A New Republican Party

Once you get rid of the Palin constituency ( the religious nuts & the racists), what's left?

The Democrats controlled both houses on Congress in 1988. What could be said is that the fight between the moderate DLC and the liberal Congressional leadership handed the Republicans Congress in 1994.

However, a doubt if new leadership is going to fix the demographic problems facing the Republicans.

The U.S. has finally reached the point where more than 50% of the population believes that it can give itself government goodies and pass the cost to others. this belief is also affected by demographics.

If conservatives really want to affect policy, disbanding the Replubican Party and voting in the Democratic primary will probably have a bigger effect than trying to keep some sort of minority party going when all of the demographic trends are going against it.

Good post Tony. I'm afraid the present day GOP has a long way to go before it regains the right to invoke people like Eisenhower and Lincoln. As for Reagan, he was much loved, but also overrated - more a triumph of style over substance. I wish them luck though, the country benefits from having both major parties be healthy, and one component of that healthiness would be a jettisoning of the ultra-divisiveness.

Tony-
I agree- good post.
The real trouble started when Reagan identified the religious right as a potential constituency, and made overtures. They may have helped lead the GOP to electoral victories ever since, but the ensuing backlash is tanking the party today. Also the split between moderates and the far right is so deep that each cannot live with each other's candidates.

You are correct in comparing this to what happened in '88, and other losses like in 68 to the Dems, but it will be very hard to put the Republican coalition back together once it has splintered. The far right wing has ruined the party and the American dream, by exerting too much power over government, often crossing the line between church and state.

I believe that the split still exists in the Democratic Party-- they just got tired of losing due to interparty bickering, and realized this was their year to take the WH back. All it would have taken to lose would be the Clintons to fail to endorse Obama. As far as the legislature goes-- the GOP dug their own graves when they fell asleep at the wheel 2001-06. They used their positions to aggrandize power and then used the power to enrich themselves at the expense of their constituents. They palled around with lobbyists which in fact, has turned out to be worse for the country than palling around with a (former) terrorist.

I do think Dukakis was a terrible candidate- with no charisma. Even Bentsen would have been better.

kritt,

Isn't it much easier for the bigger government, bigger spending party to be a big tent party. As long as everyone is getting a bigger slice of the pie, they will go along with each other. Also, the Democrats decide to shut up on issues that really hurt them such as gun control, busing, or crime

The future for the Democratic party is how will it function as a party where more than hafl the voters are non-whites while the leadership will be overwhelmingly elite, white progressives.

The problem with the filibuster is that it has been over used even in a majority. To me it seems a tactic of last resort. And what about the years 2000-2006? Rubber stamp Congress ring a bell? Cry me a river, really.

Tony, I too wouldn't hesitate to vote Republican in the future if the party were more than about wedge issues, fear-mongering and demonization. In fact at least half of my life I have voted the Republican ticket, but it hasn't been the later half.

I must confess that the neo-con mentality has damaged my view of "conservatism," possibly for life. "Values voters" have been the most corrupt, divisive, hypocritical and erosive political force in my memory. Maybe I read too much of Glen Greenwald or Andrew Sullivan. To many of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s, the appeal of Republicanism (outside of Watergate) was very real, very concrete. Nixon was considered an exception in my memory, not the rule.

I pray for a time when character assassination, smear campaigns and fear-mongering with wedge issues are positively correlated with political defeat. And I hope that what rises from the ashes are a new set of goals and a new political philosophy that does put people back in the seat of individual responsibility, common concern and mutual respect, a valuation of reason and debate and dialogue, and some recognized value of education and intellect and collective wisdom without our age-old demonization of "elite" when it means these things.

A kinder, gentler, more liberal and Democratic (big D) Republican Party will fail.

The GOP would have more success employing my cynical strategy, namely to privatize and contract out its strategy and operations to Heritage Foundation, which at least would result in a coherent, understandable agenda and strategy basis, certainly not Dem Lite.

On a related note, this is a good time to bring up the primary process, which, about 6 months ago, led to wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Dem side because of proportional allocation and bragging on the Right because of its winner take all system. As annoying and tough as the proportional allocation is, you might have ended up with Romney, who might have been buoyed by the financial crisis. It's not as if McCain put the extra time to use.

