Future of the GOP?

[MattusMaximus]

In the Conspiracy Theories subforum there's a thread on the "birther" CT*, and in the course of that thread there have been some very interesting comments made about the immediate future of the GOP. Specifically, it deals with the fact that it seems the GOP leadership has lost control of the party, allowing a crazy mob mentality fed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh to direct policy...

An excellent synopsis is here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4961890&postcount=87

I'd be interested in seeing people's response on this post and their views on the immediate future of the Republican Party. My views are pretty much in keeping with the post above.

What about you?

*For those who don't know, the "birther" CT is a rightwing conspiracy theory which alleges that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen and thus his presidency is illegitimate. It is exceedingly woo-filled.

 

[corplinx]

The immediate future of the republican party?

Delivering pizzas.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Ouch, corp. Ouch.

 

[corplinx]

Seriously, the GOP is a complete joke right now. For the immediate future, I expect them to still be a complete joke.

However, I think Piggy's post was mostly fantasy. The whole "Rush is in charge of the party" was a Rahm Emmanuel talking point. Its being basically repeated and even expanded upon in that post.

The GOP was once the Reagan party and was successful. Then it became the Bush Sr. party and was unsuccessful. Then it became the Gingrich party and was wildy successful. Then it became the Bush Jr./Delay party and well.... look at it now. It was successful to a point, but only in the short term.

The GOP was most successful when there was an intellectual core. Reagan (shocker), was an intellectual played the "awww shucks" because national voters are largely anti-intellectual. Reagan took his ideas about the Laffer curve and the Goldwater conservatism and turned them into easily digestible twinkies for the public.

Newt Gingrich took the populist ideas of reformers like Ross Perot, merged them with Goldwater conservatism, and turned them into a populist platform that worked well in sound bites.

Who is the next intellectual leader of the party? Who emotes the vision? I don't see anyone stepping up. Does the party need another intellectual leader to win at all?

Newt is still around, but I think his ambitions get in the way of his judgement. His second stab at another contract with america including religious topics. "because they polled well". He is damaged goods and mostly has himself to blame.

Is Sarah Palin the gal? She keeps dropping little buzzwords meant to appeal to people who still remember what Goldwater conservatism is. However, its like hearing a hollywood celebrity talk about Darfur. They know some of the terminology, but it rings hollow.

Is an intellectual needed at all? Could a technocrat like Mitt Romney steer it towards victory? I think the last technocrat president was Jimmy Carter and look how that turned out. If a technocrat could lead the party to victory, I'm afraid it could only be Mike Bloomberg. Big problem, he left the party. Bloomberg creates the kind of inertia needed to make the squeaky dissenters in the party sound like faint echos. McCain did not have that kind inertia.

I see nothing more than being a mild annoyance to the ruling party in the GOP's future. Maybe they can try to upset some congressional democrat leaders in their local races to annoy them further.

Moreover, even if there was a new leader of the party, how do they break the new SEIU-Democratic Party-Acorn get-out-the-vote machine? It would take something like a historic economic crisis with constant mistakes made at the executive level to break that. I'm sure if that happened, they would be able to capitalize on it even in the shambles they are in, right? I mean, its not like we forced a US auto company to sell itself to Fiat. We haven't gotten that deep in the doo doo enough to where there is such low hanging fruit that any decent partisan could make a career off of it.

 

[Tricky]

The GOP needs to shake off the idea that Rush Limbaugh is their guiding light, but once they do that, they'll be okay. There is always an opening for "the party who is not in power" and the Repubs are there to fill that role. The Dem's won in 2008 by basically being "not Bush". A similiar strategy may work for the GOP if the economy continues to tank.

 

[kellyb]

It seems that, for the moment at least, mostly all the intellectuals have defected from the party.

I think now is a good time to have an enriching, mellow talk with the traditionally intellectual conservatives, and allow the crazies to have their crazy party with themselves over there in the corner.

There is almost certainly a great deal of wisdom the left can gain from the traditional "intellectual conservatives". Now is the time to hybridize the smarts from the left and the right, and let the crazies fade into the sunset.

