth voters, women, African Americans and lost traction among Hispanics. They're going to go young, hammer away at Hispanics and pour money back into Ohio, Florida, etc.



One of the key's to watch is who takes the chair of the RNC in January. Somebody like a Jim Greer and I'll come around to your line of thinking. If it's Katon Dawson or somebody worse don't hold your breath.

Oh, they may very well swing hard right in the near future. I can see that happening. But they're going to have to figure out the fact that the hard right alieantes too many people, is too full of hate and too light on policy, for themselves. And they don't seem to be quick learners.

Soften the message and the rhetoric a bit and swing back a few states that went Blue this time and it's a different ball game. We're not talking about a candidate coming from the Quiverfull movement here advocating a theocratic state.

Put the message in some Populist rhetoric like Pawlenty seemed to suggest in an article I read today and appeal to the middle classes and BOOM you're back in the game. Wihout them sacrificing those lovely social issues they cling to.

The fact that they weren't able to even remotely pull this off this year, after two years of a highly criticized Democratic congress, means it isn't likely to happen. Not unless the Obama administration shits the bed so badly that we all start wishing for the glory days of the Bush administration. And I severely doubt that happens.

If you reap what you sow, then the (professional, insider) Republicans are going to have to deal with the social conservative wing of their party. Either send them in for deprogramming, or kick them out. Good luck with either option, they will not go quietly.

No.

I could if they could forge some new Reagan-esque coalition between the social conservatives and the small government types while offering a national face that nominally placated the Religious Right like Pawlenty.

Well considering that the grassroots of the party ultimately has more power than the Grover Norquist types, the fundies probably won't go anywhere.

I'm not sure what kind of magic charm the party "leaders" will conjure up at their strategy retreat. If the House GOP's bailout alternative is any indication, they're pretty much fresh out of good ideas too.

Most of Paul's supporters are young - too young to run for office or even vote, many of them - and have very, very little allegiance to the Republican party. In a few years, after the GOP has tried whatever it tries, it may decide to pander to this group, though.

I put my money on Jindal. If they could somehow tap the youth vote, they might stand a chance.

Honestly though, I think they may be plotting their comeback but I also think that a large portion of that comeback relies on an Obama screw-up or the continual downfall of our economy. If Obama is able to turn things around, I don't think any sort of re-branding will help the Republicans.

But I do think that they are going to turn away from the Rush Limbaughs and the Michael Savages. And that's for the best.

Downloadable Xbox Live debates?[/cheapshot]

You're right about Jindal. But no way the youth vote goes for him. Not with his abortion views.

I've been pondering this question since well before the election. The writing was on the wall several weeks ago, and the question I had was where does the party go from here. A lot of it depends on how bad they lost on Tuesday. And they lost big, but not huge. That distinction really matters.

As a moderate or a centrist (whichever term you prefer) I tend to get it from both sides, which is OK. But I'm a centrist because I'm committed to the process. Not just the process of deciding who is in office, but how they should accomplish both legislation and leadership.

I'm thrilled about the recent election for quite a few reasons, but the future of the Republican Party still greatly concerns me. And it should probably concern my strongly liberal friends.

I'd like to make a case for the importance of the Republican Party. A minority party is crucial to effective government. It acts as the natural check and balance to the majority party, right or wrong. I don't mean legalities like filibustering or getting a token vote. I mean challenging, intelligently, long held beliefs and philosophies.

Think of your values, be they material, music, books, philosophies, political beliefs. Experience has shown we value those beliefs strongest that we've had to intelligently defend the hardest. That doesn't mean softballs from neo-cons or the far right fringe. But measured and reasonable alternatives to a specific course of action being approached. In defending what you believe in, you examine it yourself and better your own understanding of both (or all) sides of the issue. It's a muscle, and only by using it does it get stronger.

A weak minority party provides ineffectual feedback. It becomes easy to defeat their criticisms, and so you examine your own beliefs less and less. You can then drift away from your core message, and complacency or corruption (historically both) seep in. And the next thing you know, the other party gains the energy and momentum.

So that's not really a case for the Republican Party. More of a case for the minority party (since we only ever have two serious parties...and sometimes one). A vigorous debate is good for the government and the country. It might be quite possible for Democrats (majority) to have that debate amongst themselves, but partisan angst and anger tend to force politicians into groupthink. This might not be a concern in the White House, as President-Elect Obama seems to strongly embrace the philosophy of examing as many sides of an issue as possible, but it wil be crucial in the House and Senate.

Politics are a sine wave. Democrats are clearly in ascendance, and can truly thank President-Elect Obama for it. Today it looks as if they'll have power forever. But that is never the case. In 1964, Democrats (with the righteous movement towards Civil Rights and the legacy of JFK fresh in their hearts won 68 Senate seats and 295 Congressional seats (for a 67% majority). That got chipped away pretty quickly.

