This has come up is several threads here - the GOP brand aiming at shrinking targets and failing to appeal to the growing populations of voters. From the failure to roundly condemn Trump, to continued resistance to gay marriage, and so on. Opportunities to expand the brand have presented and been passed up on again and again, with the focus repetitively being narrowcasted to an increasingly shrinking demographic. Hoping that enthusiasm there will offset the steadily decreasing size.
All the groups with a GOP tilt are stable or shrinking demographics: “white men, those with less education and evangelical Protestants – as well as members of the Silent Generation.”
Pretty much all the groups with a Democratic tilt are growing demographics: “blacks, Asians, Hispanics, well-educated adults and Millennials.”
Attending some, which is pretty dang common now, is “well-educated” for those purposes. The higher up the more the Democratic advantage in party lean goes; the Democratic advantage among those with post graduate experience is huge.
The Millennials are a larger cohort than the Boomers, and not to put too fine a point on it, they are more the future than are the Silent Generation; not reversing their loss from the GOP ranks should be making GOP leadership quake in their boots.
So far though it seems that this is not the cycle that the GOP will take on the future of the brand problem seriously. And indeed the nature of the divides (and gerrymandering) will allow them to do well in Congress for several cycles even as the brand’s popular demographics shrink further.
The Republican brand will continue to suffer until the Federal Govt runs out of money. The US electorate is unsurprisingly content with a Government that has spent $8 trillion more dollars than it has taken in in taxes over the previous six years. We see with Europe that when the money runs out the electorate move to the right. Since I don’t believe in American exceptionalism what happens in Europe is likely to happen in the US too.
The above does not take into account the culture wars. Culture wars as an electoral issue usually take second place to economic and financial ones. Finally, any Party that begins to think itself unbeatable tends to become complacent and corrupt.
Well that much might be true but the rest of the post really has very little to do with the op.
Especially since the GOP owns Congress and that the single best performance in terms of debt among the modern Presidents was Bill Clinton’s tenure (by a variety of measures including debt to GDP).
To try to spin into an answer by way of illustrating one line of GOP thinking - the GOP will trust that they can continue to narrowcast and that economic disasters to come will drive the broader electorate to them despite their culture wars against them.
The answer is that leadership will doubledown into the base conservative talking points.
Now the fact that owning up to being liberal has become more popular among those who lean Democratic rightly does not disturb GOP leadership. But these facts should:
Yes, nearly half of those who identify as or lean to the GOP are NOT conservative on social issues.
Sorry, I cant talk for every Republican Senator or Congressman. It is probably an electoral strategy just as much as tax increases are also an electoral strategy for Democrats; that is they are an electoral strategy for some, an ideological issue for others.
You conveniently forget Clinton was the most right wing modern President on economic issues of just about anyone other than Reagan. Clinton also had to deal with a right wing Congress for the most part. Both these things todays Republicans can claim as a historic victory for their ideological side though obviously not their political side. With folk such as yourself cherrypicking cause and effect it is the Repubs job to shout this from the rooftops.
I did say culture wars become secoondary once the money runs out. That means until the money runs out Republicans will be up against it. Once it does the cards are off the table. Europe suggests the electorate will turn to the right on economic issues.
If I were a Republican I would embrace personal responsibility as an ideology. Personal responsibility keeps social irresponsibility in check. This to me seems the obvious answer to most Republican divisions between the religous right and libertarian right within the party. Whether or not Republicans will take this stance I have no idea. I think they may eventually be forced to.
Today’s Republicans continue to be on the wrong side of history. Health care for all, marriage equality, climate change - they are coming around to these concepts kicking and screaming. Their platforms are based on fear - fear the government is going to take their guns and give their job to a foreigner, or force them to provide service for a “sinner”.
While people say economic issues are most important to them when they vote, IMHO things get personal when a candidate opens his mouth and says stupid things about people like you. Tax cuts for rich people is something affecting someone else, but when Republicans start motioning about taking away your health care, or saying you and your kind are rapists and drug dealers, or that they do not support you marrying your life partner, that is something people can relate-to directly, and it seems the Democrats are more inclusive, in general, in this regard.
I don’t see the Republicans changing course until they ditch the divisive rhetoric and start paying attention to the problems common people are dealing with daily. They have assembled a group of voters with narrow self interests, people fearful of the government role in their lives, and the religious who can be relied-upon to vote on emotions rather than facts. With creative Gerrymandering, that can stay relevant for a while, but not forever.
Your not demonizing poor people. All your doing is saying: fuck who you like, snort what you like, shoot what you like. Just don’t expect too much help when you catch an std, become pregnant, or your teeth start falling out from the use of crystal meths. Im sure a social safety net will remain. Exactly where the net is placed is still up for grabs though.
