Sane Republicans should leave the party now

[GreyICE]

True but everyone else does it so why not join the party?

Hey! You're being ironic! No irony in a thread about sane Republicans!

 

[RandFan]

Hey! You're being ironic! No irony in a thread about sane Republicans!

Point taken.

 

[Piggy]

-Rational Pro-Business policy

I suppose this will be differentiated from the current 'deregulate and feed money to business' policy, but I imagine it will end up more or less the same.

It doesn't have to, especially now, and particularly if you have a party that needs to differentiate itself.

On the other hand, since coalitions with business interests are necessary for national parties, and given our system of campaign contributions, all roads eventually lead somewhere near that camp.

- tempered fiscal conservatism

No more deficit spending?

I think pay as you go will have a lot of traction, with the understanding that we can't let "no deficits" become an absolute. There are times when borrowing is a better alternative than not borrowing.

But since fiscal restraint is a core conservative principle, and there are lots of moderates who reeled at Bush's excesses, yeah, you would be very likely to see that in the platform.

-a realistic environmental policy


I'd LOVE to hear what a realistic environmental policy is, because at the moment it's my firm belief that the DEMOCRATS are too weak in their stance, nevermind the destroy-the-planet party.

It's one that doesn't shy from the science, to begin with. Business got on board with this long before the GOP, because it is a significant risk factor.

So we're not likely to see the kind of pushback we saw, say, 20 years ago.

What would differentiate my hypothetical Conservative Party from the current GOP, as well as from the Democrats, would be an approach to environmental policy which clearly related the science to short- and long-term business and economic interests, actually connecting the dots.

You'd approach it like a SWOT analysis, essentially.

Things that are utterly irrelevant to government or that everyone says they do:
a willingness to compromise to get things done (yep, everyone says this)
more openness toward minorities (check)
a distaste for obstructionism (check)
an inclusive stance on religion (I want policy, not mantras)
a firm stance on illegal immigration that doesn't lapse into race baiting (Everyone is very firm on their stance on illegal immigration. Firm as a word means very little)
an explicit disavowal of conspiracy theories and paranoia (Waaa, people on the JREF think the Republicans are v. stupid)

None of that is irrelevant to government.

Compromise has been much more the norm in some other periods of American history, tho certainly not all. In fact, our current norm was born from a trajectory that began with a criticism that there was too much compromise, so things were getting too smooth and cozy, which can result in group-think, undue influence by lobbyists, etc. (The movement away hasn't solved any of that.)

So we're not doomed to the current status quo. It is possible to dial down the oppositionist rhetoric, and I think that would be very popular with the target demographic for a Conservative Party. It would be an asset.

Openness toward minorities would be crucial. That's a must.

There's nothing in conservative principles that opposes it, to begin with. And rejecting racism would help further distinguish a Conservative Party from the current incarnation of the GOP. Plus, the demographics are there.

As far as policy on religion, it's more what you don't do than what you do. I say, get rid of anything faith-based. Insist that freedom of religion can only exist when the government shows no preference. There are plenty of moderate conservatives who would applaud this.

Immigration is a tough nut, no doubt about it. There can't be amnesty, plain and simple. But there has to be a disavowal of Minutemen and their ilk. Plus, you'd have to relentlessly distinguish between the issues of "immigration" and "illegal entry and residence" in your rhetoric.

Til now, too many Republicans and Southwestern Democrats have taken a nudge nudge, wink wink approach to illegal aliens because of their economic role. But now I think people are ready to take it seriously, which is why I included it.

I don't understand your comment about CT and paranoia.

 

[GreyICE]

Okay, so the first substantial plank is gone, because 'everyone ends up in the same spot anyway' (if they all end up there, it's not a difference so much as the same exact thing).

You claim a balanced budget would be nice and new, but everyone wants one of these, until they have to make one. Obama called for a bill to mandate it, for pete's sake. It's a rallying cry that has no teeth, you're not going to sell anyone smarter than a leek that your new party will somehow do this.

And your new environmental policy would be science and risk based. What the Republicans claim to be doing anyway. Good luck getting anyone to join you on your quest for this.

The rest just reads like a laundry list of problems that the JREF has a problem with regarding the Republican party, with no real ideology, motivation, or coherence behind them. You'd like a Republican party that isn't a joke to anyone with half a brain, and are offering a new party based on no stated principles and no base - a joke to anyone with half a brain.

Frankly, I know Democrats who have all the principles you've outlined, why not just join the party and try to change the parts of it you don't like? The Democrats have always been very open to change. Why not work with a party that's become a success, rather than try and salvage something from an institution that took everything and turned it into nothing (gold into lead is quite a feat). Most Democrats are for a sensible environmental policy based on science, many want your balanced budget, compromise was a goal until the Republicans proved impossible to reason with (and seriously... they are), immigration stances are all over the board, and religion stances are again all over the board.

Why not work with a party that wants to help you, wants to represent you, and frequently adopts new ideas, rather than try to make a new party that does all these things, but also isn't those horrible Demoncrats?

