The GOP doesn't seem to be a very healthy party these days. It's just racist fury & cultural rage

[astro]

The party I joined in my youth, and am still a registered Primary voter for, is almost unrecognizable to me these days. It's like every stupid racist, anti-scientific, arrogant attitude I despise has rolled itself into a tight ball to fight against Obama.

This can't continue. Is the GOP going to self destruct?

[Typo Knig]

I figure when the Republican party loses enough elections in a row they'll change. It took the Democratic party a while to move to the center after the 60s and 70s, but they did. You may not think of the Dems as centrist because during that same time the 'Pubbies moved from a conservative but "big tent" party to purely conservative to more conservative than thou to utterly batshit insane.

[spifflog]

Originally Posted by astro

. . . Is the GOP going to self destruct?

Folks always take glee in the apparent demise of the other party from time to time. Republicans did in the Reagan-Bush era, and there were many threads here (being the very left leaning group that we are) post Obama election stating that the republican party was dead only to be unpleasantly surprised in 2010.

The American electorate will decide if and when a party is dead. I don't see them killing off either one any time soon.

[Paul in Qatar]

What we are seeing is a major power shift in America, and many people are genuinely upset about it in ways they cannot quite put their finger on.

Urban populations are gaining power from rural communities, this despite the deck being stacked against the cities. Virginia for example is seeing political power moving from downstate rural areas to northern suburbs. The same is true elsewhere.

More interracial marriages, PTA signs outside the school in Spanish, cars from overseas countries, a black president. No one thing is alarming, but somehow the entire picture is scary to a lot of people.

Call them racists or what you will, but we are really seeing a shift in our nation's way of thinking. The GOP is trapped being the voice of the side that is losing the fight, a voice for the past. They have some valid points, but in the long run they will lose. In a century we will look back on this era and what the GOP stands for with puzzlement and shame.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

Call them racists or what you will.

I pick "racists." The change that's occurring now is that now the Republican Party is still a safe haven for racists. That's not all that attracts them to the racists, but racists are largely unwelcome in circles to the left of the center, and their number (I hope) is dwindling . Eventually, the R party will come to terms with that number being so small that racism is driving away more voters than it attracts (not there yet), and then the R party can start growing again. But until that day, the demographics will cause the Dems to win more and more elections.

[Skammer]

There was a local race here yesterday that illustrates this. The second-highest Republican in our state House of Representatives was up for re-election. This is a woman who successfully fought for tax cuts, voter ID laws, elimination of collective bargaining for teachers, and a host of other right wing pet causes. By almost any Tea Party measure she was their ideal candidate.

Except last year there was a bill proposed that would allow employers in the state to prohibit employees from keeping guns in their cars on company property. She saw this as a property right issue -- companies should be allowed to prohibit firearms on their own property. The NRA disagreed, launched their own pet candidate (a retired military vet) and flooded the airwaves with negative attacks on the "anti-gun rights" candidate (who voted NRA's way on every other gun issue during her term). They won. So now instead of a high-ranking right-winger, they have a freshman ultra right-winger who is in the pocket of the NRA because he owes his election to them.

[elbows]

Unfortunately, in a two party system, the complete death of either party is almost impossible. What would be left? Can't happen, which is silly. Sometimes it needs to happen to reflect changing times.

Instead the beast is reanimated, back from the dead, confusing former adherents and forcing those trying, in earnest, to reshape the party, to bring them into the fold, no matter how, 'out there', they may be.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

I figure when the Republican party loses enough elections in a row they'll change.

When's it going to start happening?

I mean, the last national election was 2010, and that was nothing but good news for the GOP. Or did you just mean presidential elections?

[Acid Lamp]

The Republican party isn't going anywhere. I do foresee a schism though as Tea Partiers and other assorted far-rights continue to drag the conservative name through the mud. Eventually we might have a legitimate third party in the Tea Party.

[Maastricht]

Well, try an historical parallel. Remember how widespread "leftism"was in the seventies? The pendulum has just swung back again.

