An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Mitch Mitchell Has Died

Are We ‘The Moderate Voice’? »

The GOP of the Future

Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Politics.
Nov 13th, 2008 | Comments

While talking heads are dashing back and forth suggesting how to “fix” the Republican party, various solutions are being offered. These include suggestions as extreme as rounding up the RINOs and executing them. Most of the plans include a return to their Reagan roots of small government fiscal conservatism, which is a good plan but doesn’t speak to the real issue. Hand wringing over the fate of a party currently backed into a corner of the deep South should not focus on how to win more elections, but rather on finding a plan for America that solves real problems which Democrats are leaving on the table for them.

Item one on this agenda is the 800 pound gorilla of Social Security and Medicare. Frantic “anti-socialist” elements in the extreme fringe of the party who would see all Federal entitlement programs ended do not hold the answer, but a solution is still required. We have no need to scrap these programs, nor would America’s voters tolerate such a move, but they are still driving us toward a national economic crisis in the next 30 to 40 years which could dwarf the one currently dominating the news cycle. The Democrats have failed to field any serious proposals to fix this because the cure is seen as too painful for an entitlement minded electorate to face. But if the cure is phrased properly, people will be willing to recognize that a little pain up front is preferable to an avalanche of agony further down the line. Take the lead on these issues and you’ll start swinging some hearts and minds back in your direction.

Second, the GOP platform should adopt a retooled approach to personal responsibility. Once upon a time, Republicans stood for personal privacy and keeping the Federal government out of our bedrooms, our churches and our personal lives. If Republicans abandon the purposely divisive tactics of trying to outlaw all abortion, ginning up anger about gay marriage and the rest of the Christian Conservative agenda, they would attract open minds who would rather see these issues settled by the states. Remind the voters of the few, key missions of Washington and pledge to carry them out frugally and efficiently. Leave the bells and whistles to the voters of each state.

If the GOP’s leadership can turn its back on distractions and find ways to deliver real solutions to major, long term problems for America – as opposed to finding ideas to fix partisan problems in their own party – the road to recovery will open up. If the focus remains on discovering attack strategies to “beat the Democrats” then I fear the GOP will need to get used to living in the wilderness. They’re gong to be there for a while.

Oh… and you might win back a few folks like me who left the party in disgust back in 2005.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

kritt11

The GOP is going to have to choose between the social cons and the Independents and moderates. If it stays on the same path trying to appease the Dobsonites it will continue to shrink in national significance.

The religious right needs to realize that most people care more about paying their mortgage and retiring comfortably than about Roe v Wade or gay rights. The voting public has finally caught on to the wedge issue ploy.

Also, they need to dump the concept of American exceptionalism abroad, and invest in Americans and our infrastructure and institutions at home. We can't care more about spreading democracy and affluence in foreign lands, than in our own land.

kritt11

Oh, and while you're at it, forget about trickle-down economics and Grover Norquist's "No New Taxes" pledge. Nothing ever trickles down -- and increasingly won't in the age of globalization, and taking a pledge against taxation handicaps our representatives when they need to act responsibly.

Jazz

kritt, I hear the RNC chairmanship is up for grabs soon. You may want to apply for the job. I'd support you.

Dave_Schuler

30 years ago, when Ronald Reagan was moving to the top of the Republican Party, the party had a number of wings: paleo-conservatives (like William F. Buckley), neo-conservatives (former liberals), social conservatives, libertarians, and liberal-to-moderate Republicans. The paleo-conservatives are mostly old now, out of the party leadership. The neo-conservatives are still around but left in bad odor. The liberal-to-moderate Republicans have been pushed out as the Republican Party, like the Democratic, became an increasingly programmatic party. Libertarians are poorly suited for reasons of principle and temperament to do the spadework necessary for obtaining positions of party leadership. That's why the social conservatives are largely in control of party institutions now.

There are really only two alternatives open to the Republican Party if its members want to continue to have national importance. It can become a social conservative party. Most of the social conservatives who don't already vote Republican are blacks or Hispanics so the current social conservatives will need to make common cause with a significant number of blacks and Hispanics, which I think is a rather doubtful proposition.

Alternatively, they can end the decades-long project of becoming a programmatic party and return to the catch-all party they've always been, incorporating more liberals (presumably, those with a libertarian streak) and moderates. To do this they'd need to drop ideological litmus tests and I doubt that current party leadership even knows how to do this.

kritt11

Jazz- I was going to say "you betcha", but instead I'll just say "thanks, but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere"!!! :-)

superdestroyer

this is the idea of saving the brand name even if it means throwing all of the your principles away. There is no long term solution for the Republicans because the percentag of the public that could be attracting with such proposals is less than 50%. The open borders and unlimited immigration supporters of the party have ensured that no conservative party can survive in the U.S. And no, blacks and Hispanics are not conservatives, have never been conservatives, never will be conservatives, and have zero interest in a policy of limit government and personal responsbility.

