So the GOP imploded tomorrow and you were given the duty of rebuilding it, what would you do?
You can’t change their basic political platform - no making them pro-choice, pro-gun control, advocates for big government or anything of the like. But you’re free to make whatever admininstrative, communication and organizational changes you’d like. What would your ideal Republican Party look like?
I’d go with the Pre-Reagan era Republican Party. Richard Nixon would be way too liberal to get the GOP nomination today. He signed into law the bill that started the Environmental Protection Agency. He also supported the Equal Rights Amendment, and Universal Healthcare (payed for by employers).
You’re not allowed to change the platform, remember?
You can’t change their basic platform, but you can change how much emphasis they put on certain issues. You’re also free to make strategy changes.
So the remade GOP would still hate blacks, gays, Mexicans, Muslims, the poor, continue to control women’s biology, favor a militaristic response to just about any nation with opposing positions, and support global warming and environmental initiatives only insofar as they don’t conflict with corporations’ goals, but the degree to which each is expressed in policy is open to adjustment. Is that about right?
Come up with a decent front runner. The party has no face, If it is Palin they are screwed. But who can they rally behind?
They should purge the neocons. They have become lepers in the world. Wolfowitz, Pearle, Bush, And his ilk have to be denounced.
They should pretend they care about the mass of Americans. They have treated the small people with disdain. They can not win by pushing away massive groups of voters.
No, since you asked. But you’ll get lots of atta-boys on this board nonetheless, which I’m sure is why you posted it. It certainly couldn’t have been to invite debate.
You’re wrong, but that’s okay. I just want to understand the parameters of this little exercise.
I’d respond more fully, but I have to run out and hate some blacks, gays, poor folks, Muslims and Mexicans. Ah, good times!
Imho, I’d abolish the repub party, and split the dems into liberals and conservatives.
I’d eliminate the latent racism, focus on economic conservatism, avoid all social issues, and stop using fear to appeal to voters.
- Drop the social issues
- Stop the war on science (climate change evolution)
- Embrace actual conservatism
- Old school Teddy Roosevelt monopoly busting
- Embrace intellectual conservatives (George Will and such)
- All the Palins Joe the plumbers and Glenn Becks have no place in the party
The problem is not that Glenn Beck is a Republican Party leader, but that his ideas resonate with some Americans. So long as there is an audience for these ideas, the private sector will continue to capitalize on them for commercial gain. Any possible future for the two parties will have to find some way to accommodate them, or to figuratively disenfranchise them somehow.
As for the OP, I would prefer to see the Republican Party move toward fiscal responsibility and social apathy. They should focus on sustainable economic policy, which would probably mean halting growth in the federal bureaucracy - shrinking it would be ideal but untenable - then setting tax policy as necessary to truly balance the budget. I would position them somewhat to the right of the Blue Dogs and hope to eat away at moderates and the more conservative democrats.
There’s not really a single social issue on which I stand with the pubbies; as the leader of a reinvented party I’d allow for them to remain pro-gun but otherwise to reduce spending (importantly state as well as federal) by following Mexico in decriminalization of possession of small amounts of drugs, and for lowering abortion rates through judicious use of sensible sex education instead of fear and intimidation.
Let the Glenn Beck crowd hold their nose and pull the closer lever; or else drive them to a third party to die a death of obscurity.
The problem isn’t so much their official stances on the issues, as some posters have suggested. Could their views toward stuff like gay marriage and global warming use a major overhaul? Sure. But I figure their positions on economic policy and even *some * social issues could appeal to a lot of sensible people.
The problem is they insist on being extremely belligerent, playing the victim card while lambasting others who do so, and giving the reins over to the craziest elements in their base.
Unlike Onomatopoeia, I don’t feel the GOP is by its very nature a racist institution, nor do I believe that the great majority of its followers are racists. The problem is that they have for far too long been far too tolerant of those in their ranks who are racist or play on racial fears.
The immigration issue is a perfect example of this. There are a lot of Hispanics, especially second and third generation, who are all for securing the borders and putting a tighter lid on illegal immigration. They probably would have been happy with the plan Bush put forward. But the debate was effectively hijacked by the Tom Tancredo and Lou Dobbs crowd who insisted on playing up the issue’s racial undertones. Many in the GOP were all too happy to run with that line of thinking and in the end, for all the noise that was generated, nothing got done.
Basically, if I were in charge of the party I’d put much less emphasis on social issues, play down the fearmongering and focus our energies on what should be our stong suit, which is creating a sensible and fiscally sustainable economic policy.
Then how am I remaking the party at all? Am I not simply trying to put a prettier dress on what already exists?
And on further thought, for example, when Reagan remade the Republican Party, he didn’t do it by changing its administrative, communication, or organization, he did it by changing the platform.
Not that you asked for a debate on this, but…
What positions on economic policies? Not the ones they spout, and change at will to fit the occasion, but the ones they actually practice? Also, which social issues? Not saying there couldn’t be any, but I’d like to hear your take.
No argument there.
Evidence suggests otherwise.
I guess that depends on what you mean by “followers.” If you’re talking about the millions who are simply members of the party I’d say you’re correct. If, however, you’re talking about the 22 to 25 percent who consider themselves loyalists and everyone else RINOs, then I believe you’re incorrect.
define “a lot” percentagewise. I know you don’t have actual figures. I just want your sense of it.
True.
I’m not sure about that, but okay.
I’m glad you used the word “should” because it’s been a long time since Republicans actually did this.
Exactly. Meet the new Hoss, same as the old Hoss.
Atta-boy.
I missed responding to this point in my previous post.
The reason the GOP has been tolerant (to use a too-charitable term, IMO) with the racist element in the party is because it’s worked very well for them for the last 40 or so years. Why change something that achieves the desired results? The rank and file understood what Reagan meant by states rights, and were further comforted when he attempted to reverse a ruling that denied tax-exempt status to educational institutions that practiced discrimination against blacks. The GOP bosses gleefully rode the tide of the increasing indignation and justification of racism by white, mostly, but not exclusively, Southern voters.
Think about it. The party leaders didn’t elect themselves. This was more than mere tolerance of a relatively small number of whack jobs, which is bad enough. It was, and still is, at the very least, complicity (probably orchestrated) with the racist agenda of a large voter base.
I’ve sidetracked the thread, and I apologize.