1 edit
The Republican party in America is defeated, angry, divided and smaller than in the past. How can they recover? Some thoughts...
1. They must become more moderate: Bush and Cheney took the G O P too far to the ideogical right in there 8 years in office. Republicans that wish to win elections would do well to avoid this mistake.
2. They must become more inclusive: They must be more forgiving of those conservatives with different views on abortion, gay marriage, wars etc.
3. They must stop using the Holy Bible as a political tool: Many Christians (such as myself) are opposed to political parties pandering to Christian groups just to get there votes.
4. They must seek to include more ethinic minorities: The G O P makes little effort in this area, and until this changes, they will be no more than a regional party dominated by southern white men.
5. They must become more humble: This is not a trait Republicans are known for. Bush and Cheney governed in a very arrogent manner. The G O P was seen as uncaring, aloof, and unbending.
6. They must make more of an attempt to save American jobs. The G O P is convinced unbrialded capitalism (regardless of the loss of American jobs) must not be interfered with. This must change.
There are more things that could that could be on this list of course, but correcting these points would go a long way to making the Republican party more popular in America. Frankly...I doubt the G O P will make much progress in these areas, which is why I predict the G O P will be a minority party in America for at the least 12 years. 😏
3 edits
Originally posted by bill7181. Agreed
The Republican party in America is defeated, angry, divided and smaller than in the past. How can they recover? Some thoughts...
1. They must become more moderate: Bush and Cheney took the G O P too far to the ideogical right in there 8 years in office. Republicans that wish to win elections would do well to avoid this mistake.
2. They must become more ...[text shortened]... ich is why I predict the G O P will be a minority party in America for at the least 12 years. 😏
2. Agreed
3. I don't know about that. Evangelicals will always be the GOP's case for the the foreseeable future. As long as they do 1 and 2, they can and should still pander to your base, as all political parties must. However, if 3 contradicts 1 or 2 (i.e., if the base demands a 100% anti-abortion platform), the 3 must cave, at least somewhat, to 1 and 2.
4. Well, yes, but that depends on what it means in practical terms. If it means suddenly supporting state sponsored affirmative action programs, forget it. If it suddenly means supporting illegal immigration, no way. How would you suggest that we effectively recruit minority groups other than just being a good party?
5. I never really thought of Bush as being so arrogant (stubborn, yes, but I thought he spoke very humbly in general, well, after about 2003, anyway). In terms of governing, that's just a corollary to #1.
6. Agreed. However, protectionism will not work and the Democrats would make a grave mistake (which I don't think Obama will make) if they think that you can turn the clock back to where labor and many tech jobs were not outsourced to places where people are willing to do the same work for less money.
In Congress, the GOP was a minority party for 40 years until 1994 (yes, they occasionally took the Senate for brief intervals). It only takes one win in 2012 or 2016 to change the way things look. It might take 12 years... or it might take 3. It only takes one Ronald Reagan who could step out of the woodwork any day.
Originally posted by bill718The GOP needs to decide whether they're going to be the party of laissez-faire capitalism or the party of Jesus. The goals of the two camps are frequently incompatible. For many years they cynically pandered to the Jesus freaks to further the agenda of the plutocrats. That strategy paid short term dividends for many years, but in the long term it has brought the party to rack and ruin. Not that I'm complaining, mind you.
The Republican party in America is defeated, angry, divided and smaller than in the past. How can they recover? Some thoughts...
1. They must become more moderate: Bush and Cheney took the G O P too far to the ideogical right in there 8 years in office. Republicans that wish to win elections would do well to avoid this mistake.
2. They must become more ...[text shortened]... ich is why I predict the G O P will be a minority party in America for at the least 12 years. 😏
Originally posted by rwingettThe GOP will be just fine, eventually. The US is still basically a center-right country. The problem, as Bill718 alluded to, is that the GOP has become too exclusive and too intolerant of the moderates. That was fine in the early part of the decade because the US is basically a conservative country and so they could win without moderating. Now that they've fallen on hard times, however, the only way to win is to moderate. The Dems moderate, which is the only way they can survive, let alone win. If the Dems can be the party of Heath Shuler and Nancy Pelosi; of Jon Tester and Russ Feingold, then we ought to be able to be the party of Mitch McConnel and Arlen Specter; of Sam Brownback and Linc Chafee. Eventually, that's what will happen. When it does, the GOP will be just fine.
The GOP needs to decide whether they're going to be the party of laissez-faire capitalism or the party of Jesus. The goals of the two camps are frequently incompatible. For many years they cynically pandered to the Jesus freaks to further the agenda of the plutocrats. That strategy paid short term dividends for many years, but in the long term it has brought the party to rack and ruin. Not that I'm complaining, mind you.
