What are the typical policy positions supported by younger Republicans - say, 35 and under? (I’m genuinely asking, not being rhetorical.) Is it possible that focusing more on those issues and less on those that appeal to their older base could allow them to retain their younger voters while attracting those who’ve been turned off by the more out-of-touch positions?
I guess what’s unclear to me is: Are younger Republicans comparatively more moderate/liberal? Or equally as conservative, but just less numerous (as a percentage of their generation) because their generation is more socially moderate/liberal? On same sex marriage, I think it’s the former, but I’m not so sure about other issues.
Some have tried to raise the question here in Canada where we have taxpayer funded universal health coverage. And here’s the answer. Moral questions aside, the health care system works most efficiently, and works best for all, if it’s unconditional and universal. As soon as you start imposing conditions and/or introducing alternative cost structures, then you’ve created a monster: the beginnings of a giant counterproductive bureaucracy that soon ends up costing far more than you’ve gained. Completely aside from the fact that morally you can’t deny someone lifesaving treatment just because he/she was stupid.
Sadly, there are those who are so obsessed with the idea of not paying for someone else’s problems or failings or stupidities that they’re either actually willing to pay much more just to avoid doing so, or else they just can’t believe that it’s costing them more. This is, in essence, the philosophical basis of the current health care fiasco: danged if I’m gonna pay for somebody else’s problems, and surely letting idiots die must be cheaper.
The GOP controls both houses, has 31 governors, and the last time the Dems won three presidential elections in a row was FDR. And this is with the GOP being tone deaf idiots. What if they actually get someone in charge who knows how to run proper propaganda? Maybe we should be talking about the future of the Dem brand? I’d like to be more optimistic, but this is America we’re talking about.
I also feel like maybe there’s an opportunity for the Republicans to remake themselves as something of a libertarian party. A platform could look like:
(1) Lower taxes
(2) Less government spending - both on military and social welfare programs
(3) Strong free-speech protection
(4) Strong protection for religious liberty
(5) Drastic reduction of government surveillance
(6) Less regulation of businesses
(7) Free trade
I have no idea if this would actually successfully attract votes, but it just seems so easy to lump together the conservative “small-government” politics with some more liberal issues that the Democrats haven’t been very focused on recently (curbing military spending, government surveillance, etc.) and put them all under a heading of “Keep the government out of your business.” It seems a lot less bipolar to me than the mainstream Republican platform is today.
(1) Lower taxes
WTF does that even mean? Taxes have meaning only with respect to value delivered in terms of government services and responsible management of the national debt.
(2) Less government spending - both on military and social welfare programs
Same as (1) above. Government efficiency, yes. Curb spending where it’s obviously excessive, yes. But when the richest country in the world has some of the lowest per-capita social spending in the industrialized world, not so much.
(3) Strong free-speech protection
Does “strong free speech protection” also mean unrestricted election spending by billionaires to get their friends elected?
(4) Strong protection for religious liberty
Does “strong protection for religious liberty” also mean allowing lunatics to use religion as a cover to advance social conservative agendas?
(5) Drastic reduction of government surveillance
That’s just a talking point – the real issue is “preserve the civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution”. Is that too much to ask? While at the same time protecting national security, keeping the two in balance?
(6) Less regulation of businesses
Wonderful! Let businesses engage in theft and financial malfeasance, let them dump toxins into our air and water, trash the environment, and deny climate change.
(7) Free trade
Ship all manufacturing jobs overseas, and let Walmart import Chinese crap from sweatshops powered by the world’s worst polluters. American workers have no jobs, but corporate profits soar and the 1% double their wealth again. What could possibly go wrong?
This is the downside to a “melting pot” when compared to monocultural societies. No one wants to help pay for things that are going to be used by others not like them. The idea of a melting pot works great in theory, but the problem is that not everything manages to fully melt. From this view, the real problem is the terrible state of American race relations.
Christ, that’s been part of every Republican speech since when, the 1940s? What they mean is lower taxes on the rich. They don’t mind raising sales taxes, liquor and cigarette taxes, etc. which hit the poor disproportionately. As long as the wealthy pay any taxes, they will bitch piss and moan that their taxes should be cut.
They’ve been for the latter since the 1930s, their base eats it like red meat. As for the former, I’m with you but every time ISIS farts you’re in for a round of soldier-worship and complaints about how Obama has crippled America.
We have one- it’s called the First Amendment. It’s even been expanded to guarantee the wealthy can buy elections and call it free speech. What the fuck more do you want?
Hey, does that include atheists and Muslims? Didn’t think so. They’re for the liberty of Christians, with a special exemption for the Jews who must be in Israel for the Rapture to occur, at which point they’ll go to hell for being non-Christians.
You might get some traction there. Blind squirrel and nut theory.
Oh yes, let’s grant licenses to pollute, exploit workers, manufacture shoddy goods, screw their customers, and so on. What a winning idea! Let’s abolish the FDA and go back to selling snake oil and radium water!
In other words, let’s fuck over manufacturing workers and ship their jobs overseas.
Your question is coming at it from a specific approach where you are only apply the costs of personal responsibility after the fact. There’s other ways to create incentives/disincentives. Smokers face relatively high taxes AND are the only group who’s preexisting tobacco use is allowed to be included in their insurance costs. The actuaries can include the full extra current costs of being a smoker in premiums for smokers. You don’t need to prevent Dad from getting the oxygen tank. If smokers on average paid the costs of some of them needing the tank already, why double bill? That’s more sellable at election time than basically negating the concept of insurance. It also puts the incentives much closer to the decision making they are related to.
So you are proposing soda (Big Gulp) and junk food taxes, and extra insurance costs if you cannot document acceptable nutrition and exercise habits as a GOP policy in service of “personal responsibility”?
Stop giving various groups a reason to vote viscerally against them. Winning them over is harder, but making them feel unthreatened works just as well because it keeps them at home.
Govern well next time they get the chance. Even in blue states, effective goernors and legislators find it easy to get reelected when the electorate thinks they’ve done a reasonably good job.
Basically, the party needs to be more associated with Ronald Reagan and Bob Dole, less so with Donald Trump and Todd Akin.
Let’s just stop doing just enough truly offensive stuff to stop some people active voting against us. See if we can’t trigger their apathy, get them to not vote.
Maybe consider actually being effective governors, and as a change do a good job, making getting reelected somewhat easier.
Sheesh, I don’t see how you can lose with such a positive and affirming platform, brilliant strategy!
We saw how it can work in 2014. The Democrats tried the war on women stuff again, our candidates didn’t say anything inflammatory, and the result was that the normally apathetic groups decided to be apathetic.
As for governing well, the Senate actually works again, so that’s a nice first step.
Midterm elections are not the same as Presidential elections. 2014 had incredibly low turnout – I’ll certainly concede that when turnout is incredibly low, the Republicans seem to do well. But I see no reason to believe that turnout in 2016 will be so low. It may not be as high as it was in 2008, but it doesn’t need to be for the Democrats to win.
This is an opinion assertion, and I disagree that it “works” any better than it did under Democratic control (in fact, I think it’s a lot worse).
Then why aren’t Republican governors doing a reasonably good job? There are a great many of them, now – LePage, Walker, Brownback, Christie, etc. – and they’re only fucking up their states and embarrassing their country.