Conservatives need to realize that trying to prop up the Repulbican party is a losing idea. It would be better if the Republican party disbanded today and all of the former Republican voters start voting in the Democratic primary. That will limit the impact of the extremely left, progressive wing of the Democratic party and negate the brand loyalty that blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and gays have for the Democratic party.

Jazz

Dave offers two options, both of which sound viable to me in theory, but then shoots them down for pragmatic reasons which also sound completely valid. The unfortunate upshot is that Dave seems to think that there IS NO FUTURE for the Republican Party. I'd like to think there was some third (or 6th) path they could follow. As a third party guy, the only thing that scares me more than an unbridled two party system is an unbridled ONE party system. Let's hope we aren't living in that world now.

kritt11

The major thing they need to do is to care more about their constituents than their ideology. I think they could become a big tent party again- since many like the idea of smaller government.

The problem is that with an aging population- we will probably be increasingly unable to drop big entitlements. Our need for government intervention in the realm of health care will expand and a neglect of our environment, military and infrastructure will necessitate major investment, if we are to resume our former status. The costs of defending against terrorism alone has rocked our economy--think how much our bureaucracy has grown since 9/11.

superdestroyer

kritt,

People like the idea of small government when applied to other people. People love big government whne they receive the benefits but others are stuck with the costs. That is why David Axelrod pushed tax cuts for most Americans but raising taxes on the top. That gives people that they can have more government while paying less. there is no conservative idea that can overcome the move of the Democratic party to pander to special interest groups and stick others with the costs.

Of course, now the Democratic Party is bank to 1992 when they debate how the U.S. can have employees without employers.

Dave_Schuler

Jazz, my opinion is that Republicans are going to need to work at the local and state level to build a record of good governance. Big promises may win you an election or two but good governance is the way to build (or rebuild) a brand. There is no master stroke--no single move that will clear the board and correct all of the problems with the Republican Party.

Superdestroyer seems to be under the misapprehension that the Republican Party was ever a party of limited government, small government, or closed borders at anything but a rhetorical level. Show me the evidence.

AustinRoth

So much concern about that which really doesn't matter.

What wins elections? Two items, mainly. First, is the economy going well? If yes and your party is in power, good tidings, and if your party is not, bad tidings. revers please for a bad economy.

Second, are your candidates, especially your Presidential candidate, more like-able and inspiring than the opponent? See Reagan/Carter, Reagan/Dukakis, Bush/Kerry, Obama/McCain (the others recent elections were driven more by the economy).

Finally, the GOP is not going to wither and die, despite the hopes of the far left AND the far right, no more than the Democrats did after their time in the wilderness during the 80's. Politics is cyclical, the GOP will come back, then the idiot conversation will be if the Democratic party will ever be relevant again.

But the truth is they need each other. In the end, our 'leaders' in Washington have way more in common (protecting their seats by doling out largess) than they have in difference. But, without the loyal opposition, who is there to blame for failure?

Rudi

When the Republicans welcome in their versions of Heath Schuler(BD Democrat) then they have a future. But the limit test and Norquist wing has lost New England. As long as the NRO crowd is willing to "throw liberals and moderate Republicans under the bus", like Gilcrest and Joe Schwarz, they're toast. The Dems have the Blue Dogs, where is the Liberal Republican group?

Dave_Schuler

Finally, the GOP is not going to wither and die, despite the hopes of the far left AND the far right, no more than the Democrats did after their time in the wilderness during the 80's. Politics is cyclical, the GOP will come back, then the idiot conversation will be if the Democratic party will ever be relevant again.

I agree with that.

But, no, Jazz, there is no future for a third, fourth, or fifth party. Our system ensures that two parties are the maximum viable number and the two we've got have a firm enough grip on the reins of power to preclude being edged aside.

Note, too, that the Republicans are in no way as bad a shape as they were in 1964. The very next election could conceivably see a reversal of the House for reasons much along the lines that AustinRoth describes.

kritt11

I agree that politics is cyclical. The Democrats will eventually get sloppy, complacent and corrupt just as their Republican colleagues did-or will stray too far to the left for most peoples' sensibilities.

Its a matter of human nature--- which tells us that power and money lead to abuse which leads to outrage which inevitably leads to dumping the party in power.

The GOP will come roaring back as the party of clean government, and family values. LOL.

tjproudamerican

Jazz

Were you shocked and amazed that Human Events would publish this article? I was. I always thought conservatives were serious.