In the seventies, the Dems were hijacked by extremists, yet their viewpoints were popular among a broad segment of the population. Well, not the actual viewpoints themselves, but rather the "I'll wear my hair long ans smoke weed at parties and have a Che Guavara Poster in my dorm room and discuss Marcuse over a bowl of sangria" watered down version of it.

The way I see it, the right in the US currently has a similar outburst of popularity with irrational but attractive ideas.

Another parallel is the hostility the left felt, at the time for the right. "Fascist government dogs" almost was a term of endearment. The right didn't go much further then "damn misguided hippie kids".

Even those tables are turned. The right is the one foaming at the mouth now; the left in the US currently has the bigger percentage of reasonable people.

Anyway, that is my Dutch take on it. And it is the same in the Netherlands at the moment.

[Dave Hartwick]

Originally Posted by elbows

Unfortunately, in a two party system, the complete death of either party is almost impossible. What would be left? Can't happen, which is silly. Sometimes it needs to happen to reflect changing times.

This overlooks the fact that there have been five two-party systems in US history, and at least one influential third party.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by astro

The party I joined in my youth, and am still a registered Primary voter for, is almost unrecognizable to me these days. It's like every stupid racist, anti-scientific, arrogant attitude I despise has rolled itself into a tight ball to fight against Obama.

This can't continue. Is the GOP going to self destruct?

Well, then, it's got at most 4 more years to play out. If this is all about Obama, that is.

As it stands, the GOP will almost certainly maintain control of the House and gain seats in the Senate. The Democrats could only hope for such self destruction.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by astro

The GOP doesn't seem to be a very healthy party these days. It's just racist fury & cultural rage
The party I joined in my youth, and am still a registered Primary voter for, is almost unrecognizable to me these days. It's like every stupid racist, anti-scientific, arrogant attitude I despise has rolled itself into a tight ball to fight against Obama.

This can't continue. Is the GOP going to self destruct?

Cite? I would really like to see you defend the racist fury and cultural rage bits.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Maastricht

The pendulum has just swung back again.

This. The pendulum keeps on swinging.

I used to vote heavily Republican too, now I mourn that the party has, in my own words, become "The Party of the Ignorant and the Insane". I hope some day I can vote for them again.

[Tom Tildrum]

Can we just assign a number to this thread topic? It'll save time when it's raised again each month.

[babygoat666]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Cite? I would really like to see you defend the racist fury and cultural rage bits.

Here you go.
http://blog.sfgate.com/drader/files/...auto-32334.jpg

[Marley23]

Moved to Elections from Great Debates.

[Fear Itself]

The leader of an Arizona Tea Party group just wished death on Sen. John McCain:

Wes Harris, the founder and chairman of the Original North Phoenix Tea Party, said he plans to take out a recall petition against McCain. While Harris has many problems with McCain, a mass email he sent out focused solely on the senator’s recent defense of Huma Abedin, a top aide to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Harris accused Abedin of having ties to an Islamic extremist group, and he objected to the fact that a Muslim was working for the State Department in the first place.

...

The email Harris sent includes a forwarded item from the blog Bare Naked Islam that castigates McCain for defending “Islamic enemies of America” and attacking U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican and tea party favorite. The blog piece ends by saying, “Go to hell, Senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap.”

I think the Tea Party will ultimately hurt the Republican Party. They are not going to attract enough of the moderates and independents to win elections over the long run.

[tagos]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

The leader of an Arizona Tea Party group just wished death on Sen. John McCain:I think the Tea Party will ultimately hurt the Republican Party. They are not going to attract enough of the moderates and independents to win elections over the long run.

And cueing the 'No True Tea-Pot' defense in 5 ..4...3

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Well, then, it's got at most 4 more years to play out. If this is all about Obama, that is.

As it stands, the GOP will almost certainly maintain control of the House and gain seats in the Senate. The Democrats could only hope for such self destruction.