Thats true. It’s also true that people are willing to have such a safety net when it’s largely paid through borrowing rather than taxation. Increase their taxes by one cent in the dollar and just listen as they howl in anger. But that’'s getting back to my first reply in this thread.
Oh, Ok, I think I actually agree with you 100% on that part. That is a rarity on SDMB:D
Well, what if your dad is a janitor and your mother is a waitress and you want to go to college to study chemical engineering? What does a new Republican view of personal responsibility have to say for that? Do we use money from taxes to help people of low economic background go to college, do they do it all themself and their family? Probably some combination of both???
No, not forgot. But one, not so sure how to judge “right” on economic issues. Is “right” embracing “trickle down” and cutting government spending in education, social services, while increasing defense? Is it looking out primarily for the interests of the 0.01% (while even the 99 to 99.9%ers get screwed, let alone everyone else)?
I am not so sure that “right” and “left” capture real economic policy positions all that well, but as far as responsible economic governance goes, the GOP does not have such a great record. Is worrying about the deficit a “right” position? Or only if one also embraces the Laffler napkin?
Meanwhile it is completely possible to aim economic policies at doing something about the increasing severity of income inequality in this country and the hollowing out of the middle class and be what by many metrics is fiscally conservative to centrist with attention to lowering the deficit over the moderate to long term. There are many Democratic leaders who stake that ground out. It is not anathema to the brand. Socially liberal to moderate and economically moderate to conservative (depending on how such gets defined) can win Democratic primaries.
Also “right” in European sense is generally fairly “left” by most American metrics. (With some extreme counter examples of course.)
When do you predict the money will run out?
Does “personal responsibility” run to banks that fail? Paying for all healthcare out of your pocket and if you don’t have the money upfront … well the emergency department should refuse to let you in? Eat what you want, don’t exercise, smoke, and drink several beers a day, if you want, just don’t expect much help with your diabetes, heart disease, strokes, dementia, liver failure, and various cancers? Do you cover pregnancy care ever? Only if the couple got pregnant “responsibly”?
As one of those I’m actually surprised it’s not a little higher. Depending on how the question is asked I might be including some that are in between or are socially conservative but don’t want government involved in social issues. I’d put it at a large minority that combines both strong social conservatism and an authoritarian approach that means they want government intruding on social issues. They’ve been active, coherent and organized. They weren’t shy about trying to punish those in the party that disagree with that viewpoint. It’s showed.
The last mid-term seemed to reduce that effect slightly. “Establishment” candidates did better getting nominations and managed to win. The RNC also changed the rules for the upcoming Presidential primary process. Some on the far right decrythe changes as favoring establishment candidates. That coherent base has had a hard time breaking through the nomination process even before that rule change.
Classical liberalism (aside from use of the L-word) still resonates internally and the concepts are used as spin to sell even things that are pretty authoritarian, social conservatism. That’s an area where the party could move outside it’s core demographic and get votes from the center. The old Republican foreign policy focus has largely been vacated except for neo-cons and the most hawkish. That’s another area where we could move outside the current demographics some. Some good old fashioned realistic fiscal conservatism instead of what’s been happening lately could also form a form a coalition that got votes from the center.
None of that can happen while the the far social right is still powerful, unwilling to compromise, and focused on social issues before all others. I like to think their power started to wane in 2014. The alternative is their ugly demographic death by a thousand cuts.
Dseid, I expect that you and I would agree on most things, but, if I want to eat cheeseburgers and pizza everyday why would tax payers be expected to help pay for my dental work from a bad diet and not taking care of my teeth or pay for obesity related medical bills if I’m the one who ate the cheeseburgers and the pizza.
The questions you ask is for policy wonks to decide. Personally, I think a society that does not discourage good decision making in its populace and discourages bad lifestyle choices(or at least doesn’t promote them) is about right. Im a libertarian of sorts. To help your wannabe college student I would also promote online learning. It’s not going to be as good as Ivy League but it’s not the job of the State to get other than the very, very best of the poorest students to get to Ivy Leaugue.
I suspect your only unsure of judging what is right wing economics because you dont want to give right wing economics credit for the Clinton boom. By right wing economics I mean fairly stable money supply, cutting subsidies and tax loopholes, cutting unemployment benefits(note this worked again spectacularly well during the Obama Presidency too) amongs other policies.
I have no idea when the money will run out. The economy is far too complex for almost anyone to answer . It’s the type of thing only one in a thousand Wall Street bigwigs will forsee. I do suspect as the population ages the money available to the Govt will become more stretched. More than this I will not say. And if truth be told neither would the greatest of economic eggheads predict it either.
