The future of the Republican Party.

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ Not much any more. Sadly, it is the fringe groups on both sides - the ones destroying both parties - are the ones that are most differential, driven purely by the misguided passion of extremist ideological paradigms. The closer to center you get, the less difference you can ascertain.

I guess they might have different color neckties...

 

[MANT!]

The Republicans need their time in the wilderness, just as the Democrats did from 1994 to 2006..right now I'm looking towards a 1964 style election for the GOP, when the right wing (then..now they would be considered too moderate) took control and nominated Barry Goldwater..(by then Mr. Goldwater was too politically wound up with social conservatives and seen as incapable of uniting the party to take on LBJ and the JFK legacy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964

add to the mix a recovering economy and I see major problems for the Tea party in the near future..

 

[1001001]

The GOP has been almost completely hijacked by right-wing fundamentalist nut jobs.

Think about traditional GOP values: small government, fiscal responsibility, strong defense...you may disagree with scope or scale, but these are not extremist views. These are good solid American values.

But now what do we get? Foaming-at-the-mouth Jesus lovers wailing about creationism and gay marriage. Gay marriage? Seriously? Any true conservative worth his salt would say it's none of the government's goddamned business what two adults do in their own home.

To the original point: The social wedge issues driven in by the teabaggers and their ilk just make me want to puke (you heard me, Santorum!). As science continues to grow and develop, the Biblical literalists in America are going to become more desperate. They cannot alter their beliefs, even in the face of hard evidence. They cannot admit to even basic scientific facts (like evolution, etc.) that they believe contradict the Bible. As America continues to grow more sophisticated and tolerant, they will become more marginalized and more angry. Eventually they will split off or die out.

Maybe then the two parties can work together a bit better on what really matters, in a way that acknowledges both parties have legitimate points of view on what America needs.

 

[Cyke101]

Think about traditional GOP values: small government, fiscal responsibility, strong defense...you may disagree with scope or scale, but these are not extremist views. These are good solid American values.

The one thing that I absolutely abhor about the strong defense issue and the military industrial complex is this: if a military contractor consistently fails to deliver, don't reward them with more contracts of millions of dollars. This is just business sense, pure and simple. However, any talk of cutting off delinquent and irresponsible contractors is regarded as being anti-defense and thus anti-American. How about pro-efficiency instead? And one of the first people to notice this problem was Dwight D. Eisenhower.

But again, the proliferation of the corporate influence on the military ties into your original point about small government and fiscal responsibility.

 

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ Precisely why General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower (a Republican) warned our nation of the growth of the military industrial complex. He had first hand experience of it during WWII and Korea. He knew it would be a problem down the line if it was allowed to grow unchecked. It was probably the most prescient thing ever spoken of in 20th century politics. I quote:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

A truly great quote from an equally great man, warrior and patriot. If he was alive today, I think he would weep if he saw what has transpired in the past 6 decades.

 

[Cyke101]

^^^ Precisely why General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower (a Republican) warned our nation of the growth of the military industrial complex. He had first hand experience of it during WWII and Korea. He knew it would be a problem down the line if it was allowed to grow unchecked. It was probably the most prescient thing ever spoken of in 20th century politics. I quote:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

A truly great quote from an equally great man, warrior and patriot. If he was alive today, I think he would weep if he saw what has transpired in the past 6 decades.

Yeah, I got that from Wikipedia. I knew he criticized it, I didn't know he actually coined the term. T.I.L.!

 

[MacLeod]

Before I comment, I'll preface them with this.

Yes I am not an American, and I know that the UK political system is not without it's own issues.

Most policial parties have their extreme ends whether they be left or right of centre, though it seems from an outside perspective that the US Right (Republicans) at the moment are leaning deeper into the right side of the spectrum.

Of course my own political views are more centrist perhaps slight centre-right(at least as the left-right axis would be measured in the UK) in that I support some left viewpoints and some right viewpoints. Some Americans might think that would make me lean towards the Republican Party but my political viewpoint would be close to Democrat.