As long as there remain stupid, callous and/or racist people in America, there will remain support for a right wing party.

The future is bright for them.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

The leader of an Arizona Tea Party group just wished death on Sen. John McCain:I think the Tea Party will ultimately hurt the Republican Party. They are not going to attract enough of the moderates and independents to win elections over the long run.

I for one hope they keep up their "RINO" attacks and try to drive as many people as possible away from the party. Either they will succeed and the people they drive away will eventually form a more moderate party, or there will be a fight over the soul of the party and one side or the other will win with the losers likewise having to find/create another party.

[astro]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Cite? I would really like to see you defend the racist fury and cultural rage bits.

I attend various Republican party functions. I drink with them afterward and listen to their opinions after a few beers or scotches. To the party faithful the fact that a "nigger" is President of the United States is positively infuriating, and if you do not think this fuels a large part of the antipathy toward him over and above purely political issues you need to think again.

They do not just disagree with him they hate and fear him on a very visceral level.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by astro

This can't continue.

You never know. It isn't like people pay attention to policy. And as Bill Clinton said people would rather side with someone who is wrong but is convinced they are right than the other way around. Even if they continue to devolve, they will still win 45%+ of the electorate.

[Jackmannii]

The GOP doesn't seem to be a very healthy party these days. It's just racist fury & cultural rage

Oh come on, it's more than that. What about finding scapegoats* to compensate for lack of ideas and will power?

That part really pisses off Democrats, since they like to believe they thought of it first (a.k.a. The Rich are the source of all Evil).


*my current personal favorite is "crony capitalism", a major right wing meme (despite the GOP's arguably having thought of that first**).

**Halliburton, anyone?

[Evil Captor]

Guys, haven't you been paying attention? Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any power over Wall Street. There are no political parties, when it comes to policy once elected. There are just guys with a "D" after their names who take big checks from plutocrats and do their bidding, and guys with an "R" after their names who take big checks from plutocrats and do their bidding. All else is a side issue. We live in a plutocracy, not a democracy.

[spifflog]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

Can we just assign a number to this thread topic? It'll save time when it's raised again each month.

Each month? I think you've missed a few. The "me too!!" threads are a hobby here.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Guys, haven't you been paying attention? Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any power over Wall Street. There are no political parties, when it comes to policy once elected. There are just guys with a "D" after their names who take big checks from plutocrats and do their bidding, and guys with an "R" after their names who take big checks from plutocrats and do their bidding. All else is a side issue. We live in a plutocracy, not a democracy.

All democracies have plutocratic elements-that has been a criticism since Plato's days. Wall Street is just one of many special interests-consider for example the dominance of the public sector unions in the Democratic Party. Incidentally the Tea Party opposed the bank bailouts along with the left.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by Maastricht

The way I see it, the right in the US currently has a similar outburst of popularity with irrational but attractive ideas.

There isn't a single, solitary idea that this racist, hateful, anti-democracy, ignorant, religious nut job Republican party holds at the moment that could possibly be described as "attractive" to anyone but a racist, hateful, anti-democracy, ignorant, religious nut job lunatic.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Shayna

There isn't a single, solitary idea that this racist, hateful, anti-democracy, ignorant, religious nut job Republican party holds at the moment that could possibly be described as "attractive" to anyone but a racist, hateful, anti-democracy, ignorant, religious nut job lunatic.

I don't see "cynical rich people" on there. That's about the only exception I can think of, and even then it is better described as "short term-thinking cynical rich people" since purposefully drawing us further to bankrupcy isn't good in the long run, but I don't think that people who decide to pursue this all in the name of a saving a percent or so on their taxes are necessarily ignorant. I would heartily disagree with them, but it is not as much of a total slam dunk surety that I'd label one ignorant for not agreeing that GOP tax strategy would ruin us.

There's gotta be a couple, ten thousand people in that category.