 

[gtc]

Is an intellectual needed at all?

Serious question from a foreigner:

Who have been the Democrat equivalents of Reagan and Newt and who will be there for them in 2012 or 2016 when Obama is no longer President?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I'm still mystified as to how Reagan could have ended up being a political genius. I like Corplinx's analysis, with the exception of casting Reagan as an intellectual.

 

[Denver]

I think there are two GOPs involved here: one made up of the people of the country who hold certain common conservative values (the people-GOP), and one being projected by those with a strong media presence (the media-GOP). And I think this is a very bad situation for the GOP overall.

The media-GOP can further their ratings, their connections, their careers, and their own self importance (overall, their power) by continuing to position themselves as those that speak for the people-GOP. It does not matter to them what damage they do to the people-GOP in the process: in fact, the more the people-GOP are disorganized, kept in fear, and without a more centrist voice behind which to rally, the easier it is for the media-GOP to remain the de-facto example of what the GOP promotes. And that example is what continues to keep the people-GOP from growing back to the numbers it had 8 years ago.

It may also be that the reason (or one of the reasons) the DNC has had better luck with the public over the past years, is that they have embraced the internet quicker and more fully than the GOP. This would have been a bad thing for the media-GOP to do too soon, as it could have revealed the rift between the media-GOP and the people-GOP too early for the media-GOP to get into the position it is now. Keeping the people from talking too much to each other, and instead listening to media-GOP for its news and talking points (and thinking points), is more conducive to media-GOP power.

But this will also eventually be the down-fall of the media-GOP. When it has sufficient confidence in its power over the minds of the people-GOP, it will try to organize them further, get them talking to each other, acting on their own. And as they happens, I feel the capabilities of independent courageous reason, that is a hallmark of the best of humanity, will again resurface and be directed toward the problems of the country, and the problems of the GOP, and specifically at the media-GOP. New leaders will emerge. And the people-GOP (which has never really gone away) will again take its place as an important and vital force in American politics.

But until then, fear-mongering will continue to get great ratings.

 

[applecorped]

But until then, fear-mongering will continue to get great ratings.

 

[JihadJane]

*For those who don't know, the "birther" CT is a rightwing conspiracy theory which alleges that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen and thus his presidency is illegitimate. It is exceedingly woo-filled.

How is that a "conspiracy theory"?

 

[GreNME]

Is an intellectual needed at all? Could a technocrat like Mitt Romney steer it towards victory? I think the last technocrat president was Jimmy Carter and look how that turned out. If a technocrat could lead the party to victory, I'm afraid it could only be Mike Bloomberg. Big problem, he left the party. Bloomberg creates the kind of inertia needed to make the squeaky dissenters in the party sound like faint echos. McCain did not have that kind inertia.

I see nothing more than being a mild annoyance to the ruling party in the GOP's future. Maybe they can try to upset some congressional democrat leaders in their local races to annoy them further.

Moreover, even if there was a new leader of the party, how do they break the new SEIU-Democratic Party-Acorn get-out-the-vote machine? It would take something like a historic economic crisis with constant mistakes made at the executive level to break that. I'm sure if that happened, they would be able to capitalize on it even in the shambles they are in, right? I mean, its not like we forced a US auto company to sell itself to Fiat. We haven't gotten that deep in the doo doo enough to where there is such low hanging fruit that any decent partisan could make a career off of it.

Very astute assessment, and my hope is that the current antics of the louder and more ridiculous GOP-ers continues to run its course for long enough to marginalize the extreme partisans and allow the party to get back to more intellectual roots. I think an intellectual technocrat might be just the thing for the party, if it can take hold. I don't think Romney (at least in his current state) is the person to do that, though.

For the record, I think Bush Sr.'s methods were pretty smart. His miscalculation was that he was willing to compromise (due to pragmatism) and that counted against him in the general election due not only to Slick Willy playing the "aw shucks" card better, but also due to the populism of Perot undercutting much of what would have been Republican talking points. Reagan and Bush Jr. (and Clinton and Carter) never had to face that kind of mid-term election.

