What the hell happened to the Republican party?

[ZenFountain]

It's funny that both parties like to envision themselves as standards of some great, yet seemingly unknowable purpose. The Democratic party is no longer the part of FDR and the GOP is no longer the party of Ronald Reagan, they need to get over it. Every election is a party realignment because every four years there are new problems, new challenges and new circumstances the party needs to run on if they hope to win.

The current challenge the Republican party is facing is that over the last three decades they have pushed moderates out of their ranks in an idiotic attempt to purify the party. For example, you can be pro-life in the Democratic party and it's generally accepted, you cannot be pro-choice in the Republican party without being labeled anything from a RHINO to the Antichrist. Because of this hard line on social issues New England and the West Coast have largely closed their doors to Republican presidents where they might otherwise have a shot. Intellectuals in the party are turned off by the "anti-science, redneck Jesus freaks" and fiscal conservatives are horrified by the ballooning deficit.

That doesn't mean disenchanted Republicans come running to the Democratic party, but it does mean they just might not vote, which is the worst possible outcome when the opposition outnumbers you by 35% in registered voters and is undertaking the Manhattan Project of new voter registration. It doesn't help when your party has militant anti-immigration voices like Tom Tancredo that are basically driving the rising Latino vote to the Democratic party at gunpoint either.

So, that's what happened to the Republican party. They can't win a war of attrition over the long haul and right when they needed someone to transform the party into a new brand that could have easily crushed a lackluster Democratic party, they got George W. Bush.

 

[Skeptic]

My problem with Obama is that for all his smiles and charisma, he is obviously merely a charming charlatan who gets by using the charlatan's usual method of telling people what they want to hear. Of course, that hardly means he's a "terorrist" or a "secret Muslim" or "not native born" or, for that matter, much different than most other politicians. It doesn't even mean that, if elected, he will do a bad job. I think he will -- due to inexperience -- but, perhaps he'll surprise us.

He reminds me in many ways of Clinton: also a man with, at the time of his election, not too much achievement for the highest post in the land, but charming and charismatic and optimistic about "change". Still, Clinton turned out to be a very good president -- mostly by learning quickly, being intelligent, acting as a centrist, and deeply disappointing the "base" of 1960s rejects who were looking for a "radical" president who will finally "show the evil Republicans" what's what.

If elected, it's possible Obama will do the same. I think that this is the main reason many people who support Obama are not concerned with his undeniable connections to radicals. They think, perhaps correctly, that Obama as president will deeply disappoint those radicals who think he's going to start some sort of socialist revolution.

 

[Skeptic]

The Democratic party is no longer the part of FDR and the GOP is no longer the party of Ronald Reagan, they need to get over it.

What, and doubt their own greatness???

 

[jberryhill]

Obama as president will deeply disappoint those radicals who think he's going to start some sort of socialist revolution.

Do these radicals hang out on the internet and post these sorts of aspirations?

I'd love to see socialist radicals who believe this, or any factual basis for your belief that these interesting creatures even exist.

 

[Eddie Dane]

No, I'll educate you.

1. Copy the text I wrote.

2. Paste it into your reply space.

3. Type into the space, before the words you wish to quote, "quote=Darth Rotor" with a bracket ( [ ) at each end, used as parens are.
{quote=Darth Rotor} is how it will look. (If you substitute the [ class of char for the { class of char)

4. At the end of the desired text, put in {/quote} (again, with [ class replacing { class of character, and you will get a lovely quote box.

Irrelevant speculation, as useful as comparing apricots to passenger jets.
You don't seem to understand my response very well, nor do you seem to grasp how job interviews and resumes are linked, nor how useless comparing an election process to a hiring-and-firing process is. (Or you do, and you are just being sloppy. It happens.)

Tell ya what, I'll restate "resume ploy" as "fantasy hiring scenario" to be more in line with your original words.

Or do you hire people without reading their resumes?

Actually, I was trying to get you to clear up what you meant, and you ducked into "you're picking on me" mode.

No problems. More fun in the future.

Oh, and since I have not yet so offered, welcome!

Sorry if I overreacted a bit.

Analogies serve to illustrate the point. Arguing over them is usually a derail anyway.

Thanks for the instructions and the welcome.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Lots of good answers so far!

And indeed: Kathy and MaGZ are especially enlightening.

So, there is nowhere to turn for the classic conservatives?
Americans have the choice between rapture believers and social democrats?

If I lived in the states, I'd vote Obama.
But only because the dominant forces in the GOP are hateful extremist and "my kind" of conservatives have disappeared into thin air.

Note that I don't think Obama is Jesus or something. Here in Holland we have a much broader choice of parties and I would NEVER vote social democrat.
Even though they have gone all Tony Blair and have abandoned idiotic economic policy.

