Why the Republican Party needs to get its act together

[Allen773]

I am plenty biased as a progressive/liberal/left of center Democrat. But while I disagree with the Republican Party's ideology, I have a lot of respect for many of its past leaders. Eisenhower was a great President. Reagan was amazingly effective, even if I disagreed with his policies. Bush Sr. was a skilled foreign policy pragmatist. Goldwater always stuck to principle. Rockefeller was progressive. Even Nixon was an effective President, despite disgracing the office in the process.

What happened to those Republicans? It seems like the party has been hijacked by religious fundamentalists, neoconservatives, partisan politics, and political stonewalling. I know a lot of former Republicans; not a lot of former Democrats.

For I believe, if the GOP continues on its present course, it will be marginalized and become irrelevant.

At that point, the Democratic Party will be the sole party in power in America.

A single-party system would be even worse than a two-party system. We've seen what happens across America, in cities and states, when one party gains complete control. We saw what happened when the Republicans were in charge of all 3 branches of the federal government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That is why an opposing force needs to be in American politics, to balance the system. That is why I want the Republican Party to have smart, rational leaders, willing to stand up for what they believe is right, but also willing to be bipartisan.

My $0.02.

 

[portlandatheist]

As a political moderate who voted for a Republican president the first time in my life this last election, I must say I totally agree with you. I can't see Republicans grabbing the white house in 2012 even if Obama does a terrible job. The party lacks leadership and I feel needs to reinvent itself. They need to do some serious soul searching as a party if they want to compete with the democratic party moving forward and they need real leaders and and not hacks. As someone who is growing more conservative with age, I think we need a good party to appropriately challenge the democrats in a beneficial way which isn't happening now.

 

[Allen773]

Maybe we can reform the Electoral College so that it isn't a winner take all system. That way, popular third party candidates can be competitive for the Presidency. I hope a third party trend starts with the Congress.

 

[FlamingMoe]

I can't see Republicans grabbing the white house in 2012 even if Obama does a terrible job. The party lacks leadership and I feel needs to reinvent itself. They need to do some serious soul searching as a party if they want to compete with the democratic party moving forward and they need real leaders and and not hacks.

Yeah, but wasn't this the general attitude regarding the Democrats in 1990? Bush was running popularity ratings of 85%+ and there wasn't any real viable Democrat to challenge him until some redneck hick from Ar-kan-saw took the job from him.

The point is that four years is a helluva long time for someone to emerge.

 

[Allen773]

Yeah, but wasn't this the general attitude regarding the Democrats in 1990? Bush was running popularity ratings of 85%+ and there wasn't any real viable Democrat to challenge him until some redneck hick from Ar-kan-saw took the job from him.

The point is that four years is a helluva long time for someone to emerge.

This is true, however, Bush was hit by a major recession and went back on his campaign promise.

Plus, Bush wasn't at all charismatic and didn't seem to be a leader. Charisma and strong leadership are important to winning elections.

 

[MattusMaximus]

As a somewhat centrist Democrat, I agree with the OP. My concern is that the nutjobs are too deeply entrenched in the GOP, and they certainly won't leave without a nasty fight. But then that could be a good thing in the long run if, as someone already stated, it eventually led to a viable third party. That's why I was so excited about the rise of the Reform Party in the 1990s, until GOP operatives killed it.

 

[cwalner]

For I believe, if the GOP continues on its present course, it will be marginalized and become irrelevant.

At that point, the Democratic Party will be the sole party in power in America.

While I agree with the first part, I do not agree that the second part logically follows for long term US politics.

The electoral college and geographical representation in congress both provide strong motivators for a two-party system. If one of those parties fails, the opposition will have a short-term heydey, but another party will rise and become the 2nd party.

This has happened several times before. If you recall the two parties at the time of the founding were the Whigs and Torries. Neither is around today. It is hard for us today to conceptualize this process since we have had two stable parties for about a century, but should the Republicans fail due to not being able to reinvent themselves, the natural forces of the US political system will bring a new party to prominence to challenge the Democrats. I estimate the Dems would have no more than 8-10 years to themselves on the political scene before a new equilibrium is reached.

 

[Upchurch]

What happened to those Republicans? It seems like the party has been hijacked by religious fundamentalists, neoconservatives, partisan politics, and political stonewalling.

Asked and answered.

 

[portlandatheist]

Yeah, but wasn't this the general attitude regarding the Democrats in 1990? Bush was running popularity ratings of 85%+ and there wasn't any real viable Democrat to challenge him until some redneck hick from Ar-kan-saw took the job from him.