[Lumpy]

The Republicans aren't going anywhere as long as the Democrats have nothing better to offer than a warmed-over serving of the Great Society (when America is now nearly broke) and the Civil Rights movement (for ever more marginal minorities). I picture the Dems as a bunch of white-haired hippies singing "Blowin' in the Wind".

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

I don't think that people who decide to pursue this all in the name of a saving a percent or so on their taxes are necessarily ignorant.

I believe that the Republicans appeal to wealthy people who want to keep their money, poor people who love Jesus and guys who are afraid of losing firearms.

[rocking chair]

i believe the nra is a good analogy here.

at one time there were sensible people in the nra. they knew that the 2nd amendment will not be overturned and that some control over weapons and armament did not mean "taking away all my guns".

the more radical part of the nra did not like some of the controls that the organization agreed with, and started a shadow campaign of getting like minded folks into the leadership.

slowly but surely, they took over the admin of the nra, got into positions of power, and now no one dares to say one word about control laws. if you do, even they most logical bits of control, you will have the hammers of the nra pulled back and the next thing you know you are shot out of politics.


how is that different than what the tea party is doing to the more logical and clear minded republicans?

and yes, even though obama's family has been in this country longer than most of those who are claiming "he's not american", there are those who will never, ever, be ready for anything other than full white male president.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by astro

The party I joined in my youth, and am still a registered Primary voter for, is almost unrecognizable to me these days. It's like every stupid racist, anti-scientific, arrogant attitude I despise has rolled itself into a tight ball to fight against Obama.

Where else where they going to go?

Originally Posted by astro

This can't continue. Is the GOP going to self destruct?

No, it can't continue -- demographically. What you're describing is the grouping labled "Staunch Conservatives" (as distinct from "Main Street Republicans") in the Pew Political Typology, and they are the oldest of the nine typology groups -- 61% over 50 -- and their children and grandchildren will never think quite they way they do. They will not go gentle, but as a political force they peaked almost as soon as they discovered their strength. The GOP will gradually become sane again by process of generational attrition.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by spifflog

The American electorate will decide if and when a party is dead. I don't see them killing off either one any time soon.

It doesn't work that way. Our two main parties, or at least their brand-labels, have survived for more than a hundred and fifty years now by gradually changing their ideologies/compositions.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by rocking chair

i believe the nra is a good analogy here.

at one time there were sensible people in the nra. they knew that the 2nd amendment will not be overturned and that some control over weapons and armament did not mean "taking away all my guns".

Not overturned, but it could have been effectively interpreted out of existence; i.e., the 2nd only protects the right of states to have a National Guard, and private firearms could be completely banned. And gun control advocates openly proclaimed their goal of a gun-free society, one precedent at a time.

the more radical part of the nra did not like some of the controls that the organization agreed with, and started a shadow campaign of getting like minded folks into the leadership.

After decades of the NRA going along with "sensible" gun controls and primarily advocating firearms for hunting ("Fudds"), people noticed that the private possession of firearms was being threatened and that the NRA would have to reorganize if there were going to be any firearms at all.

slowly but surely, they took over the admin of the nra, got into positions of power, and now no one dares to say one word about control laws. if you do, even they most logical bits of control, you will have the hammers of the nra pulled back and the next thing you know you are shot out of politics.

Nice way of associating promoting gun control with risking assassination. Gun owners oppose "even the most logical bits of control" because the logic is based on the inherent premise that private citizens have no business possessing guns at all. Someone proposes "even the most logical bits of control" for voter ID and suddenly it's the civil rights organizations who pull back the hammers and shoot people out of politics.

We now return to your regularly scheduled thread.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by elbows

Unfortunately, in a two party system, the complete death of either party is almost impossible. What would be left? Can't happen, which is silly. Sometimes it needs to happen to reflect changing times.

Instead the beast is reanimated, back from the dead, confusing former adherents and forcing those trying, in earnest, to reshape the party, to bring them into the fold, no matter how, 'out there', they may be.

Time once again for my favorite rant.