Yes indeed - for an outsider, it is genuinely puzzling how the Republicans managed (relatively very recently but very successfully, as I understand it) successfully to yoke the evangelical and ideological free-market-ultra sides of the party. I think for a lot of people outside the States, that pairing seems incongruous...
Originally posted by DrKFHey, the Amish can square righteous living with running puppy mills. And consider Calvin's marriage of industry and predestination. There is no limit to the ingenuity of the religious mind.
Yes indeed - for an outsider, it is genuinely puzzling how the Republicans managed (relatively very recently but very successfully, as I understand it) successfully to yoke the evangelical and ideological free-market-ultra sides of the party. I think for a lot of people outside the States, that pairing seems incongruous...
Originally posted by bill7181. A movement towards moderation is typically important in the general election. During party primaries there is a competition to appeal to a majority of the base supporters. I think McCain was relatively moderate in many issues. He just happened to run in the wrong race at the wrong time. However, the way they're going right now that they're in the minority party role is a bit lacking in moderation, so I would agree with this reminder to moderate.
The Republican party in America is defeated, angry, divided and smaller than in the past. How can they recover? Some thoughts...
1. They must become more moderate: Bush and Cheney took the G O P too far to the ideogical right in there 8 years in office. Republicans that wish to win elections would do well to avoid this mistake.
2. They must become more ...[text shortened]... ich is why I predict the G O P will be a minority party in America for at the least 12 years. 😏
2. Agreed that a greater level of inclusiveness is a must for victory... you include more voters on your camp.
3. On net I don't think that it hurts them per se to represent religious groups who come out to the polls and vote for them in significant numbers.
4. AGREED, this would be my number one point. The GOP cannot win without a chunck of the latest immigrant groups. They've managed to split or gain with most Catholic groups in recent elections (rather than being the party of old white anglo-saxon protestants with money). The Latino vote has become active enough (formerly a sleeping giant) to outweigh the extreme nativist branch on net, and growing so with each election. Don't forget that most of the hispanic population growth now days in native-born Latinos. Latinos are concentrated in important states from New Mexico and Colorado and Arizona to Florida and Nevada. Yes, Florida has Cubans, but they were recently less Republican than usual after the recent political controversies affecting Hispanic communities. Also many Mexican and Central American families have put down roots in Florida nowdays too. Bush did relatively well with Latinos and his moderate stance on immigration, but after his party went after the anti-immigration vote in even its most extreme form, there was a noticeable backlash from Latinos that McCain could not single-handedly overcome.
5. Humality may be overrated, depending on the messanger. Perhaps less Cheney-type comments. Reagan was a proud Republican, but less antogonistic.
6. Completely off base, the GOP has to gauge the times and take action in times of recession, but during times of growth the free-market deserves equal credit if not more than for what it is currently attacked for.
Originally posted by sh76In response to #3, demographic history shows that the Catholic vote became a split vote, which is all the GOP needs with the Latino vote. If it can at least avoid the extremes from the nativist fringe and avoid attacking the friends and families of immigrants excessively, it can preven the American electoral map from looking like California after Pete Wilson's administration latched onto anti-immigrant commercials and propositions for their short-term gains.... California went from a light-blue state to a very deep blue state.
1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. I don't know about that. Evangelicals will always be the GOP's case for the the foreseeable future. As long as they do 1 and 2, they can and should still pander to your base, as all political parties must. However, if 3 contradicts 1 or 2 (i.e., if the base demands a 100% anti-abortion platform), the 3 must cave, at least somewhat, ...[text shortened]... it might take 3. It only takes one Ronald Reagan who could step out of the woodwork any day.
As demographic patters continue to diversify in the US as they have for hundreds of years, the party simply needs to adapt by appealing to the reason of members of minority groups... and without setting patterns that make minorities feel under attack by the party.
Republicans cannot afford to write off 2/3 of Hispanic voting citizens if they are to compete in the southwest, certain mid-western states, and florida.
The Republicans can and should once again seek to make the party a bigger tent... (how many states did McCain win again?)...
The comeback will take a bigger coalition to counter the emerging democratic majority that has been developing since at least the 1990's (minorities and tech workers in particular).
7 edits
Originally posted by bill7181. They were too far to the right? In what way? For example, as I recall both Obama and "W" are not for gay marriage. It simply is not politically expedient to be for such a proposal based upon popular sentiment currently. I suppose you could argue that "W" was against abortion, but how did that effect the right to have an abortion? Perhaps the only agruement could be made would be about stem cell research, which I think is a bit of a joke. Fically, "W" was worse than any liberal that has come before him. He single handidly doubled the national debt as is his predocessor Obama doing now.
The Republican party in America is defeated, angry, divided and smaller than in the past. How can they recover? Some thoughts...