 

[Piggy]

Okay, so the first substantial plank is gone, because 'everyone ends up in the same spot anyway' (if they all end up there, it's not a difference so much as the same exact thing).

You claim a balanced budget would be nice and new, but everyone wants one of these, until they have to make one. Obama called for a bill to mandate it, for pete's sake. It's a rallying cry that has no teeth, you're not going to sell anyone smarter than a leek that your new party will somehow do this.

And your new environmental policy would be science and risk based. What the Republicans claim to be doing anyway. Good luck getting anyone to join you on your quest for this.

The rest just reads like a laundry list of problems that the JREF has a problem with regarding the Republican party, with no real ideology, motivation, or coherence behind them. You'd like a Republican party that isn't a joke to anyone with half a brain, and are offering a new party based on no stated principles and no base - a joke to anyone with half a brain.

Frankly, I know Democrats who have all the principles you've outlined, why not just join the party and try to change the parts of it you don't like? The Democrats have always been very open to change. Why not work with a party that's become a success, rather than try and salvage something from an institution that took everything and turned it into nothing (gold into lead is quite a feat).

The first plank is not gone because, cynical as it may be, rhetoric matters.

Balanced budget is not new.

Whether or not the GOP claims to have a science-based environmental policy, the fact is that they're behind the curve and still are, relative even to the business community. That being the case, there's money on the table.

The rest of what you have to say is just bilous drivel.

 

[drkitten]

The first plank is not gone because, cynical as it may be, rhetoric matters.

But if all you've got is rhetoric -- especially rhetoric that's so vague you can't even point to something you would propose as a specific policy instantiation -- you're not going to get any traction.

What you describe isn't even the Soundbite Party, since you can't get the soundbites with platitudes.

Balanced budget is not new.

Exactly. Everyone wants it in theory until they have to write one.

Think of it this way. By definition, this new party of yours will at least initially be a third party. It cannot achieve electoral success simply by pointing at failures of the current adminstration. That's possible in a two party system -- "vote for us; we're different" -- but not a multiparty one, because the other opposition parties are also different and you need to steal votes from them as well.

So far, you've managed to distinguish yourself from the Anti-Business party, the Unrestrained Spending party, and the Environment-is-Imaginary party. None of which are going to give you the votes you need to triumph over the Libertarians, let alone the Republicans. At least the Libertarians can win votes by promising to legalize marijuana.

 

[Piggy]

But if all you've got is rhetoric -- especially rhetoric that's so vague you can't even point to something you would propose as a specific policy instantiation -- you're not going to get any traction.

You actually want entire platforms?

I can't do that, obviously.

But if you're saying that there's not an opening for the types of approaches I've described, I think you're dead wrong.

Sure, some of them will be identical in practice to what's going on now. But let's be realistic.

When we're talking about attracting people to a political party, how you package what you want can be as important as what you want.

I'm not an idealist, y'all know that.

But yes, there is certainly an opportunity right now for a Conservative Party.

Some of its platform would be rhetorical, but not all of it.

Take environmental policy, for example. Right now, neither party is even attempting to bridge environmental science with business culture.

 

[Piggy]

Exactly. Everyone wants it in theory until they have to write one.

Think of it this way. By definition, this new party of yours will at least initially be a third party. It cannot achieve electoral success simply by pointing at failures of the current adminstration. That's possible in a two party system -- "vote for us; we're different" -- but not a multiparty one, because the other opposition parties are also different and you need to steal votes from them as well.

So far, you've managed to distinguish yourself from the Anti-Business party, the Unrestrained Spending party, and the Environment-is-Imaginary party. None of which are going to give you the votes you need to triumph over the Libertarians, let alone the Republicans. At least the Libertarians can win votes by promising to legalize marijuana.

Are you kidding?

Beating out the Republicans and Libertarians will be the easy part.

The last 8 months' numbers show massive defections from the GOP, no gains for the Democrats, and very little influx to 3rd parties.

The defectors are remaining independent.

They're there to be picked up.

A moderate Conservative Party can pick them up.

And if it's done right, they can also pick up Reagan Democrats who would like an alternative, as well as moderate conservatives who have always been independent.

The challenge will be wrestling the Democrats.

 

[GreyICE]

The first plank is not gone because, cynical as it may be, rhetoric matters.

Balanced budget is not new.

Whether or not the GOP claims to have a science-based environmental policy, the fact is that they're behind the curve and still are, relative even to the business community. That being the case, there's money on the table.

The rest of what you have to say is just bilous drivel.

The suggestion that you join the Democrats since there's many in that party who agree with you, and work to get your voice heard in a useful manner, rather than ranting that no one represents you or understands you is bilious drivel?

Okay, got it. This is a rant thread. I agree Republicans are poopy-heads, PM me when you want to discuss it like adults.

 

[drkitten]

Are you kidding?

Beating out the Republicans and Libertarians will be the easy part.