The problem with our present system for electing Congresscritters or members of any multimember policymaking body, from any third-partisan's point of view, is that a first-past-the-post single-member-district system naturally forces a two-party system. Consider: Suppose, in your state's next election, 10% of the voters vote Libertarian (or substitute Green, or Socialist, or Constitution Party, whatever, same mechanics apply) -- how many Libertarians get elected? None, because there are not enough Libertarians in any one district to form a plurality (majority = 50%+; plurality = more votes than any other candidate gets -- which is all you need to win). No political party, therefore, can make it save by being a "big tent" party -- which leads to the confusion as to, e.g., just what the GOP stands for these days, when it includes libertarians and paleocons and neocons and theocons and bizcons and those factions don't always see eye-to-eye. That is why America has always had a two-party political system, except when it had a one-party system. There is no room for more than two.

If you don't like that, join FairVote and fight for proportional representation. Under a PR system (which most of the world's democracies use, in one form or another), if the Libertarians get 10% of the votes, they get (more or less) 10% of the seats.

See also:

Instant-Runoff Voting: For filling a single seat, presidency, governorship, etc.; though it could also be used to elect legislators. The way it is now, if there are more than two candidates in the race, you have to pick just one -- which presents the "spoiler" problem -- in 2000, a vote for Buchanan was a vote for Gore and vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. With IRV, you get to rank-order the candidates by preference; if your first choice does not get a majority, your vote still counts to elect your second choice. E.g., you could have voted "1 -- Buchanan; 2 - Bush; 3 - Gore; 4 - Nader"; or, "1 - Nader; 2 - Gore; 3 - Bush; 4 - Buchanan"; or whatever order-of-preference seems best to you.

(The similar approval voting or Condorcet system, where you just vote "yes" or "no" as to each of several candidates, does offer certain abstruse-to-all-but-polysci-nerds-even-worse-than-I advantages over IRV. But, I'm thinking IRV is better for America, because, 1) it's an easier sell -- the chances to rank-order the candidates is more psychologically satisfying to the voter; and 2) the results, how the voters rank-order the candidates, produces information of greater civic value.)

Electoral fusion: Simply, one candidate running as the nominee of more than one party (and, perhaps, on more than one ballot line). This strengthens a third party by putting it in a position to offer its endorsement to a major-party candidate (conditional, presumably, on the candidate adopting public positions somewhat closer to the third party's), which could make all the difference in close races. Fusion is now illegal in most states, however.

Electoral fusion was once widespread in the United States. In the late nineteenth century, however, as minor political parties such as the People's Party became increasingly successful in using fusion, state legislatures enacted bans against it. One Republican Minnesota state legislator was clear about what his party was trying to do: "We don't propose to allow the Democrats to make allies of the Populists, Prohibitionists, or any other party, and get up combination tickets against us. We can whip them single-handed, but don't intend to fight all creation."[3] The creation of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party made this particular tactical position obsolete. By 1907 the practice had been banned in 18 states; today, fusion as conventionally practiced remains legal in only eight states, namely:

Connecticut
Delaware
Idaho
Mississippi
New York
Oregon
South Carolina
Vermont

In several other states, notably New Hampshire, fusion is legal when primary elections are won by write-in candidates.

The cause of electoral fusion suffered a major setback in 1997, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided by 6-3 in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party that fusion is not a constitutionally protected civil right.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Maastricht

Well, try an historical parallel. Remember how widespread "leftism"was in the seventies? The pendulum has just swung back again.

What makes you think there is a pendulum?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Dave Hartwick

This overlooks the fact that there have been five two-party systems in US history, and at least one influential third party.

Oh, more than one, but in American politics any moderately successful third party is "the bee that stings and dies," that is, some elements of its platform get co-opted by one or both of the big two and the third party fades away. Only the Republicans ever managed to go from third-party to major party, and they got started in a rare time when the non-Dem side of the party system was fragmented.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

The GOP doesn't seem to be a very healthy party these days. It's just racist fury & cultural rage

Oh come on, it's more than that. What about finding scapegoats* to compensate for lack of ideas and will power?