What took the dems almost 50 years in power to accomplish-massive corruption- the republicians managed to exceed their record in less than 10 years. Those who wanted a 1000 year republician majority have managed instead to almost destroy the entire republician party. It would be good for the country if the real republicians would take back their party, but I am not going to hold my breath. With willfully ignorant people in congress the republician party has become, in the eyes of a majority of the country, a bunch of ignorant clowns. With people like Newt and DeLay and Karl Rove advising and dominating the party along with Hastert who let gwb walk all over congress power, something has to be changed. I believe that the death knell was sounded with the impeachment of Clinton for doing the same thing that his accusers did. Hypocrisy has become the signature of the republician party. I vividly remember the senate watergate hearings in 1973, I spent hours watching the hearings every night on PBS, totally fascinated and then the house committee on impeachment as the moment when I was proudest of my country because the country came together and because we had giants in congress in both parties who understood what was needed to be done and did it. Since 1994 when the republicians took over it seemed that the only thing that they wanted to do was to "get" Clinton for something, anything. This was seen by the majority of the american people as not only a witch hunt but also as some kind of payback for Nixon-who was guilty as hell of all charges. He should have been impeached and convicted, not allowed to escape penalty as he did when Ford pardoned him- My belief is that both Bush and Cheney should have been investigated by the congress-it was their duty-and the republician majority, so quick to go after Clinton for a minor offence, totally ignored the theft of their powers by the executive branch and the breaking the fundimental laws of our country, the articles of the constitution. The republician party has, since 1994, set a brand new low standard for the entire country from voter supression to corrupting of the DoJ to lying to congress in order to start a war. In all this, from 2001 to 2006 the republician congress was not only silent but complicit in the crimes committed by the Bush administration. Since 2006 the republicians in congress have had only one thing in mind. Block everything that the dems tried to do, not because of a difference in ideology but simply because they did not want the dems to uncover everything that they, and their president had done over the previous 6 years.

Janine D.M.: Reform of the primary system _and_ introduction of proportional allocation in all states with five or more delegates at stake are long overdue. And no, there is not one thing natural or sacred about Iowa or New Hampshire holding their primaries before anyone else's.

Hi Tony -- Great post, and I agree. I've never been a Republican, but I think that's mostly because that side of the aisle has been entwined with the religious right, mild-to-blatant racism, and fierce anti-feminism for my entire adult life. None of that has anything to do with fiscal responsibility, and as a life-long Dem, I kind of feel like I don't have a party that really represents my interests either. I want a party that starts with running a tight, responsible ship, encourages business growth and personal wealth, but also thinks it's cool if gay people marry, insists that women earn equal pay as men, gives an awesome education to people on both sides of the tracks, lets people smoke if they want, makes sure there's a seatbelt in my car but doesn't care if I use it, is as cool with the Koran as they are with the Bible, is groovy with my safely-stored 9mm, builds an awesome infrastructure, and doesn't get up in arms about what my doctor and I choose to do about my uterus.

Yeah, I'll hold my breath.

SD-

Yes, it is easier for the Democrats to be a big tent. But if you remember that the GOP has been distributing all the goodies to the top 10% of our populace and industry lobbyists, while pacifying the rest with pablum about patriotism, American exceptionalism, flag-burning, family values, etc-- the coalition was bound to collapse when our prosperity started slipping away and the middle class began to implode.

White Christian males are now in the minority and the GOP has not reached out to anyone else. And some of them are gay or pro-environment and switching parties.

BTW- some of the Democratic leadership may be elitist- but what is the difference between that and leaders like Bush/Cheney whose base is America's wealthy elites-- "the haves and the have mores"?

SD, both parties follow roughly the same calendar and use a mix of primaries and caucuses, so of course I'm primarily talking about proportional allocation as the major difference.

kritt,

I believe that is is impossible for the more conservative of two parties to appeal to minorities. The Democrats can pander to minorities and all the Republicans can do is play me, too. Besides, any pander to minorities will lose the Republicans more white voters than it gains in minority votes. See the illegal immigrants amnesty bill as an example of how pandering to minorities hurts instead of helps.

Yes, for the Republicans to have survived, the Bush Administraiton would have had to be almost flawless. Then appeals to minorities might have worked. But as long as the U.S. has problems and as long as the Democrats are willing to pander to minorities, the Repulbicans have no choice. Remember, that virtually 100% of elected blacks are Democrats and that over 90% of elected Hispanics are Democrats. All the Republicans have are a few Cuban-Americans in Florida.

Pander to minorities? The Democrats didn't have to pander to minorities. After Katrina, sharks with laser eyes and poison-tipped teeth and opposable thumbs would have polled better with African Americans. Without a doubt. After Katrina, Charles Manson could have run with the motto, "Fewer people are dead because of me."

I'm not always happy with Democrats, believe me. But I'd have to be crazy to vote for the Republican party as it stands. I'm not asking for pandering; just try to not repulse me.

BTW, SD, when (soon) Whites are the minority in this country, I shall have to remember your thoughts on "pandering to minorities."

haninedm

Blacks have been voting for Democrats since the 1930's. It did not start with Katrina. Of course, look at the difference between New Orleans and Galveston.

also, you have pointed to idea that Democrats keep pandering to minorities when when the minorities become the majority. Baltimore is majority black and the city still have a minority set aside contracting program. The same for Atlanta.

Everyone says that Republicans just need to reach out for minorities. But how does not the "conservative" party reach out to minorities who demand quotas and set asides?