Yes, I would allow banks to fail, and let everyone eat what they wish. As I said above the position of the safety net is for policy wonks to decide not for some bloke on an internet forum. Cutting pregnancy cover would be politically unpopular but not impossible. Far easier is cutting stuff such as benefits for older and multiple children. These are very do-able and not necessarily brand ruining.
Well, I’m kind of an anti-libertarian but that is just my own label I’m not a scholar or even particularly well educated on hard core economic theory. I can agree with online learning being an excellent tool in 2015 and going forward. As far as:
Personally, I think a society that does not discourage good decision making in its populace and discourages bad lifestyle choices(or at least doesn’t promote them) is about right. Im a libertarian of sorts.***
That really does sound good. In theory. I don’t meant that pejoratively. If you would allow me, I would define one of the key aspects of Libertarianism as being idealistic, let me say led by principles instead of idealistic. Economic and political principle, values, ideals, seem very important to Libertarians. I know it can be said the same for hard core leftists, we are set in our ideals and values too. But too me the bottom line is utility and practicality. It doesn’t matter to me how noble a principle or how refined, I am most and first concerned with results.
So how does one find the middle ground between principle and practicality?
*** BTW, I really do actually like the basic idea you are trying to get across here.
Obviously most with poor diet and poor exercise habit related illnesses are not at the extreme of eating cheeseburgers and pizza every day, and many with health consequences from those choices (coupled with genetic predisposition) are not obese or even overweight. What level of attention to good nutrition habits and exercise over what period of time is required before diabetes care is covered? Just don’t pay for care for heart attack or stroke care unless one can prove that your lifetime of nutrition and exercise habits were good enough? If you smoked in the past does your current heart attack, stroke, or bladder cancer not get covered? Had sex without a condom ever so your cervical cancer (or penile, anal, head and neck cancer) gets no coverage? Your getting HPV was the result of a behavior you did at some point.
For the purposes of this discussion though I just want to clarify that what is being proposed is consistent, and not just to what the poster thinks of as things that the “they” do, while exempting things that those who he may think of as his “us” would need care for. A lot of Southern states lead the country in obesity rates. 9 of the top ten states for T2 DM rates are Southern ones, most of them reliably GOP, and each of them has over 11% of the population with T2 DM, clearly something that is most often long term lifestyle related.
Is telling them all that their medical bills are their personal responsibility a winning tactic to expand the numbers who lean to you? Or a way to flip the south to the Democrats?
The thing is that when politicians talk about “personal responsibility” they generally end up meaning that “others” are responsible for whatever bad things happen to them and “we” have no societal obligation to help … but things that happen to me and mine? That is untouchable as my right to get help. “Personal responsibility” usually ends up meaning “I gots mine bud; youse on youse own.”
My take is that we are all in a boat together. We don’t need to like each other but we have to look out for each other and work together. But agree or disagree with that position, the question is if a non-self-serving take on “personal responsibility” would appeal to the growing populations that are currently not leaning GOP, again: “blacks, Asians, Hispanics, well-educated adults and Millennials” and the increasing number of those who are socially moderate to liberal and/or not socially authoritarian. And to those already in the GOP for that matter. “Compassionate Conservatism” it aint.
But, If I smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 40 years, why do tax payers need to pay for my medical treatment when I get lung cancer? (I’m trying to make the best hypothetical question to illustrate the point, not, to disagree with you).
Ignoring the philosophical angle, because you cannot pick and choose which lifestyle related adverse outcomes you will cover and which not according to arbitrary preference and the vast majority of illnesses have some degree of risk increase and decrease related to lifestyle choices. Very rarely is it 100% sure that a disease state is 100% related to a behavior … or not.
Lung cancer is actually the worse example for you to make as many analyses have concluded that from an exclusive cost stand point a smoker getting lung cancer saves the system money. They typically died fairly quickly and cheaply right near the end of them paying money into the system and before they started taking anything out and before needing any chronic disease management.
Now COPD or emphysema from smoking … that makes your point … both pretty close to being sure that was from smoking and costs society chronic dollars not saving any … but seriously you think that refusing to pay for Dad’s oxygen tank and having him suffocate to death because it was his personal responsibility to have not smoked all those years, is a way to win votes?
The deficit has been cut by close to a trillion dollars over those same six years. It is about the same as it was in FY 2008 (starting Oct. 1, 2007) when the country was in a boom, except the current future has no similar financial disaster staring it in the face. Just the opposite.
Using the federal deficit as a symbol in almost any political argument will steer you wrong.
