A Republican Rebranding

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Both Republicans and Democrats (though to a lesser extent) have been pro-free trade without alienating their protectionist constituencies too much.

However increasingly the Republicans and Democrats have two paths to take: 1) a socially moderate, economically neo-liberal (although open to welfare and social programs), and purusing a moderate and pragmatic foreign policy which will attract the middle class and up, the youth vote, and Hispanics (due to the party’s presumable openness to immigration) and 2) a socially conservative (or possibly proclaim a “ceasefire” on social issues to gather together various groups) party purusing economic protectionism and isolationism in foreign policy composed of a disparate coalition of progressives, paleocons, and others. The Democrats are clearly on the first path but Republicans can be viable with the first also (by attracting the somewhat more pro-free market or socially conservative elements) and taking the second option will mean fighting against history and appealing largely to shrinking sectors of the electorate.

What makes you think economic protectionism is “fighting against history”? Read this.

[AlienVessels]

@silenus

You want to woo Centrist Democrats over to your side? Put defense spending on the table from the get-go. Start balancing the budget by slashing the bloat in the DoD and M/I complex. That would swing quite a few votes.

You’d lose way more votes than you’d gain.

[Sparky_the_Wonder_Spirit]

@Acid_Lamp

Abortion and Gay marriage: Simply move from a negative position to a neutral one. Leave it to the states to decide and become the party of neutrality while maintaining a private stance of opposition. You lose nothing of the base by moving to this position, and will likely gain a lot of votes from social liberals who do not like the left’s fiscal agenda.

So, you’re going a woman’s right to choose and put it in the hands of people like Todd Akin and Paul Ryan. Yeah. That’s really going to appeal to social liberals.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I think he meant moderates.

[Acid_Lamp]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I think he meant moderates.

Indeed I did. Sorry about that.

[Voyager]

@AlienVessels

You’d lose way more votes than you’d gain.

Maybe in this election, but not long term. The real Republican problem today is that there are just enough hardcore ones to swing primaries but not enough to win elections. Now, the moderate Republicans can wait for the hardcore ones to die off and then come out from hiding, or they can keep making an argument from principle. if they ever bring back enough moderate Republicans to win, the hard core ones have a choice of sitting out the election or holding their noses and voting for what they see as the lesser of the two evils. The conservatives didn’t take over in one election - it took from 1964 to 1980 for them to come back after the Goldwater trouncing.

If the party leaders start talking compromise instead of my way or the highway - which they may be doing - they might bring some of the trogs along with them.

[DigitalC]

@gazpacho

The Republicans control the House their candidate for president got 47% of the vote. They don’t need rebranding. This election didn’t go as well for them as they hoped but that sort of thing happens in politics. Next election that there is not an incumbent running against them so there might be a couple of legitimate candidates in the primaries and the press will have something to talk about besides the wing nuts.

47% THIS election. What happens four years from now when there are more hispanics? more young people and less old people? more people moving from rural areas to cities? less people who consider themselves religious? The problem Republicans have is that every single group that votes for them is shrinking while every group that votes Dem is growing. They DO need rebranding because rural, old, religious white people are going to be less than 47% of the vote in four years.

[Untoward_Parable]

@DigitalC

47% THIS election. What happens four years from now when there are more hispanics? more young people and less old people? more people moving from rural areas to cities? less people who consider themselves religious? The problem Republicans have is that every single group that votes for them is shrinking while every group that votes Dem is growing. They DO need rebranding because rural, old, religious white people are going to be less than 47% of the vote in four years.

Yep, the R’s are just backing themselves into a corner. I wouldn’t underestimate the public’s dissatisfaction with government in general though and whichever party occupies control of government too long will get blamed for it’s problems and the public will tend to shift to the other side hoping they’re better and forgetting that they’re not.

The only way the democrats can truly invalidate the republican party is by actually pushing through popular policy and stop appointing ex-industry people to regulatory agencies like the fed, fda, epa, fcc, break up (or bring under tight euro-style regulation) the monopolies and oligopolies, put tariffs on low-wage products, give tax breaks to companies based on broad wages paid to US citizens, have real checks and enforcement against employers using illegal immigrant labor ect (Bring it into a regulated system instead of a free flowing flood), Put incentives in place toward production of improved products and services with net benefits to society instead of for market gamblers and junk food.

[gazpacho]

@DigitalC

47% THIS election. What happens four years from now when there are more hispanics? more young people and less old people? more people moving from rural areas to cities? less people who consider themselves religious? The problem Republicans have is that every single group that votes for them is shrinking while every group that votes Dem is growing. They DO need rebranding because rural, old, religious white people are going to be less than 47% of the vote in four years.

Today’s young people become older. Hispanics become more integrated with the main stream. It wasn’t too long ago that Irish immigrants and Catholics were outside the main stream conservative establishment. But now they are accepted into the conservative establishment.

