They don’t need to think – they’ll know in the gut that it implies that they didn’t take a hard enough line against teh gayz and teh femminazis and teh Mooselims and…
Especially since the Akin fiasco ruined what little power the party leadership has to rein in the whack-a-doodles. The situation in the GOP is going to be like the situation in a day care center where the babysitter tries to get one of the toddlers to quit acting out, fails, threatens to take away his ice cream, and then relents and gives him the ice cream anyway, all before the eyes of the other kids who then draw the obvious conclusions about how much they need to respect her authority.
Recognizing the nature of your position’s implications is the first step toward wisdom.
It seems that only an absolute beatdown of 1964 proportions will cure the party of its delusions. I give it a few more election cycles.
Yes, I think that how much control the fanatics have gotten is key to the future of the Republicans. If the relative pragmatics have or can regain ultimate control, then eventually the party will change and adapt as political parties usually do. If the fanatics are genuinely in charge though they’ll ride their present positions and tactics down in flames; that’s the sort of thing fanatics do.
I agree, Romney would have caved on gays serving in the military - perhaps even on invading Pakistan and violating their sovereignty. McCain was far superior in both respects. Though, Romney was far more adamant in his support of torture.
My party has significant brand issues. We are perceived as the party of rich white guys who light their cigars with hundred-dollar bills while we shriek at our minority servants to bring us another martini. The GOP has to overcome some of these issues–I don’t mean to suggest they’re all cosmetic, though some are–if they expect to win any national elections.
There’s room (I would argue, it’s urgently needed) for arguments the Democrats don’t typically run on–the need for a real debt solution, the need to change entitlements. These can be framed as strategies that are crucial to ensuring that people who need the government’s assistance will actually get it. As opposed to the current perception of such arguments with much of the U.S.–“Cut programs for the poor and middle class, so the rich can get richer!” We have to change that perception. I am confounded how bad we are at explaining how little the “tax the rich” strategy does. We need fundamental change, change that will NOT occur by introducing another $80 billion a year into the tax base. I often wish we’d just give on this to demonstrate what a drop in the ocean this is. Instead, we permit it to be an effective campaign slogan for the Dems. It doesn’t matter if we’re right, the Dems win this one in the public’s opinion.
But we ain’t getting the shift in our brand so long as the GOP frames its arguments in terms of “party purity” and immutable principles that cannot be modified an atom’s worth. People need to believe you have their best interests in mind–amazing concept. If you do that, I think people understand sometimes that means that everyone can’t have everything, and that something has to give. They* won’t* buy it from someone who seems to want to deport their grandmothers.
I think the shift is already beginning. When guys like Hannity move on immigration, for example, that’s a clear signal. And I have read several conservative columnists who are dismissing out of hand any suggestion that what we really needed was a “true conservative” candidate. Look at the Senate races to see how well that worked. I want us to be more libertarian, and have for a while. SSM? Whatever the states want. Let the fundamental principle be, “It’s none of my business, so long as nobody else is impacted.” You want to be the pro-life party? There’s lots of pro-life voters, but people need to know that you support, really support, those who are impacted by such restrictions. With money, that is.
We don’t need two Democratic parties, so the GOP needn’t morph into one. I think sane people from both parties recognize that there is a beneficial tension that can exist, where real ideas can be debated, and that there is something fundamentally valid in both parties’ perspectives. But so long as one party can effectively demonize the other, there’s no need for a real debate.
We do need to learn something from the Dem brand–you want the political will of the people behind your ideas? Overcome the impression that you couldn’t care less about the people you need. The GOP has a lot in common with the values of Hispanic and black voters, in some instances much more so than the Democratic party. But it doesn’t matter if those groups think they aren’t welcome in the tribe.
If we don’t address this, I believe my party will continue to be the one that gripes after each lost election about how right we are. Whatever, who cares? Want to actually win a national election? Maybe you need to look at how you’re perceived, and find ways to move the needle in a positive way while still holding on to your core values. I believe that’s possible, and I am pleased at how quickly this seems to be getting accepted. We’ll see if it turns into something real.
Of course, to do that, they would have to convince those groups that RW economic, fiscal and social policies are in their best interests. Could they? Or, could they win over significant numbers on cultural conservatism alone?
For the latter, Ayn Rand, straight.
More profitable, at any rate.
I think it’s been linked to before, but I think this article shows what the Republican party faces. In short, the “face” of the Republican party is Rush Limbaugh and folks like him. They say that in “Obama’s America”, white kids get beat up by cheering black kids. They gleefully laugh along with songs like “Barack the Magic Negro”. They call Obama and Halle Berry “Halfrican Americans”. They call women who want insurance to cover birth control “sluts”. And they are essentially fawned over by most Republicans.
That doesn’t just turn off black voters- it turns off lots and lots of white voters too. Pushing Marco Rubio and Herman Cain forward isn’t going to make up for that. That part of the Republican party, which happens to be the most vocal part, needs to be repudiated, set on fire, brutally stamped out, and thrown into the deepest part of the ocean forever- by senior Republicans. Until that happens, Republican support will continue to fall among women and minorities.
The wealthiest have lots of money, but they don’t have a whole lot of votes!
After 1964, Goldwaterism basically took a long march into dominance in the Republican Party and made substantial inroads into the Democratic Party. They certainly didn’t learn that appealing to white Southerners through opposition to civil rights was a losing strategy, for an obvious example.
They made a fateful and short sighted bargain. I don’t actually believe in Satan, but some things men do are so evil it doesn’t really matter.
They need to pay the price for striking that bargain with evil. I don’t want to succeed with people who bargained with evil for political gain, though I will work with people whose parents did. All I need to have them convincingly denounce their parents, and I’ll work with them. We’re still dealing with 20th century first-generation evil, though–this process will take a while. As it should.
Ron Paul mastered this stance. Of course, he also considers Social Security unconstitutional. Now if only that message could reach a wider base…
Note, check signature.
What in the world makes you think that there were 3M fewer voters for the Republican ticket this time? The 2008 election produced just under 60M votes for Senator McCain; the 2012 election produced just under 59M votes for Mr. Romney. So the Republican total went down by just over 1M votes; the general election total went down by 8.8M votes. As a result, Mr. Romney scored significantly more of the vote than did Sen. McCain. The vote totals were down because a significant portion of the electorate didn’t come out to vote this time (at least 6.5% of the 2008 voters).
I think FOX will start to shift. I think they’ve already started somewhat, attempting to claim a little more legitimacy.
Conservatives hate and fear change, but I think skillful propagandists can make NOT changing and therefore losing scarier than changing a little. So, I’m predicting a shift at FOX and eventually in the party. The network has to worry about the changing demographics as much as the party does, since they’ve tied themselves to the Republicans so thoroughly.
From Eric Erickson atRedState:
Again, between this and Limbaugh saying it’s not worth it to worry about minorities because they all want hand-outs and “Santa Claus”, and blame-shifting to Sandy or Chris Christie or “Our ORCA program was broken or else we’d have gotten a million-thousand more votes”, the whole “soul searching” honeymoon is coming to a rapid close. I don’t expect any major changes from the GOP. Maybe long enough in Congress to force a bargain on taxes/deficit/debt ceiling and maybe even a discussion on immigration but the heart and soul of the GOP has remained unchanged.
Don’t worry, oh insincere one. There will be people out preaching the Pauline Creed as long as St. Dr. Paul is alive, and for a while after he’s dead. And after those people forget about Ron Paul, they’ll latch on to another scammer to fleece them out of their money to “run for office” only in ways that ensure the scammer won’t win.