Since the election and around the inaguration I saw several news stories about the Republican leadership attending a private retreat, seemingly to discuss new strategies for moving the party forward. Are they just licking their wounds, or will they come up with something more palatable to a country that seems to be trending less white, less evangelical, and more tolerant? What do you think they will become? How might they change their positions? I do not think they will become irrelevant, but the trajectory they have been on is not sustainable.
Also, what do you think the Democrats need to change in order to maintain their position, and not let portions of their coalition erode to the other side? I can see them alienating a large number of responsible gun owners, for example.
An article in the Times this morning discussed them working on whether to work with Obama or to keep up the obstructionism. It quoted some Republicans as realizing that the people were not on their side - and the tide is moving away from them.
The question is whether the leadership can keep the rabid anti-gay, anti-immigration, anti-tax nuts under control. The party is going to have to change a lot before we need to worry about moderates going back in.
I don’t see why a responsible gun owner would be driven away by background checks and registration. A paranoid one, sure the government is going to oppress him, sure, but he’s not voting Democratic in any case.
The product they have marketed incessently for the last couple of decades has a strong purity element. As well as a demonization of their opponents. The result being that any straying from the prescribed talking points gets a severe smackdown - most lately by the Tea Party. So, this being the bed they have constructed for themselves, how can they possibly introduce any movement toward the middle? Their base would howl like a pup who got his tail run over.
In a similar conversation on another board, the point has been made that they don’t really have any room to shift their position leftward; the Democrats have been moving Right for decades in tandem with them, so any move to the left makes them pretty much indistinguishable from the Democrats.
Naw, I don’t see that as a problem. It’s only the folks on the extremes, who compose a small percentage of either party who even think about the two being indistinguishable or can’t see the differences. How many Democrats refused to vote for Democratic candidates because the Dems has supposedly become Republican Lite or whatever? I’m sure a few, but not many. It’s all about the brand. And even if you are right and the Dems have moved towards the Right (personally, I think that they have actually moved more towards the center, which is why they are more popular today than the Republicans…well, that and the Republicans have fucked up so much of course, which always helps the other party), there are still a number of defining positions that demonstrate the parties aren’t the same regardless of their supposed right or leftward movement.
I agree that the Dems, ever since Clinton, have been moving towards the center. What is different between the parties is that the Dems do not have a faction attacking anyone who is impure with money and fanatical followers. That allows them to run candidates more or less suited to the location. Of course, in some places on whackos are suited.
And Der Trihs reminds me that George Wallace, in 1968, used to say that there wasn’t a dimes worth of difference between the two parties. Given that the candidates were Nixon and Humphrey, I definitely agree with you about only extremists thinking they are similar. From the other side it is the RINO label.
This, I think, is the real issue that was hashed out at the retreat–and it’s likely the first step in a long process that–for obvious political reasons–the GOP doesn’t want to discuss in public. In short, it’s less about policy and more about PR.
I don’t really see them alienating any more gun owners that haven’t already gone over to the GOP. I mentioned in the “Handicapping Federal Gun Control” thread that the Dem coalition is strongly in favor of some gun control, and that the main opposition is from non-college rural whites. I just don’t see this as a political loser for Obama; and in fact finding more reasons to bind this still-demographically-diverse coalition together will improve the Dem’s chances in the long term. I suspect their strategy will be to find more issues like this and hammer away legislatively.
That’s the GOP’s real problem: Their RW-populist/Tea Party/paleocon/theocon base. The “Staunch Conservatives” in the Pew Political Typology. Can’t win with 'em, can’t win without 'em.
I am not sure it is a matter of being left or right, altho I do agree with what you are saying about the Dems generally moving right-ward in recent decades.
I am thinking the task at hand is for the Republicans to adopt positions that appeal to more voters. They can cling to their backward positions we saw in this recent election, and they will continue to lose footing. The voters they seemed to appeal to most this past cycle were rural, evangelical, gun-toting whites, or rich white men and their subservient white wives. That is not enough people to win national elections.
Also, I think the reflexive opposition to the Dems each and every idea, and the villifying of anyone and anything not supported by Rush Limburger has gone it’s course, and people are tired of this nonsense of attack, attack, attack. It makes them look desperate and unflexible and out of ideas of their own. I would be more willing to listen to them if they would go after the ridiculous tea-party idiots for their failed ideas as heartily as they have been attacking Obama on everything.
The Democrats have hardly shifted to the right on social issues, and even on economic issues they simply have been advocating adopting or reforming the New Deal/Great Society welfare state. Republicans have plenty of vulnerable spots from which to attack the Democrats-to abolish farm subsidies, education reform, encouraging nuclear power, genuine entitlement reform (this does not mean turn them into voucher programs), marijuana legalization, and so forth while maintaining a distinct Republican identity.
Why shouldn’t the GOP turn “right” instead of “left?”
Since Reagan, Republican candidates have been an assortment of milquetoasts nominally described as “conservative” but lacking any gumption to really take the fight to the Dems. Last time out, they nominated Romney whose health care initiative in Mass was the model for “Obamacare,” which sparked the GOP taking of the House in 2010.
The Dems have a real problem of their own: the enormous debt built up over the past four years to which they are irrevocably tied. The Republicans might ought to “let it hang out” in 2016 and heighten the contradictions with someone like Rand Paul.
Of course, there would have to be some contradictions to heighten – which there aren’t – but elections are games of strategy anyway.
Because their far right positions and rhetoric are already alienating people and turning into a clone of the American Nazi Party won’t help that. There just isn’t much room remaining for them to go further right; they’re already rather psychotic.
:rolleyes: Reagan by modern Republican standards would be a “RINO”; Reagan would fit just fine in the present Democratic Party.
Hopefully they’ll do something like that and get annihilated at the polls.
Of those, ending farm subsidies and legalising marijuana are the only ones which enjoy a majority of support and Republicans oppose ending subsidies for large farms to a greater degree than Democrats, while Democrats oppose ending subsidies to small farms to a greater degree than Republicans (cite). Ending subsidies to both would actually alienate a substantial segment of their base and galvanise opposition to them. Far more Democrats than Republicans support the legalisation of weed, so again, that’s an issue where they’d lose considerable support from their base. Obama supports the building of nuclear power plants despite receiving only plurality support on the issue. Education and the social programs are very popular. Foreign aid less so - if itemised and expenditure listed, I’d assume military aid would receive the least support and humanitarian aid to third world countries at least a plurality.