Advice to the republicans

Todays republican party is in much the same situation as the democrats were in the mid 80's. They are bitter and divided, they've lost badly in the last 2 general elections, and their party seems to have lost it's ability to connect with the majority of voters. The GOP would do well to learn the lessons the democrats failed to learn during the Reagan revolution.

1. Understand that America has mood swings, right now they are leaning liberal, just they tended to lean conservative in the 80's.

2. Accept your position as minority party without lashing out at the other side. This only makes the losing party look childish, and hampers their ability to win the confidence of voters.

3. Become more moderate. The Democrats in the 80's continued to push a far left agenda, this didn't sit well with most voters and kept the democrats out of power for a long time. The GOP must moderate their agenda, or they will continue to lose, just as the democrats did in the 80's.

4. Come together and speak with one voice. Democrats failed to do this in the 80's as social liberals clashed with other democrats who were focused on economic issues. The GOP is in the same situation today as tea party members clash with older, more moderate republicans.

5. Realize your day will come again. The only constant in politics is change. The mood of the country will change one day, and the GOP will be the majority party, and the cycle will begin again...

Originally posted by bill718
Todays republican party is in much the same situation as the democrats were in the mid 80's. They are bitter and divided, they've lost badly in the last 2 general elections, and their party seems to have lost it's ability to connect with the majority of voters. The GOP would do well to learn the lessons the democrats failed to learn during the Reagan revolut ...[text shortened]... hange one day, and the GOP will be the majority party, and the cycle will begin again...

This advice (particularly #3, become more moderate) makes the reasonable assumption that the ideological positions recently adopted by the Republican party (positions to which the Tea Party has an ideological commitment) are not ideological commitments of the Republican establishment. Basically, it treats the ideology as a horse the party is riding, and it tells them to get a different horse to get to their destination.

So where do they want to go? If the ideological positions are the vehicle and not the destination, what is the (perhaps hidden) destination?

Is it to benefit their funding sources? Or is winning for winning's sake enough?

If so, is it the same for the Democrats?

Originally posted by JS357
This advice (particularly #3, become more moderate) makes the reasonable assumption that the ideological positions recently adopted by the Republican party (positions to which the Tea Party has an ideological commitment) are not ideological [b]commitments of the Republican establishment. Basically, it treats the ideology as a horse the party is riding, and ...[text shortened]... g sources? Or is winning for winning's sake enough?

If so, is it the same for the Democrats?[/b]

Both parties are committed to the continued rule of the corporate class. The Democrats feel that objective is best accomplished with the carrot, while the Republicans prefer the stick.

Originally posted by rwingett
Both parties are committed to the continued rule of the corporate class. The Democrats feel that objective is best accomplished with the carrot, while the Republicans prefer the stick.

Clearly you have not become moderate enough for the average American. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Clearly you have not become moderate enough for the average American. 😛

I only appeal to exceptional Americans. Average Americans haven't warmed up to me yet.

Originally posted by rwingett
Both parties are committed to the continued rule of the corporate class. The Democrats feel that objective is best accomplished with the carrot, while the Republicans prefer the stick.

When you say rule "of" the corporate class, do I assume you also mean "by" and especially, "for"? The "by" may be a little indirect, but not that much.

There is reason to believe this.

Originally posted by JS357
When you say rule "of" the corporate class, do I assume you also mean "by" and especially, "for"? The "by" may be a little indirect, but not that much.

There is reason to believe this.

Huh?

Originally posted by bill718
Todays republican party is in much the same situation as the democrats were in the mid 80's. They are bitter and divided, they've lost badly in the last 2 general elections, and their party seems to have lost it's ability to connect with the majority of voters. The GOP would do well to learn the lessons the democrats failed to learn during the Reagan revolut ...[text shortened]... hange one day, and the GOP will be the majority party, and the cycle will begin again...

All it took for Democrats to regain the Whitehouse was a smooth talking smoozer to run for President, and that might not have worked without Ross Perot.

Originally posted by JS357
This advice (particularly #3, become more moderate) makes the reasonable assumption that the ideological positions recently adopted by the Republican party (positions to which the Tea Party has an ideological commitment) are not ideological [b]commitments of the Republican establishment. Basically, it treats the ideology as a horse the party is riding, and ...[text shortened]... g sources? Or is winning for winning's sake enough?

If so, is it the same for the Democrats?[/b]

I truly thing that charisma is the key to winning Presidential elections. Clinton beat dead heads Bush and Dole. Bush 43 beat dead heads Gore and Kerry, being only marginally more charismatic then them. Obama beats dead head McCain, and a confused Romney.

Every election is won by the more likable and charismatic candidate, well maybe not every one, but most.

Those of us who tend to be wonkish, thing that economics, policy, debate performances and campaign promises and issues determine the winner. In the end, a lot of it comes down to who looks good, and sounds friendly, to a host of voters who are mostly detached.