That part really pisses off Democrats, since they like to believe they thought of it first (a.k.a. The Rich are the source of all Evil).

Scapegoating is not quite always wrong . . .

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Evil Captor

Guys, haven't you been paying attention? Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any power over Wall Street. There are no political parties, when it comes to policy once elected. There are just guys with a "D" after their names who take big checks from plutocrats and do their bidding, and guys with an "R" after their names who take big checks from plutocrats and do their bidding. All else is a side issue. We live in a plutocracy, not a democracy.

But, they're not all just the same. Yes, of course both major parties are owned by the big-biz interests and Wall Street, our campaign-financing system allows of no other outcome; the difference is that the Dems are not wholly owned, because the view of the voting-base still matter somewhat.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Time once again for my favorite rant. . . .

If you don't like that, join FairVote and fight for proportional representation. Under a PR system (which most of the world's democracies use, in one form or another), if the Libertarians get 10% of the votes, they get (more or less) 10% of the seats. . . .

My favorite counter-rant, alas, is that this can produce tiny little parties that have the power to be disproportionately effective. If you have 45% R, 45% D, and 10% L, the L party has almost complete control! (It's like being the swing vote on a divided Supreme Court. That one person is the Supreme Court!)

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Shayna

There isn't a single, solitary idea that this racist, hateful, anti-democracy, ignorant, religious nut job Republican party holds at the moment that could possibly be described as "attractive" to anyone but a racist, hateful, anti-democracy, ignorant, religious nut job lunatic.

This rant is just as bigoted as the positions you attribute to your political opponents. People that disagree with your politics are not evil. They view the world differently than you do. Rational minds can differ.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by tagos

And cueing the 'No True Tea-Pot' defense in 5 ..4...3

Do you still think that was clever?

[adaher]

Seems like there are a lot of predictions that the GOP will self destruct and their doom is imminent. I have to wonder what elections these people are watching. the GOP KILLED in the last election and they are running about even in this one. actually a little better, since they are winning the generic Congressional vote slightly:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...vote-2170.html

An average of 2 points ahead in Congress, 2 points behind for the Presidency. This is not exactly a party in crisis.

Of course the GOP has many, many problems. It's in the middle of a civil war. By all rights, this civil war should have been fought over a few years while the GOP was in the political wilderness. But Democrats had to piss the public off in record time and mess it all up. So now you have a Congressional majority party that's pretty chaotic with some downright weird elements getting more publicity than is their due. But that will work itself out in time.

Long term, the Republicans do have to avoid the nativist inclinations, get a sounder fiscal policy, and appeal to a more diverse populace. But none of these problems are hard to overcome unless they are stubborn.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton;15346464


No, it can't continue -- demographically. What you're describing is the grouping labled "Staunch Conservatives" (as distinct from "Main Street Republicans") in the [url=http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/typology-group-profiles/

Pew Political Typology,[/url] and they are the oldest of the nine typology groups -- 61% over 50 -- and their children and grandchildren will never think quite they way they do. They will not go gentle, but as a political force they peaked almost as soon as they discovered their strength. The GOP will gradually become sane again by process of generational attrition.

That's quite an assumption. the Baby Boomers, the main source of conservatism in this country? Really? Now I didn't live in the 60s, but it sure seemed like the youth of that time were liberal. Then they got older and got richer.

The same thing should happen with the current youth.

[Little Nemo]

I don't think the Republican Party is all racist fury and cultural rage. I think those are unfortunately just the loudest part of the current Republican Party. And I think this is a problem for Republicans.

First, there's the obvious. We should be embarrassed to be associated with these idiots. Let's purge them from the ranks.

Second, if we don't do it for moral reasons, we should do it for practical reasons. Racism and rage are becoming the public image of the Republican Party. At some point, a lot of moderate voters are going to decide this is no longer a party for them.