The Republicans were a big tent back in the days of Milliken(Mi) , Ford and Rockefeller. This Michigan Liebrul would vote for a Milliken over a bad Democrat, but those days are long gone. Even moderates in Michigan can't win primaries when the wingnuts go on the attack.

Between 2000 and 2006, Republicans made a decent effort making a case to the African American community and their stock rose. It would take time to make a big enough dent to take a big chunk out of the Dem's share, but was definitely doable before Katrina.

"But how does not the "conservative" party reach out to minorities who demand quotas and set asides?" Perhaps by not making stupid assumptions about an entire group. We only have one issue and it's what White people/the federal government can give to us? Get out of here! I hope your party walks the desert until it gets some damn sense.

"also, you have pointed to idea that Democrats keep pandering to minorities when when the minorities become the majority." It's funny how that little dichotomy only works one way in your head. How old are you, anyway? I was implying that one day, (provided you live long enough) you'll be the minority. "Smith? Why can't he have an American name like Ruiz?"

Janinedm.

You still have not pointed to one concrete action that the Republicans could do that would gain minority votes without losing white votes.

Ok, I'll change the sentence. Will Democrats keep pandering to non-whites (or specifically non-Asian minorities) when non-whites are the majority. My guess is that the Democratic party will keep pandering no matter what. A good example would be school systems wanting to maintain forced busing ever when there are no more white kids to bus (See Prince Georges County Maryland).

SD- The Democrats are not only appealing to minorities, they are appealing to middle and working class voters who have not seen their paychecks keep up with rising costs, and who now are seeing their pensions wither away under the Bush administration's watch. They are appealing to moderates and independents who care about the environment and those who don't want the lines of church and state blurred, or the government spying on them without notice. Many vets will vote blue because the GOP forgot them when they came back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another post on this site details how only 7% think were going in the right direction. That means 90%+ think we're not. We don't have that many minorities in America.

The Republican party is in shambles. We have an administration that has enlarged government more than any other, and has now turned to socialism as a solution to a dire situation.

The GOP no longer stands for less government or cutting spending or even a strong military. They stand for holding on to power at all costs, cronyism and no bid contracts, unconditional support of bankrupt foreign policies like the invasion of Iraq, uncontrolled deficit spending, deregulation at all costs,multiple scandals involving lobbyists and executives and the selling our debt to foreign countries.
They are going to lose big, because they deserve to lose big. Their current representatives have proven over and over again that they have no principles.

"Pandering" to the majority of voters. It's called democracy (small d). The Democratic party represents that now, while the GOP positioned itself as the party of rich white men (yes. elitists), racists and religious extremists. That tent has collapsed.

Actually, Janine D.M., the Manson joke was made about how much of the public views Bush and how not only Obama or some other Democrat (maybe even Kerry again), but even Charles Manson could run against Bush and yes, with the motto, "I've killed fewer people than he has!"

The "majority-minority" or "minority-majority" (both terms are used) future (already true in four or five states plus DC) is simply one of the two big demographic changes we face in the future:

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/release...

Janine- SD and a few others on here have the stereotypical view that the Democrats only stay in power by handing over government programs to African-Americans. It doesn't matter what anyone says -- they won't budge on it. I like the Dems because they give a damn when others are in trouble and believe in social justice. To some of the righties-- that's socialism.

Well, now thanks to the GOP, we have socialism for billionaires, CEO's and banking execs. Their bad choices will be forgiven while the average Joe has to take responsibility for his mistakes.

kritt,

I do not believe that Democrats only stay in power by handing over government programs to Democrats. However, i believe that the current level of pandering that the Democrats do for blacks, Hispanics, and even Asians makes it impossible for the Republicans or any conservative party to expect to get a significant number of votes from those groups.

The basic suggestion is for the Republicans to stop being conservative so that they will gain minorities will result in the loss of more white votes than is gained with any pander.

Severe housing slump and a painful credit crunch are affecting the behavior of individuals and businesses alike – causing the economy in the United States of America to grow in a very slow pace.

Is America better off in 2008 than in 1932? It depends who you ask. In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president, and took over during a time when the economy was nose diving into a recession. FDR introduced his “New Deal,” which drastically changed the government’s approach towards the U.S. economy. The government’s new role in the economy was much more involved than it had been previous to FDR. Roosevelt's “deal” revitalized the economy in the short run, but some argue the negative repercussions can still be felt today. In this Wall Street Journal article, Paul Rubin writes that although the present U.S. economy is not identical to the economy of 1932, there are many parallels: the stock market is faltering, credit markets are locking down, and a popular Democratic presidential candidate – Barack Obama – is advocating for increased government regulations in the economy. If Obama becomes president and the Senate is controlled by democrats, our country will face the most liberal agenda in its history. Free market economists are concerned with Obama’s “hands-on” policies and fear they steer the American economy off-course in the long run. Proponents of capitalism will disagree that we’re better off today than in 1932. On the contrary, they would most likely tell you that America is in for more of the same – a “New, New Deal.”

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans....
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/