1. They must become more moderate: Bush and Cheney took the G O P too far to the ideogical right in there 8 years in office. Republicans that wish to win elections would do well to avoid this mistake.
2. They must become more ...[text shortened]... ich is why I predict the G O P will be a minority party in America for at the least 12 years. 😏
2. More inclusive? As I recall, there are Repuclicans currently that are stong voice for abortion as well as gay marriage, however, were are the prolifers in the Democratic party? They are strangely silent. As for going to war, how does this make one conservative I wonder?
3. The Republicans chose perhaps the most moderate Republican in GOP history via McCain in the last election. In fact, the only chance he had was to pick a conservative running mate in order to appeal in some way to the conservatives in the party. Unfortunatly, it was a poor choice for obvious reasons other than Palin being conservative. As for turning your back on the religious right, "W" once said he would ride the religious right all the way to the White House and they laughed at him. This may appall people like you, but who do these people turn to for political representation? The all inclusive Democrats? LOL. In fact, the Democratic party is so dogmatic in the social policies that people ike Hillary and Obama had to turn to advisors to try and appeal to the Christian right to counter thier stingent dogma.
4. Even hear of Alan Keyes or Ms. Condolessa Rice or even Colin Powell? I think had Colin run, he would have given Clinton a hand full. In fact, he was quoted as saying as much. Its a free country, he could have done so.
5. More humble? You mean go around the world and apologise for the US short comings like Obama? "W" was uncaring? People that knew him say he was a very likeable individual and cared a great deal about those he governed over. I suppose we could both agree that he was misguided at times, but he had convictions that drove him. In fact, we all do. Perhaps what turns you the wrong way is that he had unbending convictions about things such as the war? No doubt, Obama has similar unbending convictions, but I suppose the difference is that you believe his convictions to be superior to that of "W". I will even go a bit further and say that had it not been for the war, you would not be saying this at all. Unfortunatly, the war has NOTHING to do about being a conservative.
6. Save American jobs? You mean like those that came before him like Clinton and his policy of NAFTA? If you ask me, if you want jobs in America make it financially feasable to stay there rather than feeling compelled to go over seas to compete globally. Instead, we have one of the highest corporate taxes in the world and then scratch our heads and wonder where all the jobs went.
In short, an arguement can be made that the exact opposite needs to be done in the Republican party. For example, they have seemed to abandon their conservative roots in terms of their fiscal policy and push of decraseing the size of government. Many have argued that they have become to much like the Democrats. For example, much of what "W" did Obama is now doing like bailing out corporations and spending like a drunken sailor and turning a blind eye to the border and, guess what, we are still in Iraq. In fact, "W" could never have gone to Iraq without the aid of Democratic votes to go in the first place. My friend, both parties are more alike that what you give them credit. I'm afraid you have sipped the partisan coolaide that prompts people to pick a party and defend them to the death, all at the expense of following what both are really up to behind the scenes.
the main problem with the GOP is that they've become the party of Scrooges and Stooges
1. One of the major reasons for Reagan's success was that he had an optimistic, upbeat quality that contrasted with the dour malaise that characterized the Carter years. Even where you disagreed with him, there was still something about him that was calming and uplifting.
so - you'd think the GOP would've at least been turning out a bunch of upbeat Reagan clones - but instead, we've had a parade of grinchy, mean, smirky, and angry types that growl incessantly about all those evil liberals and scary socialists - Even where you agree with them, there's still something offputting about them. Scrooges!!
2. The GOP needs to select competent people for important posts -- Sarah Palin was woefully unprepared when she was chosen at the last minute by a panicked McCain campaign -- much to the glee of Tina Fey -- and was Michael Steele really the best they could find to head the RNC? -- and then there's all the talk show hosts who never actually have to govern or craft legislation. Stooges!!
3. But most important -- the party needs to come up with some ideas.
If you think that "government" is the problem -- stop whining about how awful it is, and figure out how we can fix it so that it works better. Even if the size of government is reduced, it's still going to be "big" -- abandon the fantasy that all the world's problems would end if only we eliminated all the governments and relied solely on markets
education, healthcare, environment, energy, economy, infrastructure, immigration, terrorism, etc
we've heard the Democrat's proposals - many of them aren't much different from 15 yrs ago -- so it's time for the GOP to come up with some innovative, exciting alternatives -- something better than "tax cuts will magically solve everything" -- I would imagine that many ideas would involve harnessing the power of the markets and entrepreneurs -- but come up with something inspiring.