Doesn't the situation in the US leave the field open for an alternative to the GOP?
A party based on the classical conservative values? Small government (for real, not just a slogan), fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, personal responsibility etc.

Would it have a chance? And crucial to this question: how big a component are the extremists in the GOP's voter base?

 

[The Painter]

But only because the dominant forces in the GOP are hateful extremist

What hateful extremists? Who told you they are a dominate force? I haven't seen them.

 

[The Painter]

I'd love to see socialist radicals who believe this

Go to the next TAM

 

[negativ]

I'm not sure exactly when zealous anti-intellectualism became a pillar of the Republican platform, but my guess is somewhere around the time when Jerry Falwell delivered a brand new chunk of voters in the form of fundamentalist Christian social conservatives.

I remember when we covered (sort of) the Apollo program in elementary school. The US was portrayed as being the go-to place if you wanted to learn to do some rockin' awesome science and become one of the smartest people in the world.

Now, somehow, visionary science is suspect, intellectuals are demonized as "elites" (since when is it bad to be elite?!), and average "Joe Sixpack" mediocrity is celebrated as the most vital asset the country has.

I think it's pretty damned sad that the US doesn't have 5 LHCs and a base on Mars.

 

[AWPrime]

God has always been an important part of the US since it's beginning until the past 100 years or so when all these rebellous leaders started trying to take God out of the picture.

Nope only for a small group. But most people during the founding were less religious. The fundie fever is just the result of the red scare.

 

[Tailgater]

Sigh.

So, when I was younger, the big differences between the GOP and the Democratic party were that: 1) The Republicans were fiscally conservative (didn't like deficit spending or any optional government programs) and thought people should manage their own lives and the government should leave them alone. 2) The Democrats believed in the "Great Society", where an enlightened government would step in and make life better for the poor, downtrodden, and discriminated-against by using the government's powers and money to bring the bottom up. To do this, they'd have to spend lots of money, so they believed in Big Taxes. ........<snip>

That was a great post.

 

[Tricky]

Lots of good answers so far!

And indeed: Kathy and MaGZ are especially enlightening.

So, there is nowhere to turn for the classic conservatives?
Americans have the choice between rapture believers and social democrats?

Sadly, no. Oh sure, there are plenty of "classic conservatives" in the GOP, but they are sleeping with the devil.

This happened in about 1979 when Jerry Falwell organized the Moral Majority which delivered practically every evangelist-lover's vote in the country to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election. Before this time, evangelicals had been pretty much split. Since then, they have been drunk with power. They have demanded and received the promise of overt Christianity from every president since then. (Some have delivered on that promise more than others.)

One apparent side effect of this revolution was to embolden the more fanatical elements of the Republican party, some of which overlapped the Christian element, but incompletely. It was also in 1980 that the National Rifle Association first endorsed a presidential candidate, Reagan again. Once again, the voices of responsible gun-owners were out-shouted by the screech of para-military loonies yelling "cold dead fingers."

These one-issue voters have turned the Republican party from a big tent into a bunch of cheap sideshows, each touting it's own over-the-top agenda.

The good news is that with the nomination of McCain, it looks like mainstream Republicans are starting to once again take control of their party. As you can see by a few of the more... erm... enthusiastic supporters of the GOP that we have on these boards, the reclamation project is not complete. Who can know when it will be... if ever.

 

[davefoc]

I have transitioned from a pure Republican voter to an individual that votes for Democrats on the national level and Republicans on the state level. I will vote for Obama this year.

I tend to agree with many of the things said here.

But another thought I've had is that the Republican Party may not have changed as much as it seems. The legislators from both parties are and always have been corrupt with loyalties to localities, parties, and connected special interests that often conflict with any loyalties to the general interest.

One obvious constraint on the corruption of congress is that if the ruling party screws up badly many of their members won't be reelected. But this is a slow acting effect and gerrymandering has made it even less effective than it might have been in the past. The primary constraint on the corruption of congress in the short term is the president.

And that constraint almost didn't exist on congress for a good part of the Bush administration as legislators were given massive pork and other favors in return for allowing the Bush administration free rein. Karl Rove and Dick Cheney each had their own agendas neither of which has proved beneficial to the general interest. Rove saw his position to shape policy as an opportunity to implement his partisan agenda and Cheney saw his position as a chance to implement his ideas about corporate aristocracies and militaristic foreign policy.

The net effect was amazingly bad governance, but was that because the Republican Party had changed or was that because George Bush proved to be a uniquely bad president? I think it was more of the latter than the former.

 

[Eddie Dane]

But why are they sleeping with the devil?

There is nothing to like in the GOP for classic conservatives:
The Dems aren't anti-gun, anti-Christian, anti-militairy are they?