The point is that four years is a helluva long time for someone to emerge.

Very true, a lot can happen in four years but in the near term, it's not looking good for the Republican party. Hopefully they are aware of their predicament and do something about it.

 

[INRM]

You know what I think...

I think people need to stop seeing themselves as "Good Republicans" "Good Democrats" "Good Liberals/Progressives" "Good Conservatives" and all that and just start seeing themselves as "Good Americans", and "Good People".


INRM

 

[Roadtoad]

You know what I think...

I think people need to stop seeing themselves as "Good Republicans" "Good Democrats" "Good Liberals/Progressives" "Good Conservatives" and all that and just start seeing themselves as "Good Americans", and "Good People".


INRM

Perfectly said. Agreed with in toto.

 

[Whiplash]

You know what I think...

I think people need to stop seeing themselves as "Good Republicans" "Good Democrats" "Good Liberals/Progressives" "Good Conservatives" and all that and just start seeing themselves as "Good Americans", and "Good People".


INRM

Absolutely agree.

 

[dudalb]

As a somewhat centrist Democrat, I agree with the OP. My concern is that the nutjobs are too deeply entrenched in the GOP, and they certainly won't leave without a nasty fight. But then that could be a good thing in the long run if, as someone already stated, it eventually led to a viable third party. That's why I was so excited about the rise of the Reform Party in the 1990s, until GOP operatives killed it.

No, it died because Ross Perot got bored with it.

 

[The Painter]

People don't vote for something, they vote against the other thing. People didn't vote for Obama, they voted against Bush (even tough he wasn't running ). People didn't vote for Democrats, they voted against Republicans.

Now the Democrats run the entire show. If the economy does not improve, they will suffer the consciences. When the next Congressional election rolls around we may see this happen, if there is no significant improvement in the economy. Wasn't there a campaign slogan a few years ago........."It's the economy, stupid."

 

[Roadtoad]

People don't vote for something, they vote against the other thing. People didn't vote for Obama, they voted against Bush (even tough he wasn't running ). People didn't vote for Democrats, they voted against Republicans.

Now the Democrats run the entire show. If the economy does not improve, they will suffer the consciences. When the next Congressional election rolls around we may see this happen, if there is no significant improvement in the economy. Wasn't there a campaign slogan a few years ago........."It's the economy, stupid."

Yes, there was. But it's hard to vote for the Republicans when they preach "fiscal responsibility," even as they perpetuate the actions of Sen. Ted Stevens (as one example), and his perpetual milking of the Federal Treasury, in spite of the fact that Alaska's sourdoughs are collecting big time green from the state's petroleum sales. Frankly, if they needed a "bridge to nowhere," why didn't they pay for it themselves?

It's further difficult to vote for Republicans when they support the continued lie that Iraq had WMDs, when it's now become painfully clear that they were incapable of producing them, even as Iran, which IS capable of doing so, is ramping up their efforts to enrich uranium. The party which traditionally did well in Foreign Policy has become so inept, in concert with their ignorance regarding Domestic Policy, that there's hardly anything to vote FOR.

 

[Merko]

The current trend is certainly that moderate Republicans have been ousted in recent elections (because they trend to represent centrist constituencies who nevertheless prefer Democrats when the general trend turns left). When they're out of office, they also lose most of their power within their party, which makes the GOP move even more to the right. This means they may become a 30% party if the current trend continues (with the Democrats maxing out at perhaps 60% and Republican splinters or third parties taking the rest).

There are a few other scenarios though. Although near-future Republicans with a mainstream appeal are unlikely to come out of Congress, that does not hold true for governors.

Another thing to consider is that while the GOP powerbrokers may inevitably be trending away from the mainstream, and while there is a natural tendency to purge your own ranks and remove unorthodox people, there is also a desire to win. Democrats realized this for years and picked candidates whose views are not perfectly in line with the party, even on major issues, but who stood a real chance of winning. The GOP may start doing the same, and although the people selected may have a hard time to get the full acceptance from their own party, they'll be given a platform to stand on, and one of them may turn out to be a political superstar.

 

[The Painter]

You understand nothing.

But it's hard to vote for the Republicans when they preach "fiscal responsibility,"

Tell me, who does preach fiscal responsibility?? Obama has been in office a month and increase the debt one trillion dollars. I'm not saying the Republicans were fiscally responsible. I have often said GW Bush spends like a drunken Kennedy. So tell me, who is going to be fiscally responsible?