In 1991, the media as a whole was holding a funeral for the Democratic Party. They won between 1-3 STATES in the 1980, 1984, and 1988 elections. The successful prosecution of the Gulf War and the end of the Cold War had rendered the left side of politics moot. Right?

But it's a sine wave. You can control it to some extent by staying discplined. A strong opposition party ensures that. A weak one invites certainly where there should be consideration.

So what do the Republicans do now?

1) Shut the fuck up. Now is not the time to play old, tired political games. It merely reinforces why you lost...because you lost touch. You don't pretend the champ isn't the champ while he is celebrating in the ring.

2) Send Palin home. I know she energizes the base, but she is incapable of energizing anyone else.

3) Keep a low profile for at least a year and consider, on the whole, what the values of the Republican Party should be, in line with their traditional strengths and the expectations of the country - which is still center. Look for positive differences with the majority party, not negative ones.

4) Don't pounce on ANYTHING in the first year. Make every debate and every vote. Every one.

5) Celebrate the historic result. Even though you lost, don't mourn the result. Bittersweet is better than bitter.

6) Find energy and enthusiasm in the party. Old and white and male needs to be at kleast balanced with NOT OLD, NOT WHITE, and NOT MALE.

7) Unfuck your immigration policy. This is probably the most important one. If you can't win a sizeable portion of the conservative hispanic population, then you are done. For good. Bush and McCain had the right plan, and your hardliners bent you over. They cost you FL at a minimum, and probably more. Go back to that. Immigrants are still open. Go inclusive for a change.

8) I know this won't happen, but ditch the extreme religious elements. I know they put you over the top in 2000, but...short term gain, long term loss.

9) Starting considering 2012. President Obama might be unassailable, even if things are only marginally better, but it would be a time to look for new voices. Focus on gains in the Senate and the House, and simply run against the Democrats, not the President himself, if you can. Consider it a courting period. If the President shits the bed, then go after it, but don't pretend he does...if he didn't.

10) Read number #7 fifty times. And then read #1.

Just some ideas.

Now, it's the moderates in the GOP who are at fault:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/...ion/index.html

If I would add a few things, I think the Republican Party would be a much more relevant and modern party if they dumped the anti-stem cell, anti-choice, anti-gay rights, and anti-intellectual aspects of their party.

Grover Norquist is usually a good voice for the party, but these freaks like Perkins are just a disgrace. Seriously, what the fuck is the Family Research Council? (That's rhetorical, I know what they do.)

Agreed, but I think that you're looking at an outright split into two factions rather than an actual transformation of ideology.

They lose those, they lose the evangelicals. If they lose the evangelicals, they need some way to make it up. They need to come up with positive ideas on how to make small government work beyond "cut taxes, cut spending."

I would like to think that such rational and reasonable opinions hold traction in the modern Republican party, but I don't believe it. The fundamentalists will manically cling to their dogma even as the water rises above Canal St.

I wouldn't mind that at all. The crazies have taken over the party and have totally ruined its legacy. They should stay in religion and out of politics. People like Perkins, Bozell, and the Falwells don't belong in American politics whatsoever. You can call it closedmindedness or whatever, but they represent the antithesis of true American ideals.

If the Republican party splits along that axis it will take a generation to recover. I'm a Democrat and even I don't want to go that long without an opposition.

They are the antithesis of Modern and Relevant American ideals.

To me, their views violate the Declaration of Independence itself. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Constitution is the skeleton, the Bill of Rights is our brain, but the Declaration of Independence is our heart.

Huzzah. Someone understands that the Declaration is always a relevant part of our national soul. Even by the mid nineteenth century, too many folks saw it as simply lip service that was easily undermined by the presumed hypocrisy of the authors and signers. Lincoln knew better. And so does Muharulz.

Let's hope this bicentennial reminds folks just what a real patriot looks like.

Spoken like a true patriot. Just bought my plane tickets for the bicentennial events in DC. It'll also be the 100th birthday of my late grandfather as well. It's going to be one amazing week.

If that's not taught in U.S. schools, it should be. Someone sig this man.

Thirded.

Let the religious lunatics have the stinking corpse. The (comparatively) sane folks need to get out. Start a new party, take over an existing one, but get out. Drive a stake through the heart of this two party bullshit once and for all. Once conservatives do this (and really, I think they're the ones who must get this ball rolling, precisely because they're Conservatives) then the Green party will absorb the more left-leaning elements of the Democratic Party in due time. Without the Christians fucking it up the fiscal conservatives can work more effectively on areas of common interest with Dems and Greens, and all three (or more!) sane parties can team up to administer the 80% majority beatdown whenever the religious freaks try and pull some dumb shit.