[iiandyiiii]

@gazpacho

Today’s young people become older. Hispanics become more integrated with the main stream. It wasn’t too long ago that Irish immigrants and Catholics were outside the main stream conservative establishment. But now they are accepted into the conservative establishment.

Republicans, please follow this person’s advice and make no effort to attract minorities- just assume that they’ll join you with time. Really. You’ll be making the country a better place for our children.

[suranyi]

@gazpacho

Today’s young people become older. Hispanics become more integrated with the main stream. It wasn’t too long ago that Irish immigrants and Catholics were outside the main stream conservative establishment. But now they are accepted into the conservative establishment.

Yes, but the conservative establishment also changed. They no longer proclaimed things like “Irish keep out!”, and “No Irish may apply here.” I can assure you that if they still did things like that, people of Irish descent would be voting Democratic in as high numbers as Latinos are. The analogy, I hope, is obvious.

[gazpacho]

@iiandyiiii

Republicans, please follow this person’s advice and make no effort to attract minorities- just assume that they’ll join you with time. Really. You’ll be making the country a better place for our children.

I have voted for democrats for years because the Republicans are a bunch of hateful jerks. I just think that this declaration of the death of the Republican party after the success the Democrats had this election is delusional. It is like Karl Rove insisting that Ohio was still in play. They just need to not beat each other up so much in the primaries so they can give the illusion that they are a party of responsible adults and not a bunch of intolerant hateful jerks.

[BrainGlutton]

@gazpacho

Today’s young people become older.

But they don’t grow more conservative as they age. Quite the reverse.

[UltraVires]

@Fear_Itself

Then, as a Liberal Democrat, I have nothing to worry about, because none of that is gonna happen. The right wing base would sooner give themselves abortions with an Obamaphone than settle for anything less than rounding up 12 million illegal aliens and frog marching them back across the border.

Then you don’t know the right wing base. Sure, a few crazies want that, but reasonable people don’t. The reason that reasonable people (and I think that I am in that group) generally oppose amnesty is because it simply encourages more illegal immigrants to come across in the hopes of the next amnesty.

In so situation in this reality will 12 million people be herded up and sent back to Mexico. It will never happen. I would absolutely get behind a comprehensive proposal of a border fence, certification that illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle, a path to a green card for those physically present before January 1, 20XX, and instant deportation for those who arrive after.

Both parties need to have realistic solutions: a general amnesty with no plan to halt further illegal immigration isn’t reasonable, nor is deporting millions.

[snuffleupagus]

I like OP’s ideas, but the problem as many have mentioned is, the Republican Party is basically split between members of the religious right who are more authoritarian, and libertarians. As a libertarian registered Republican, I would sorely love to see the Republican Party champion freedom and liberty. Unfortunately, it appears the authoritarians in the party have control right now and it is hard to imagine the Rs as a driving force behind drug decriminalization, states rights in the matters of abortion and gay marriage, ending imperialism/military presence around the world, etc, as much as I and many other members of the party I know would like that. There is some debate about staying and changing the party from within to try to move more libertarian, vs giving up and leaving to join the Libertarian Party. Rand Paul is our best bet, along with other up and comers in the party like Justin Amash and Thomas Massie.

[Marley23]

We’ll see if this is related to any kind of rebranding, but Jim DeMint is quitting the Senate next month. He’ll be running the Heritage Foundation instead. He was elected to his second term in 2010 and had said he wouldn’t run for a third term, but he’s quitting four years early in any case, and I can’t help wondering if the Senate is feeling less hospitable for hardline conservatives. Certainly the right wing in the House is not very happy right now.

[DSYoungEsq]

It would certainly be nice if the party leaders who are less ideologically “pure” would start standing up to the issue-ranters on the wing and make an argument for more moderated viewpoints. The current purge of House members from committees and such might indicate that Boehner, at least, has had enough of kow-towing to back-benchers and their imagined whips.

But, lest we get too caught up in this “re-branding” idea, please recall that just 2 years ago, it was Democrats who were undergoing the re-examination of their principles, and Republicans who were crowing how they were on a roll. :dubious:

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

We get this after pretty much every election. There were about 50 threads here after the 2008 election predicting the demise of the GOP. Then there were about 50 after the midterms predicting the demise of the Democratic Party. Hell, they were probably started by the same people.

[YogSothoth]

Well its not entirely contrarian. Demographics slowly and surely do not favor the GOP. Issues like gay marriage that used to be a wedge isn’t anymore, at least they’ve lost most of their power. Liberal ideas have won a lot of wars, not just battles, and it seems Republicans are scrambling to simply win battles here and there while conceding the war.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

We get this after pretty much every election. There were about 50 threads here after the 2008 election predicting the demise of the GOP. Then there were about 50 after the midterms predicting the demise of the Democratic Party. Hell, they were probably started by the same people.

And when it finally happens, will you start a thread saying “I was a gigantic douchebag for belittling people who correctly foresaw the death of the GOP”? Personally, I would appreciate it if you did in that eventuality.