Democrats realized this for years and picked candidates whose views are not perfectly in line with the party, even on major issues, but who stood a real chance of winning.

So you are saying the Democrats stand for nothing, no wait, they stand for something but will throw that all away just to get in office? Is that right? WOW


You still seem to think people vote for a party. They don't. They Democrats could have run a hamster and won. Vote against Bush is a vote for the hamster.

 

[kallsop]

If the republicans push creationist kooks to top leadership positions, such as Jindal, they deserve to lose. The republicans just ran a very down the center politician and lost. Tell us again why that's a good strategy? If McCain had come out strongly against the brain dead TARP scam, maybe he'd be calling the shots now.

Obama has had a rocky start and the Economic SwindleUs bill hasn't inspired confidence, but four years is a long time and the media will still be blaming Bush and republicans. I predict Obama will be a two term President even if we descend to Jimmy Carter levels of incompetence and economic meltdown.

Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire, raise taxes on small business owners (you know, those wealthy types) and raise business taxes. I don't see how that can fail to get the economy moving

 

[Roadtoad]

You understand nothing.

I'd beg to differ, but, whatever.

Tell me, who does preach fiscal responsibility?? Obama has been in office a month and increase the debt one trillion dollars. I'm not saying the Republicans were fiscally responsible. I have often said GW Bush spends like a drunken Kennedy. So tell me, who is going to be fiscally responsible?

If you recall correctly, he promised to do just that. It's one of the reasons I voted against him. (BTW: Like that "Drunken Kennedy" description.) But if you're asking who's going to be fiscally responsible? No one in office right now, that's for damned sure.

Remember: The Stimulus business began under Bush, and it was said even then that the price tag was only going to escalate. Hell, even Sylvia Browne figured THAT one out!

So you are saying the Democrats stand for nothing, no wait, they stand for something but will throw that all away just to get in office? Is that right? WOW

No, the Democrats DO stand for something. They've even been willing to state what it is they stand for when they run for office. Don't degrade your argument, and don't degrade the Democrats on this board, with a blanket attack like that.

The Democrats have generally stood for equality, at the very least, and they've made it clear they are looking harshly at the "profits at any cost" mentality that seems to run things in Corporate America at this time. (Yes, I know there's Democrats and other members of the left who have profited from that behavior as well, but we're discussing Obama/Biden at this point.) They didn't throw it away to win votes. In fact, one of the biggest complaints I had about McCain is that he stood for next to nothing, and Palin was so damned vague about what SHE was willing to stand for, her presence provided further evidence to the Left that McCain only chose her because she had tits and a uterus.

You still seem to think people vote for a party. They don't. They Democrats could have run a hamster and won. Vote against Bush is a vote for the hamster.

But people DO vote FOR parties. They do vote for platforms. Spend some time reading what Ben Burch had to say about what Obama represented for him. I didn't agree with Ben then, nor do I entirely now, but he's been very articulate in what he saw in the man and his party. Again, I don't agree, and I think Ben's conclusions about the end results are mistaken, but mine could be as well.

It seems to me, yes, a hamster could have won. Bush was that unpopular. But at the same time, Obama helped himself with a short message, with a limited number of goals, and a clear declaration of how he intended to pull it off. The Republicans won with Reagan by doing the exact same thing. McCain tried to reinvent the wheel, ignored what the bulk of the party - including the moderates - said they wanted, and was handed his hat.

 

[Roadtoad]

If the republicans push creationist kooks to top leadership positions, such as Jindal, they deserve to lose. The republicans just ran a very down the center politician and lost. Tell us again why that's a good strategy? If McCain had come out strongly against the brain dead TARP scam, maybe he'd be calling the shots now.

Obama has had a rocky start and the Economic SwindleUs bill hasn't inspired confidence, but four years is a long time and the media will still be blaming Bush and republicans. I predict Obama will be a two term President even if we descend to Jimmy Carter levels of incompetence and economic meltdown.

Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire, raise taxes on small business owners (you know, those wealthy types) and raise business taxes. I don't see how that can fail to get the economy moving

Well, the media's made it clear they're going to ignore the role of the Democrats in the housing market meltdown, particularly when it comes to loosening the restrictions on who could and could not get home loans. And an occasional token piece by Brian Ross of ABC is not going to help matters much, either.

It's also clear that the media will ignore the continued migration of jobs from the US, and the role major retail buyers like WalMart play in this game. It's simply easier to look for a villain, stick a stove-pipe hat on his head, and get him to twist his mustache every minute or so for the camera. (Not that Rush Limbaugh hasn't been doing that for years with the Left...)