Third, there's the money men. The Republican Party made a deal with big business years ago - they deliver the campaign money and the Republicans deliver the political favors. These guys are not sentimental. They'll abandon the Republicans without a look back if they think the Democrats can deliver a better deal. Which means the GOP won't have a slow gradual decline. It'll reach a certain point and then plummet as its money supply disappears.

Fourth, fanatics aren't loyal. One of the GOP's greatest strengths has been our ability to close ranks and present a united front. We could play off disunity in the Democrats. Now, that's going the other way. The Tea Partiers are against anyone who isn't one of them. They'll turn against a Republican as readily as against a Democrat.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by adaher

That's quite an assumption. the Baby Boomers, the main source of conservatism in this country? Really?

Now I didn't live in the 60s, but it sure seemed like the youth of that time were liberal.

No, the Staunch Conservatives are only one part of that huge generation, plus significantly larger portions of the surviving Silent and GI generations. And the Boomers did include a lot of conservatives, it's just the lefties and hippies were the ones making most of the noise back then. The "Silent Majority" of those three generations were formed by old cultural norms which simply ceased to apply in later years.

It's not strictly a generational thing; each generation is internally divided by regional and ethnic and religious subcultures -- and, vertically, by class subcultures; class does remain more salient than a lot of people like to talk about these days.

The political-cultural center-of-gravity of the rising generations is, I think, best represented by the "Post-Moderns" of the Pew Typology.

Post-Moderns

13% OF ADULT POPULATION /14% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

Basic Description: Well-educated and financially comfortable. Post-Moderns are supportive of many aspects of government though they take conservative positions on questions about racial policy and the social safety net. Very liberal on social issues. Post-Moderns were strong supporters of Barack Obama in 2008, but turned out at far lower rates in 2010.

Defining values: Strongly supportive of regulation and environmental protection. Favor the use of diplomacy rather than military force to ensure peace. Generally positive about immigrants and their contributions to society.

Who they are: The youngest of the typology groups (32% under age 30); a majority are non-Hispanic white (70%) and have at least some college experience (71%). Nearly a third (31%) are unaffiliated with any religious tradition. Half live in either the Northeast (25%) or the West (25%). A majority (58%) lives in the suburbs.

Lifestyle notes: 63% use social networking. One-in-five (20%) regularly listen to NPR, 14% regularly watch The Daily Show, 10% read the New York Times. 31% trade stocks and 53% have a passport.

Originally Posted by adaher

Then they got older and got richer.

The same thing should happen with the current youth.

Actually, people do not grow more conservative as they age, rather the reverse.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by adaher

Long term, the Republicans do have to avoid the nativist inclinations, get a sounder fiscal policy, and appeal to a more diverse populace. But none of these problems are hard to overcome unless they are stubborn.

So the Republican Party is only in trouble if it's stubborn? Oh well then, no problem.

I wonder if I can still join the Whigs.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I don't think the Republican Party is all racist fury and cultural rage. I think those are unfortunately just the loudest part of the current Republican Party. And I think this is a problem for Republicans.

First, there's the obvious. We should be embarrassed to be associated with these idiots. Let's purge them from the ranks.

It's a thought I've had, but practically you can't do it. If their constituents like them, then you have to accept them at a minimum. Marion Berry is downright insane and a criminal to boot, but Democrats can't get rid of the guy because he's popular with many DC voters. And the weirdos on our side, like Tancredo and Bachmann, if they keep on getting reelected.... That's how democracy works. Everyone gets a say, even if their views are crazy or hateful.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

So the Republican Party is only in trouble if it's stubborn? Oh well then, no problem.

I wonder if I can still join the Whigs.

Heh. Quite true. But I'm optimistic. Parties generally don't self annihilate for more than an electoral cycle or two. Getting booted out of power tends to focus the mind. Make Republicans an endangered species in elected office, and very soon you'll get new Republicans who actually can get elected.

Also, I frankly don't give a crap about social conservtism and have no patience for nativism. If the GOP has to lose those to appeal to a wider electorate, that's a feature, not a bug.