There is a difference between H.L. Mencken and Ann Coulter which has to do with audience: anyone who reads Mencken, even after all these years, must acknowledge that he has a point; only a True Believer can enjoy Coulter.

But Ted Nugent writes as though conservatism=anarchy.

Is that really the message conservative intellectuals want to represent them.

I am a liberal and I read Eunomia and Larison makes me think. Moderate Voice and its writers make me think. Human Events and "RINO hunting" honestly make me sad.

772driver

There is the term, “intellectual dishonesty”, which confronts us all, in particular, some TV and Radio talk show hosts masking as conservatives with hidden agendas. It induces us to wrestle with our consciences on the stance we should take on particular issues. We ask ourselves, how long can one support an argument that one knows deep in the recesses of one’s mind or your heart to be false?

How long can one defy logic and overwhelming evidence while embracing a warped and distorted view? There is a heavy price to pay for performing political gymnastics via the language of deceit, and the Republican Party has seen those results from recent elections.

In the search for inner peace, we must forego all inducements and rise above moral paralysis. Shrewd as we may think our decision to deceive may be, the high standards of conduct expected of politicians may lead to the collapse of that credibility without which we cannot perform to our satisfaction. Without which our efforts are doomed to fail.

I submit that freedom, never subject to the dictates of others, implies that we can free ourselves from the chains that make us answerable to the commandments of other mortal men.

Silhouette

For some reason my daughter had Fox news turned on this AM. She says she likes to keep up on the dullard commentary in order to have talking points with the NASCAR (they pronounce it "Nashcar") crowd she is forced to work around..

Anyway..

She left it on and I just happened to turn around and see their announcement for a series they're starting on "TV and Presidencies". Some supposed documentary about how TV and presidencies "grew up" together.

The one clip they showed to lure people in was of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. What they're actually up to is trying to re-rally their base by bashing democrats and singing the high songs of praise of republicans, I gather from watching the promo..

In ordinary circumstances we could just write this off. But I can't shake the feeling that they're trying for another version of the "KILL HIM" Palin rally, under the benign wraps of a mere documentary. Kid you not, the promo for their series was a clip of Clinton's famous denial of Lewinsky and then a picture of her semen-stained dress. They're going to milk that setup clear into the 22nd Century. Are they trying to fan flames of hatred against the current incoming democrat? This is how they rally their base? Hatred? Really? The "christian" right??

And they wonder why their party is no longer palitable to many former members. Here's a tip gang (and I mean "gang" literally): Many of your base are actual practicing christians who have read and UNDERSTAND the passages describing Jesus where he taught peace, personal reflection and loving thy enemies...

And why are the democrats their enemies? Are they trying for another civil war? They are predominantly southern harkening currently...

Hmmm..... The Devil is behind them. The Bible did warn that in the end times the antichrist would come cloaked as "a true believer", yet lay waste to the land.

How is that possible? I think the GOP is showing us just exactly how...

AustinRoth

Sil - off your meds again, I see.

superdestroyer

The idea that the Republicans can come back assumes that they can appeal to poor Hispanics. since that is very doubtful, the alternative is the coming one party state where ethnic divisions fight for offices and district boundries inside the Democratic Party.

To believe that the Repulbicans can make a comeback is to believe that the Republicans can be relevant in California again. Since no one in their right mind would suggest that the Republicans will ever be relevant in California again, then it is possible that the Republicans will fad away.

Also, the Republicans at the local level have been much better at limiting their spending that the Republicans at the national level. Heath Schuler has many voters who have moved from New England to North Carolina. How many people from North Carolina have moved to New England?

Rudi

But Ted Nugent writes as though conservatism=anarchy.

But Ted Nugent writes as though conservatism=<del>anarchy</del>ignorance.
Ted Nuggent as a Republican spokesman, and I thought Franken is a flake.

Silhouette

Austin, are you criticizing me for referencing the Bible in my reply?

Just curious. Because if you are, you're not a true republican.

And if you're not a republican, then surely you must realize I am speaking to theim in their own language. So all we're left with is that you are being petty by saying I need medication.

Which is it?

AustinRoth

Sil - I was commenting that your whole post was a semi-incoherent rant (IMHO).

And how does criticizing someone for referencing the Bible make me 'not a true republican'? Despite the efforts of many on both sides to tar the GOP as a homogeneous religious movement, it just isn't so. And you in particular have been here long enough to know that many of my personal beliefs (religion, abortion, stem cell research, drugs, sex education, etc.), are not the view of the majority of Republicans.

The party indeed has a wide diversity of opinions and members (even 3 blacks, 2 Hispanics and a gay guy in Connecticut, I believe!). Another inconvenient truth, that Republicans are more tolerant of diverse views than is presented.