 

[Brainster]

Those of us with memories that stretch back more than the last election cycle may remember that pundits were speculating about the death of the Democrats after 2002 and 2004. Those reports proved premature.

I anticipate the GOP gaining back some seats in 2010; there is a definite trend towards a "throw the bums out" mentality in the public. Look at Corzine and Dodd, two Democratic incumbents in Democratic strongholds; both of them are starting to look like blood in the water. 2012? Too early to tell. If Obama gets the economy on track again, then he'll probably be reelected; if not he'll probably go down in flames like Jimmy Carter and Bush I. Presidential reelections are always about the current occupant of the White House, not about the party out of power.

The "Birther" thing doesn't matter. I would remind people that according to some polls, 35% of all Democrats were 9-11 Troofers (LIHOP) as of 2007. Somehow the party managed to overcome the dimwits in their midst.

 

[JihadJane]

The "Birther" thing doesn't matter. I would remind people that according to some polls, 35% of all Democrats were 9-11 Troofers (LIHOP) as of 2007. Somehow the party managed to overcome the dimwits in their midst.

Just say the magic word.

 

[DavidJames]

T I would remind people that according to some polls, 35% of all Democrats were 9-11 Troofers (LIHOP) as of 2007.

And such polls were correctly labeled as ********. The fact that you bring it up proves how intellectually and ethically bankrupt many Republicans really are.

 

[Marc39]

If healthcare reform fails, and it currently appears that it will, Obama is toast. Republicans shall rise, again.

 

[corplinx]

I'm still mystified as to how Reagan could have ended up being a political genius. I like Corplinx's analysis, with the exception of casting Reagan as an intellectual.

If you are really interested, try reading up on Ronald Reagan sometime. He was much more than the cardboard cutout he was portrayed as sometimes.

It seems as if we judge our historical figures these days based on how they are portrayed on SNL......

 

[Fordama]

If healthcare reform fails, and it currently appears that it will, Obama is toast. Republicans shall rise, again.

If you mean that if it is implemented and fails then I agree. If it fails to pass, then I disagree. It is still quite some time before the next election cycle, and not having a policy implemented because too many people don't like it won't lose an election.

What is likely to cause Obama to lose is if the major initiatives he wants both pass and turn out to be poor law. Passing huge pieces of legislation in a short amount of time--such as the proposed health care reforms and cap and trade--is risky in that they could be very flawed pieces of legislation with any number of unintended negative consequences.

Fordama

 

[Marc39]

If you mean that if it is implemented and fails then I agree. If it fails to pass, then I disagree. It is still quite some time before the next election cycle, and not having a policy implemented because too many people don't like it won't lose an election.

What is likely to cause Obama to lose is if the major initiatives he wants both pass and turn out to be poor law. Passing huge pieces of legislation in a short amount of time--such as the proposed health care reforms and cap and trade--is risky in that they could be very flawed pieces of legislation with any number of unintended negative consequences.

Fordama

Well, healthcare reform was Obama's foundational "change we could believe in" and if it fails to pass, it will have been a huge embarrassment and defeat. To borrow from Junior Soprano, he couldn't sell it. Obama's credibility in steering the economy is diminished, despite a rise in the equity markets, and unemployment is not waning. Pelosi and Reid are detested by the American public, not merely unpopular. Happy days will soon be here, again, for the GOP.

 

[Denver]

If healthcare reform fails, and it currently appears that it will, Obama is toast. Republicans shall rise, again.

I'm pretty sure the GOP will regain some position as time goes by. Since it had been a long time incumbent, there where many more targets to take advantage of, as opposed to those targets in Democratic circles.

So in 2010, it will depend, again, on the targets of opportunity at that time. Health care may be an important one. The state of Iraq and Afghanistan may be another. And the overall economy. And so on (including issues we may not even know about yet).

But, the last targets used against the GOP will also still be available. And of course, the GOP candidates in 2010 will have a lot, perhaps most, of the decision influence. Even if the current administration's performance rates a grade of C by 2010, if the new GOP candidates are similar to the last ones, or are reactionary candidates put forth by the non-majority of republicans, then even if healthcare tanks, it could be far from the deciding issue.