... which is exactly my point. Beating out the Republicans and Libertarians will be the easy part, and yet you can't even do that with the platform you propose.

The defectors are remaining independent.

They're there to be picked up.

A moderate Conservative Party can pick them up.

... if you can identify some concrete issues that make you sound different from the other parties out there that speak to their core values and desires. But "intelligent pro-business" won't do that (no one is anti-business), nor will "moderating government spending" (again, no one is in favor of runaway spending).

You're talking about the equivalent of running on a platform that consists of being in favor of warm apple pie, motherhood, and baseball games on warm summer nights where YOUR TEAM wins.

As is, you won't pick anyone up because there's nothing in your platform that couldn't have come straight out of an Obama speech. Or a Rush speech. And it takes skill to be mistaken for both Obama and Rush at the same time....

So let me rephrase. What do you favor that Obama and Rush both oppose?

 

[Piggy]

The suggestion that you join the Democrats since there's many in that party who agree with you, and work to get your voice heard in a useful manner, rather than ranting that no one represents you or understands you is bilious drivel?

Okay, got it. This is a rant thread. I agree Republicans are poopy-heads, PM me when you want to discuss it like adults.

I'm not ranting that no one represents me.

I'm suggesting that the GOP has become a fringe party and that there is now a demographic of non-affilliated voters larger than any party which would be attracted to a moderate Conservative party.

I think that is true. And there's evidence that it is true.

Your suggestion that I join the Democrats is not what I objected to. Thanks, but no thanks on that count.

This is what I found ridiculous:

The rest just reads like a laundry list of problems that the JREF has a problem with regarding the Republican party, with no real ideology, motivation, or coherence behind them. You'd like a Republican party that isn't a joke to anyone with half a brain, and are offering a new party based on no stated principles and no base - a joke to anyone with half a brain.

The fact is, no national party can have a coherent platform based on consistent principles. You can't get the necessary coalitions in a country this large that way.

In fact, the primary reason the GOP is down to 21% is precisely its current insistence on ideological purity.

If the Democrats did the same, they'd fall to similar numbers.

Yes, I'd "like a Republican party that isn't a joke to anyone with half a brain". But the fact is, that's not what we have. And I don't see the prospect of getting one.

That's why it makes sense for conservatives to abandon the GOP and form a new party.

You may turn up your nose at a "laundry list" platform, but it's the only thing that works. Welcome to the world.

 

[Piggy]

... which is exactly my point. Beating out the Republicans and Libertarians will be the easy part, and yet you can't even do that with the platform you propose.

I disagree. I think that general platform would be attractive to the available demographic.

 

[Piggy]

... if you can identify some concrete issues that make you sound different from the other parties out there that speak to their core values and desires. But "intelligent pro-business" won't do that (no one is anti-business), nor will "moderating government spending" (again, no one is in favor of runaway spending).

You're talking about the equivalent of running on a platform that consists of being in favor of warm apple pie, motherhood, and baseball games on warm summer nights where YOUR TEAM wins.

Good God, what else do you think people vote for?!

 

[Piggy]

As is, you won't pick anyone up because there's nothing in your platform that couldn't have come straight out of an Obama speech. Or a Rush speech. And it takes skill to be mistaken for both Obama and Rush at the same time....

So let me rephrase. What do you favor that Obama and Rush both oppose?

What you're missing here is that there are lots of people -- and the numbers bear me out -- who aren't going to join Obama or Rush period.

Less than radical stances on immigration, the environment, and tax cuts would get rid of the Dittoheads, and anyway Rush and Beck would immediately excoriate any new Conservative Party that competed with the GOP no matter what their platform.

And a Conservative Party would not have to differentiate itself from Obama, but rather from the Democratic Party.

Obama makes it more difficult because, right-wing characterizations aside, he's a pragmatic centrist.

It's also very difficult now because deficit spending is a must.

But if you want an example of the type of platform, branding, and rhetoric I'm talking about, look at recent interviews with Powell and Snowe. For my money, they've got the winning formula.

A Conservative Party probably would not have wanted as quick and steep a jump in the minimum wage, for example, as the Democrats did (which is coming back to bite us) but also would not have opposed any increase for so many years.

A Conservative Party would likely end government participation in faith-based programs.

But of course that's all in my mind. If a Conservative Party were formed, no one's going to come around asking Piggy what the platform is going to be. It would depend on the leadership and input from those who join.

It's actually a bit silly to ask me what the platform of the party would be. I can only tell you what I think would work. But in the end, it would be whatever filled the gap between the public perceptions of the Democratic and Republican parties. And there's a very large gap to be filled.

Cynical? Yeah. You'll get no apologies from me on that count. I am not an idealist. What I'm describing is a choice for moderate conservatives -- stay with the failing GOP, or split off and attempt to form a coalition with independent moderates.

I think the latter might actually work. And I don't see the former working.

Btw, I invite you to read the Democratic Party platform and tell me that it's not a document of platitudes. Give me a break.