And Rudi -

How about a UFC match between Ted and Al?

:-)

jchem

Interesting to note how many believe that the Repubs need to become a "big tent party", or to be more welcoming and tolerant. I stumbled across a rather interesting story about tolerance:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/c...

To be honest, I don't have a prescription for what the Repubs need to do and I'm certainly not going to pretend that I do. But I do think that BOTH parties need to be a bit more welcoming as both of them seem to shove you out as soon as you disagree with them.

Silhouette

I tend to agree with that. Extremes on either end are true to their nature: "extreme"...and tend to think dogmatically instead of logically.

So anyone who comes in, thoughtful and reflective, presenting views outside their ilk, will meet with often fierce resistance and shunning.

The thing is for the GOP is that they've billed themselves as the party of christian fundamentalism. And you cannot spread a broad tent over a narrow confine of that reality. Plus, you have that annoying little fact that the GOP's headmasters are all henchmen for big busine$$ and BigOil...weilding their army of fear-mongering spindoctors... You know, that little detail.

Eventually you have the two halves of their fatal dichotomy come to loggerheads; and that manifests as an internal conversation each republican has to eventually have with themselves: "How can I belong to a group that espouses fear mongering, hating liberals and waging wars when Jesus taught to cultivate loving his enemies and trying to bring about peaceful coexistance of mankind?"

You see? Fundamentalism vs the BigOil agenda was destined to explode like the collision of matter and anti-matter.

pacatrue

Interesting article, jchem. I started to read the comments, but they quickly grew into the predictable partisan bash. One however mentioned that the experiment revealed the power of mobs, and I think that's accurate.

As for the direction of the Republicans, the real decision is going to come not from the blog wars, but from the mundane activities of which people get advanced by their local party, which group successfully fundraises, and which ones get elected in 2010 and earlier. If the moderates are all pushed out on the local level, or if they can't raise any money, then that will decide the future of the Republican party. If instead, a moderate gets advanced and wins some elections in blue-leaning places now, then that will be the ascendant part of the party. As people like Pawson and Jindal have also recently emphasized, they have to demonstrate an ability to solve problems. If they do so, it'll be plenty good for another 5% swing and the Republicans will be in charge again.

jchem

paca, it's pretty unfortunate the comment thread went the way it did, considering its a rather interesting experiment for a 14-year old to undertake, and one I think could open up an interesting dialogue. But then again, Michelle Malkin linked to it and "exposed" the story to her audience--I imagine that's where many of the comments are coming from.

You're right; all politics is local. And if the moderates are purged, as suggested by Nugent, then the moderates should leave Nugent et. al. in the dust. Given the current climate, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for many of the moderate Repubs to shed the R and replace it with an I. There seems to be many more people in that category than in the current Repub party, and I think they probably agree more times than not. Rather than focusing on what the Repubs need to do to get back in business, why don't we just say good riddance to them? Using the same formula and expecting different results is insanity, no?

superdestroyer

Jchem,

what is the point of being a Democratic Party leaning (I) in a one party state. In a one party state, the independents will be powerless. The only solution is for all of the Republicans to move over and start voting in the Democratic primary and to start organizing for their pet issues inside the Democratic Party. that is the only way that social conservatives, small government conservatives, etc can ever hope to offset the liberal progressives advantage of having non-white vote automatically for Democrats.

jchem

SD, it's not about being a lite version of a Democratic party. It's about tossing the hardliners ashore. The current Repub crop is so wedded to social issues yet they never get anywhere with them. So what's the point? Are they just going to keep pandering to voters by saying "we're pro-life, they aren't"? I think it's fairly obvious that social issues such as these take a back seat when the economy stinks, wars rage, and people in general are pretty sour about their situation. The fact that the Repubs pander like this, yet do nothing once elected only serves to give people reason not to vote for them, because they won't do anything anyway. As pacatrue said above, the Repubs' only hope is to demonstrate some ability to solve problems or at least make it look like their brainstorming. They can't continue running as the non-liberals.

If this one party state you keep speaking of actually gets around to accomplishing anything productive, then maybe we won't be that bad off. But if the Dems go out like a bunch of drunken sailors, they'll be tossed just as fast the Repubs were.

Jim_Satterfield

I think Ted let the speakers blow his brains out a very long time ago.

Rudi

AR - Only when Franken declares open season on the Blue Dog Democrats. Nugent is a washed upped rocker sticking his limited intelligence into political discourse for the right side. Bill Buckley is shaking his head in the nether world, Nugent is in the tent and his son was run over by Palin in a bus with Billy Kristol as her copilot.

blog comments powered by Disqus