Though moving onto the next topic which has been mentioned Government contracts. My view is that when a contract is put out to tender. The winning bidder gets exactly the money they said it would cost, any extra would have to be meet by the contractor. And to avoid them over bidding government auditors are used to ensure that the tax payers money is not wasted.

 

[Caliburn24]

I vote Republican and plan to continue doing so for now, but I have no particular loyalty to the party itself. If it splinters and fractures and evolves into something else so be it. Political parties change, good.

Rather than being concerned about the identity issues that plague the Democrats and Republicans I am more concerned about the systemic issues that neither party can address and still have any hope of winning an election. Government spending, cutting or raising taxes, cutting military spending, cutting social spending, cutting useless agencies and boondoggles with extreme prejudice.

Even worse is the dawning and increasing realization among citizens that you can vote yourself benefits as evidenced by special interest groups for everything. National democracy only works when the population votes for what they honestly consider to be in the national best interest. Teachers voting Democratic for a promised pay raise, or soldiers voting Republican for a promised pay raise are just another form of political bribery.

 

[Holdfast]

I recently renounced US citizenship, so perhaps I shouldn't weigh in on US internal matters any more... but my personal political instincts are that fiscal freedom from the state goes hand-in-hand with social freedom from the state, and both should be guiding lights in running a country. I therefore prefer an aim of low taxes & a small state combined a strong defence to guarantee the continuance of both the above in our potentially volative global environment.

A wing of the Republican party does believe this combination, as does a wing of the Conservative party in my country. Both parties also contain a wing that advocates social conservatism alongside the fiscally conservative bit. Both parties also have a smaller third group that likes both social conservatism and fiscal imprudence. The left-leaning parties in both countries also contain an eclectic mix of ideologically-varied groups.

Parties in both our political systems are generally most electable on a national basis when they contain a fairly broad church of views grouped around a point which itself is not all that far off the mid-point of the wider electorate. That shouldn't be surprising; in fact, it's a tautology, if you think about it.

So I don't think one really needs to worry about what wing of an individual party gains temporary prominence; the party as a whole won't gain undue power in the US (or UK, come to that) electoral system unless it commands a significantly broad base of support.

It's rare that parties convince electorates; it's more usually a two-way street of parties and electorates moulding themselves around each other symbiotically. If a party becomes too extremist too quickly, it loses more voters than it gains, as most voters occupy a vaguely centrist (and frequently myopic & inconsistent) position. Other political systems can yield stranger results, but the US tends not to and neither does the UK. So if the GOP doesn't win with an emphasis on social conservatism, it will naturally either have to gravitate back to the centre or fragment or become irrelevant over time.

I doubt the GOP will either fragment into two parties or become either solely Libertarian or Theocratic. Instead, it will continue to be a broad church, with the centre of gravity shifting gradually in an effort to win elections. The larger the party, the more it has to appeal to the approximate midpoint of an electorate's views, because that's where the most votes are. And the Democrats will continue to operate similarly. Firing up the base isn't enough in a two party system (or even a 3 party system, provided the third party is quite small) because the base, while large, isn't quite large enough to get elected.

The flipside of this is of course a certain degree of political inertia and a myopic approach to policy-making; it doesn't permit really interesting political experiments to take place. Our systems generally maintain a broad status quo, with only incremental change. For instance, I'll never get the really libertarian approach to policy that I'd like to see tried. But extreme socialists will never get their wish either. Populations may like to be led, but both our political systems are actually wise enough to stop politicians from being able to do so too much. Instead we get political theatre, which is enough to keep most people satisfied (even - especially - if the satisfaction comes from complaining the system is inadequate for their wishes). That itself permits the continuance of the game, by staving off revolutionary change. It's quite an elegant & amusing solution to running a country, even if the amusement may only appeal to a very dry sense of humour.

 

[E-DUB]

The biggest loss sustained by the Republicans was Goldwater in '64. They won in '68. The biggest loss sustained by the Democrats was McGovern in '72. They won in '76. We have two parties for a reason and after a loss, especially a bad loss, they figure out what they have to do to appeal to just enough of the broader electorate to become competitive again. If I were a betting man, I'd say the odds are in Obama's favor right now. By November, who knows. If events go awry, Romney could win either big or small. Any of the others have slightly more than zero chance but if something big and disastrous were to happen a loon like Santorum could even squeak by.