2 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesWell the main proposal McCain had that I liked was to go nuclear. He was all set to invest over the long haul in that particular alternative energy but the Dems think its evil. Granted, they believe the sky is falling via fossil fuels and we have only a few more decades to live on the earth because of fossil fuels yet nuclear energy is far more scary to them. Unfortunatly for McCain, he was somewhat of a liberal pin head when it came to cap and trade. Thankfully, we did not have to witness him passing that legislation. Now its up to Obama momma to pass that drivel tax legislation.
the main problem with the GOP is that they've become the party of Scrooges and Stooges
1. One of the major reasons for Reagan's success was that he had an optimistic, upbeat quality that contrasted with the dour malaise that characterized the Carter years. Even where you disagreed with him, there was still something about him that was calming and uplif wer of the markets and entrepreneurs -- but come up with something inspiring.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyany effort to move away from fossil fuels will probably need to include nuclear power, at least for the relative near-term -- the other technologies still need a lot of development -- but it was the popular thing to demonize in the 70s amidst Three Mile Island, and we need to get past this. The main issue involves what to do with the nuclear waste, since nobody wants it buried in their state's backyard.
Well the main proposal McCain had that I liked was to go nuclear. He was all set to invest over the long haul in that particular alternative energy but the Dems think its evil. Granted, they believe the sky is falling via fossil fuels and we have only a few more decades to live on the earth because of fossil fuels yet nuclear energy is far more scary to the ...[text shortened]... ss him passing that legislation. Now its up to Obama momma to pass that drivel tax legislation.
as for cap and trade -- this is actually a relatively conservative concept. The idea is to raise the price of fossil fuels - gradually - and let the FREE MARKET come up with all sorts of innovations, either developing alternative fuels or developing ways of using the existing fuels much more efficiently.
If the whole thing is phased in gradually enough, it will allow the markets time to come up with these innovations and the economic impact would be minimal. If the GOP doesn't think the current plan will work, they need to come up with a better one. Doing nothing is a lousy option.
in all likelihood, the sky isn't falling -- but if we do nothing and discover that the sky IS falling, we're in deep trouble and there won't be much we can do about. One of the reasons for the "hysteria" is that it's the only way to get anyone's attention.
But for me, the more important issue is that we can't assume that new technology will always find new cheap sources of fossil fuels - we do NOT have an unlimited supply -- at some point the combination of a soaring global population and rapid industrialization in Asia will lead to major fuel shortages and a major economic crisis that will NOT be fun - so even if global warming turns out to be a lot of nothing, we will still have made much progress towards minimizing this second problem
and for those who don't think either of these problems are a concern, there's also the fact that much of the fuel that we (and the rest of the world) uses comes from places that sponsor terrorism or are otherwise enemies of democracy.
1 edit
Originally posted by MelanerpesIndeed. All it took was for one mishap to demonize the entire nuclear program. Don't even bother mentioning that the US has continued to use nuclear power safely for some time now. In fact, that is pretty much all France uses now days yet they seem to be doing it safely. Imagine that!! No doubt, nuclear waste is a problem. In fact, ALL alternative forms of energy have prblems associated with them but is that a good enough excuse not to pusue them and continue to be reliant on fossil fuels? Perhaps you can somehow convince the liberals that it simply needs to be done. LOL
[b]any effort to move away from fossil fuels will probably need to include nuclear power, at least for the relative near-term -- the other technologies still need a lot of development -- but it was the popular thing to demonize in the 70s amidst Three Mile Island, and we need to get past this. The main issue involves what to do with the nuclear waste, since nobody wants it buried in their state's backyard.
7 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesCap and trade is a conservative concept? How is it a conservative concept when NO conservatives I know support it? Conservatives for the most part question the whole concept of global warming, which is still open for debate, as well as the notion we should gradually make energy unaffordable as the solution to an unprovable problem which is that fossil fuels are destroying the world. Cap in trade is nothing more than a tax on the populace at large and will drain us economically which will slow down business and inovation in general. All it will do is widen the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" and give them more control over the populace at large. My guess is that it will be too costly for most Americans to heat and cool their homes and too expensive to commute to work so the solution will be for everyone to move into the city and live in row houses like they do in Europe and use mass transit. Now theres a solution that makes the liberals salivate if you ask me. After all, they all want to be more like Europeans, no? Then once the populace at large is forced out of their homes and into the city the government can take all that land for themselves and do with it as they please like they do in Europe. Perhaps you think this line of thinking to be an exageration but what I do know is the thinking is that Americans will have to change their life styles dramatically. Not even you can deny this fact I think. The problem I have is that no one even considers alternativese which may thwart us from having to dramatically alter the way we live. Case in point is fusion power. If at some point we are able to harness it effecienty and affordably, it will be a clean never ending source of safe clean energy. In the meantime, however, we can go nuclear.
as for cap and trade -- this is actually a relatively conservative concept. The idea is to raise the price of fossil fuels - gradually - and let the FREE MARKET come up with all sorts of innovations, either developing alternative fuels or developing ways of using the existing fuels much more efficiently.