Now is the time to do this. There's no logic in the alignment between fiscal conservatives and social regressives, other than maintaining control of a two party system. Scrap that system.

EDIT:

I don't think there'd be a lack of opposition. But it would be an issue-based opposition rather than out-and-out demonization of your opponents as we have now (admittedly, the Christian Right is pretty demonic at this point). Perot almost pulled it off, but he botched the execution by, among other things, suspending his campaign only to restart it... and ultimately he seemed more interested in cock-blocking George the First with his vast fortune.

Great quote, Muharulz. I've never thought of it that way, simply because I consider the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the Amendments) as part and parcel of the Constitution. But it's a great outlook. I'd argue that Lincoln defined what America really meant from 1858 - 1865 in his many debates and speeches. Like you, I am planning some Lincoln vacations for the bicentennial. Since I live in DC, I'll be flying to Illinois for my trip, and driving to Gettysburg, among other places.

It will be an amazing year.

Done.

The Republicans should do what the European Right did to combat the pressure from Socialist and Communist parties. Kick the social conservatives and the religious right to the curb and move closer to the center. Pay some lip service if you want to give an excuse to the less crazy among them to try and maintain some proximity to power but do not under any circumstances make social conservatism part of the party platform. I guarantee they will become a 5 to 10% marginalized laughing stock in a few years time.

I used to live in DC, so I have some friends there I can stay with. My next trip after that will probably be Springfield some time over the summer if I don't end up going overseas to my ancestral homeland.

Now that we are talking about the future of the Republican Party and Lincoln was brought up, I think this is time to discuss how his memory and legacy could be used to bring the Republican Party back into greatness.

While his actions as President are arguably the greatest in history, I admire and love Lincoln because of the amazing human being he was and I think future and current Republicans can learn a lot from his story and his example. I know I have.

Besides his common held beliefs, Lincoln was a troubled soul. He lost two young sons to illness prior to his assassination and he lost his mother to illness when he was a child. He was distant with his father as well. The Civil War also played a large role in his depression and he in fact attempted suicide during his tenure as President. He was also constantly questioning the nature of God and the actual divinity of Christ. I think the notion of a man who questioned everything in his life as well as his purpose is a great example to look up to. Lincoln could have caved and backed down, but he was an incredibly strong-willed person that remained faithful to his cause as well as respectful of the individuals that disagreed with his views. I think Lincoln's example of the "Team of Rivals" is another example of bringing people together no matter their differences.

The Republican Party has completely distanced itself from any sort of intellectualism or the questioning of traditions from the past. Future and current Republican politicians should really question if they wish to remain the "Party of Lincoln" or wish to become this backward, fundamentalist organization dedicated to the removal of civil rights from people who are not like them, white and Christian.

Wait. How do you have a smaller government without cutting taxes and spending?

None of them would mean much of anything without the Reconstruction amendments. Republicans finally cut the cord from their origins when they nominated a man who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act for president, not when they allied with fundamentalist Christians in the 1980s. The migration of the black vote almost entirely to the Democratic Party is a reminder of their shameful positions on civil rights for the past 40 years.

1) They mean everything. They established, at a time when such ideas of equality were beyond being foreign, the very blueprint for what happened on Tuesday. Those documents have remained unchanged and are still vital and applicable to our world, one vastly different from that 230 years ago. Furthermore, it could be argued that the conflict presaging the documents and the words themselves are directly responsible for the rapidity at which the world has changed.

2) They either did that through ignorance (assuming it was GIVEN that white male landowners were only classified as the "we") or intent (assuming it was not given "all men"), and I ascribe numerous character flaws to the founding fathers, but ignorance is not one of them

3) You are correct about the 1964 election. But what has been rent asunder can be made whole.

Muharulz, even I would not dream of thinking that Republicans today can begin to claim the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. He was the very first Republican candidate and a gamble himself. But what a wonderful thing to dream, that the party could look at that man and his beliefs, and form itself around his view of responsibility and work.

It is no small thing that President-Elect Obama's primary presidential role model is Abraham Lincoln, a Republican. He was a man who treasured language and communication, who valued hard work and intellectual challenge, and who made himself better with doubt and conviction in equal measure.

I did not vote for Mr. Obama, but I think it's a testament to the legacy of Abraham Lincoln that on his bicentennial an African-American will become President of the United States. That I am very proud of.

You missed the point. They need a message beyond cutting taxes and spending. If that's their centerpiece, fine, but they need something else to say positively what they stand for besides "not being Democrats." In 2000 they had Compassionate Conservatism which was an effective platform.

Already the Repubs begin to fuck themselves:

Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader says

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I find it supremely appropriate that the head of the Family Research Council is named Tony Perkins.

Sorry, Ed. I beat you to this about 20 posts ago.

You're right. My mistake.