Aside from all the rhetoric, the Dems are also more fiscally responsible.
I once read that historically, the Dems have ended each term with a surplus and the GOP with a deficit. (is this true? Didn't check)

The GOP has also created a huge government, but still campaigns on the "small government" ticket.

 

[davefoc]

...

Doesn't the situation in the US leave the field open for an alternative to the GOP?
A party based on the classical conservative values? Small government (for real, not just a slogan), fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, personal responsibility etc.

Would it have a chance? And crucial to this question: how big a component are the extremists in the GOP's voter base?

It is tempting to think that some kind of secular small government political movement might arise in the US or at least that Republican Party might move more in that direction. I don't think it is likely for a number of reasons:

1. The American winner take all political system almost eliminates the possibility of significant power for third parties. Whatever significant political movement that arose in the US will probably arise out of the two party system.

2.The current Republican coalition gets a big chunk of the secular small government crowd by just lying to them. As long as they repeat over and over about how they are for free markets and the Democrats are socialists a big chunk of those voters will believe them and vote for them regardless of what policies the Republican Party actually pursues.

3. The Republican coalition is made of several disparate groups whose interests are at odds with free market ideas or fiscal conservatism. Among these groups are the agricultural interests, and various corporate interests that fight for special interest policies to uniquely benefit themselves and these groups don't give a crap about free market ideas if they stand in the way of government largess for themselves.

4. The social conservatives and the groups that tend toward militarism have a lot of common ground and have only secondary interests in genuine small government ideas. The Republicans can continue to attract these groups without any policy changes.

So in the end I don't expect any significant changes in the Republican Party or for any secular small government party to arise. The Republicans are likely to suffer very significant losses in the upcoming elections, but the nature of those losses isn't likely to shake up their coalition all that much. What will happen over the next ten to fifteen years is that Democrats will gradually drag the country down with excessive pandering to their interest groups. The Republicans will rise again as the country gets pissed off at the Democrats. The same collection of hypocritical small government rhetoric and pandering to their special interests that got the Republicans elected previously will work again and not that much will have changed.

 

[tomwaits]

This talk about how the Republicans have turned socially conservative and are religious fanatics is interesting, considering that McCain is one of the most famously centrist Republicans in congress. He was often considered, along with Schwarzenegger, a "RINO" and many conservatives were (and still are) very unhappy with his nomination. Sarah Palin's nomination helped bring some of the conservatives, but a lot of them are still ticked off.

 

[tomwaits]

My problem with Obama is that for all his smiles and charisma, he is obviously merely a charming charlatan who gets by using the charlatan's usual method of telling people what they want to hear. Of course, that hardly means he's a "terorrist" or a "secret Muslim" or "not native born" or, for that matter, much different than most other politicians. It doesn't even mean that, if elected, he will do a bad job. I think he will -- due to inexperience -- but, perhaps he'll surprise us.

He reminds me in many ways of Clinton: also a man with, at the time of his election, not too much achievement for the highest post in the land, but charming and charismatic and optimistic about "change". Still, Clinton turned out to be a very good president -- mostly by learning quickly, being intelligent, acting as a centrist, and deeply disappointing the "base" of 1960s rejects who were looking for a "radical" president who will finally "show the evil Republicans" what's what.

If elected, it's possible Obama will do the same. I think that this is the main reason many people who support Obama are not concerned with his undeniable connections to radicals. They think, perhaps correctly, that Obama as president will deeply disappoint those radicals who think he's going to start some sort of socialist revolution.

This was the point I was trying to make here however my thread was somehow interpreted as being anti-Obama.

 

[Tailgater]

This was the point I was trying to make here however my thread was somehow interpreted as being anti-Obama.

You just had the misfortune of an over the top poster being the first to reply.

 

[wolfgirl]

And as for Obamas spiritual cult leader who hates white people, that makes me think Obama is the one who's been programmed to be prejudice, he just doesn't let it show.

You do know that Obama's mom was white, don't you? And that he was raised by his white grandparents?

 

[wolfgirl]

I don't believe in separation of church and state, it's not the principles this great nation was founded on.

Okay, that's one of the more ignorant things you've said here (and the bar on that's pretty high). Our founders made it very clear that our government was not to be religion-based. If they intended us to have some sort of god in charge, why is it so conpiciously absent in the Constitution? In fact, just to clarify the fact, the very first amendment they wrote says, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Also how the heck can you be so sure Obama's not a Muslim?

and how the heck can you be so sure that he is? Just because some nut-jobs say he is? And because he has a funny name? And because Sarah Palin likes to imply it?

He has been known to be an activist involved with terrorists many times over.

Please name all of these terrorist activities that he's been involved in "many times over." And I don't mean that he once sat on a community board with another guy who used to be a member of an underground group. I want specific and concrete examples (plural) of how Obama was ever an "activist involved with terrorists."