What has made this election so fascinating to me is that the Republicans consist of four basic factions, each one having its own candidate in this race, so there is nobody to unite the factions as (GW)Bush did being both a social conservative and the son of a GOP establishment figure.

 

[firesoforion]

The sad thing is that the Republican Party had at least one genuinely good candidate (Thaddeus McCotter for anyone interested), he tried to run, tried to win, but he was not admitted into ANY debates, though he was polling around the level of Santorum and Huntsman, who were allowed on the stage (honestly I think the idea of eliminating candidates from the earlier debates is probably part of the problem with the political situation in this country in general, but I digress), and he just couldn't speak. He introduced legislation to fix social security, but Perry used his "Ponzi scheme" statement a day or two later and everyone in the press just talked about that instead. It was incredible, and it was incredibly frustrating to be trying to support the genuinely good candidate in a field of caricatures, and to have all of that simply fall flat because of media incompetence. The Republican party could have a future. Its people's hearts are in the right place, and it has some great politicians out there (enough to pull it back together as a good party if circumstances will allow it), but they're not the ones who get the attention.

 

[Holdfast]

What has made this election so fascinating to me is that the Republicans consist of four basic factions, each one having its own candidate in this race...

Out of curiosity, what faction would you say Gingrich represents? I can easily file Romney, Santorum and Paul into their respective slots in the party. From a transatlantic distance, Gingrich and Santorum seem to be ploughing somewhat similar electorals furrows, so I'm curious to what the fourth faction is.

 

[nightwind1]

I seriously don't know what planet some people are living on when they claim Republicans and Democrats are virtually identical.

Only difference between Bush and Obaam is that he repealed Dont ask Dont tell.

Totally wrong. Another difference is, one of those should have been tried for war crimes.

 

[Yevetha]

The sad thing is that the Republican Party had at least one genuinely good candidate (Thaddeus McCotter for anyone interested), he tried to run, tried to win, but he was not admitted into ANY debates, though he was polling around the level of Santorum and Huntsman, who were allowed on the stage (honestly I think the idea of eliminating candidates from the earlier debates is probably part of the problem with the political situation in this country in general, but I digress), and he just couldn't speak. He introduced legislation to fix social security, but Perry used his "Ponzi scheme" statement a day or two later and everyone in the press just talked about that instead. It was incredible, and it was incredibly frustrating to be trying to support the genuinely good candidate in a field of caricatures, and to have all of that simply fall flat because of media incompetence. The Republican party could have a future. Its people's hearts are in the right place, and it has some great politicians out there (enough to pull it back together as a good party if circumstances will allow it), but they're not the ones who get the attention.

What do you have against Gary Johnson or Ron Paul?

 

[E-DUB]

Romney=Establishment
Santorum=Social Conservatives
Paul=Libertarian remnant
Gingrich=Neocons

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

My prediction for the future of the GOP:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSPNQ82Sq4E[/yt]

 

[Yevetha]

They deserve it.

What happened to the legendary, undisciplined democrats, why are they not railing against the afghan war.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Romney=Establishment
Santorum=Social Conservatives
Paul=Libertarian remnant
Gingrich=Neocons

^^^ Yeah, that actually looks pretty accurate. This is also why no one candidate has the lion's share of the delegates. The party is simply too fractured anymore to be effective.

 

[E-DUB]

Well, aside from Ron Paul, they all pretty much stand for the same things, it's just a question of emphasis. Throw a little personal animosity into the mix and you get the mess you have now.

Also, the Republican decision to reduce the number of "winner-take-all" primaries builds an incentive into the process for a candidate to stay in long past his sell-by date in order to acrue as many delegates as possible in hopes of extracting platform concessions or possibly even a spot on the ticket.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

I seriously don't know what planet some people are living on when they claim Republicans and Democrats are virtually identical.

Only difference between Bush and Obaam is that he repealed Dont ask Dont tell.

Totally wrong. Another difference is, one of those should have been tried for war crimes.

Please...not that gem again.