The foamers are going to go somewhere, and the GOP will continue to hold the door open for them. Too big a voting bloc requiring only sops to maintain loyalty. IMO their leaders will moderate the raucous bleating to leverage equal opportunity candidates, ala Rick Warren's interviews earlier this year.
It's ironic that potential party defectors like Chris Buckley, Will, Parker et al though tarred with the elitist brush are inseparable from the coin ( or better,quilt) comprising GOP bedfellows. Third parties make statements but have no clout.It’s sad that you are apparently insulated in terms of your lack of exposure to people and organisations who actively support him.
As a card carrying member of the Obama fan club, I am happy to proffer that I personally find Obama worthy for the office in more than equal measure to the contempt I feel for the Bush era.
I must say, your comment clearly rings false just from its complete lack of accounting for Obama’s stratospheric popularity with wonks, elder statesmen of both parties, moderate Republicans, and the grassroots. Nor can it easily explain how so many people were attracted to him over Hillary and the establishment Clinton political machine.
If you want to get an idea about this, I could suggest any number of substantive endorsements which detail rather comprehensively, in policy terms, why they favour Obama.
This might be a good place to start:
A rapidly shrinking voting bloc that, again, no longer wins elections. And there’s little danger of the Democratic party courting them … within a few election cycles, the Republican party leadership (if savvy enough) will be able to marginalize the Religious Right safely. Let 'em stay home on Election Day.
Do you think that stripping the RR completely from Republican voters, McCain/Palin would present any threat to Obama? Why do you say rapidly shrinking?
IMO, Obama has already courted more thoughtful members of the religious community- it’s just that his statements are inclusive, and maintains church/state separateness.
I apologize for being unclear – I’m looking well down the road, since the OP is asking about what happens after this election.
No way I’ll be able to find numbers to support this, but I do believe the RR is older on average than the average non-RR voter. I also don’t think there are significant numbers of young voters entering the system that identify with the RR.
To my way of thinking, the Religious Right is merely a political movement with the clock running out, not some unmovable edifice that will be a player in national politics forever. It’s more like the temperance advocates/ Prohibitionists or Dixiecrats of years past – they stayed around for a while, but eventually society passed them by.
Christian conservatives are fond of Israel, though.
You can’t assume the GOP of the future will be the same as the GOP of the present, especially if they suffer an ass kicking in November, which appears likely. The GOP hasn’t always been beholden to the fundamentalist base and might not be in the future.
It’s also worth point out that the GOP hasn’t actually nominated many fundy candidates, all in all.
Only once? Are you kidding? Democratic-Republicans replaced Anti-Federalists, then replaced Federalists, then Whigs stepped into the Democratic-Republicans’ old shoes, then the party split into the combination of names (but not parties) that we see today. The party of Lincoln has very little to do with the party of McCain, and the party of Wilson has not much more to do with the party of Obama.
*Wilson was the first prominent Democratic President I could think of. Somehow ‘party of Cleveland’ doesn’t have the same ring to it.
[slight hijack]
Evangelicals conduct exorcisms, too. I’ve witnessed one, which wasn’t very impressive, and I’ve talked to missionaries who claimed to have exorcised demons in Africa. Nobody is a bigger believer in demons and demonic possession than evangelicals.
[/slight hijack]
Looking down the road, the RR will have to make adaptation to maintain power.
No need for cite with supporting numbers. Anecdotally and apropos of adaptation, Prohibitionists wore starched suits to church and sang to the organ or piano. Current goers wear jeans and tees, play searing feedback guitar solos as part of the "joyful noise".
To my thinking, these people are inseparable from the human spectrum and akin to grains of wheat that form heads; as such, a reliable voting group.
I'll concede they may have diminishing clout, but this seems more awareness of being used by the GOP with attendant fall back and re-grouping pending a McCain loss.I think it is important to postulate what the economic fallout will be in this current situation. If America is about to head into a financial wilderness that takes some time to crawl out of (as is very possible, even likely; we haven’t seen the impact that the financial issues are going to have on personal credit, nor have we seen the impact all of this will have on things like employment), the dynamics within the Republican party will be very interesting. After all, there will be a real sense among many Americans that the Republicans were the cause of the situation. This may well blunt the ability of the fiscal conservative lassez-faire economics side of the party to gain votes.
The moral imperative side of the party will continue to pick up steam, most likely, because anytime society is shaken by an economic turmoil, it becomes conservative in response. The morals of the 20s were viewed as loose; they were reigned in after the Depression arrived. The morals of the 60s and 70s were considered very loose; they were reigned in during the 80s after the economic dislocation of 79-81. Society continues to struggle with the burden of looser bounds on what is allowable (sex, divorce, drugs, spending), as is evidenced daily in our children and young adults. So those who pound the moral war drums will have a very empathetic response from a large section of the party.
The real question the Republican Party faces is whether or not, in the face of the moral imperativists, the progressives can keep a place at the table. It’s sad to think that the Republican Party was often the source of progressive legislation at the start of the last century, and as recently as the 70s still was accepting of progressive ideas like environmentalism and civil rights. Now, beating the drums of God, Family and School Choice, there is very little in the way of a progressive message to be heard. But a successful presidential candidate from either party MUST be able to balance the moral imperatives with a sense of progressivism; this is exactly the line that Reagan and Clinton walked, and even the incumbent, bless his heart, in 2000 talked a talk like he could do that. But the slow and steady slippage on the part of Sen. McCain in the polls shows that it isn’t enough to simply talk like you can be moderate and moral; you have to really be seen as wanting to be both. Can the moderates, the progressives in the party articulate an acceptable message? If so, who will be able to do it?
My thoughts on Palin and the future: Unlike Geraldine Ferraro, she has the advantage of being a major politician (Governor) from a state that has a limited number of those (Alaska has a small pool of prominent politicians), who isn’t going to have lost her job as a result of running for Vice-President. So it doesn’t seem likely that she will simply fade to obscurity. And while she is not currently being accepted by the majority of voters as a valid choice for President, she isn’t being seen as a complete idiot, like Dan Quayle was. Further, remember, Dan Quayle’s image is the result not so much of the campaign in 1988, as it is the result of four years of incumbency during which he honed that image. Repeatedly.
Palin was supposed to be the new Reagan. And the new Mrs Thatcher. She isn’t either.
In about 2 years time, possible Republican candidates are going to be taking views on how Obama is doing. If he’s doing well, they’ll sit out the next cycle - unless a Democratic Perot comes along - and wait for 2016. They’ll say all the right things and analyse the failure afterwards, then gear up for 2016.
Palin will act sooner: if she’s going for 2012, she’ll have to spend a lot of time educating herself and travelling. She can easily sell the latter as ‘selling Alaska’. Many here have commented on her apparent unwillingness to do the former. But really, a fight against a sitting President who isn’t a disaster is going to be a very tall order and she again may wait until 2016. With her Downs Syndrome child, she has an easy excuse.
I doubt she thinks she has to.
I agree, but consultants may convince her differently.
Naturally: being a politician, she’s confident of victory on Nov 4th.
In 1964.
So you’re comparing Obama with Kerry?