My favorite counter-rant, alas, is that this can produce tiny little parties that have the power to be disproportionately effective. If you have 45% R, 45% D, and 10% L, the L party has almost complete control! (It’s like being the swing vote on a divided Supreme Court. That one person is the Supreme Court!)
This rant is just as bigoted as the positions you attribute to your political opponents. People that disagree with your politics are not evil. They view the world differently than you do. Rational minds can differ.
Do you still think that was clever?
Seems like there are a lot of predictions that the GOP will self destruct and their doom is imminent. I have to wonder what elections these people are watching. the GOP KILLED in the last election and they are running about even in this one. actually a little better, since they are winning the generic Congressional vote slightly:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html
An average of 2 points ahead in Congress, 2 points behind for the Presidency. This is not exactly a party in crisis.
Of course the GOP has many, many problems. It’s in the middle of a civil war. By all rights, this civil war should have been fought over a few years while the GOP was in the political wilderness. But Democrats had to piss the public off in record time and mess it all up. So now you have a Congressional majority party that’s pretty chaotic with some downright weird elements getting more publicity than is their due. But that will work itself out in time.
Long term, the Republicans do have to avoid the nativist inclinations, get a sounder fiscal policy, and appeal to a more diverse populace. But none of these problems are hard to overcome unless they are stubborn.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton;15346464
No, it can’t continue – demographically. What you’re describing is the grouping labled “Staunch Conservatives” (as distinct from “Main Street Republicans”) in the [Pew Political Typology,]
(Typology Group Profiles | Pew Research Center) and they are the oldest of the nine typology groups – 61% over 50 – and their children and grandchildren will never think quite they way they do. They will not go gentle, but as a political force they peaked almost as soon as they discovered their strength. The GOP will gradually become sane again by process of generational attrition.
[/QUOTE]
That’s quite an assumption. the Baby Boomers, the main source of conservatism in this country? Really? Now I didn’t live in the 60s, but it sure seemed like the youth of that time were liberal. Then they got older and got richer.
The same thing should happen with the current youth.
I don’t think the Republican Party is all racist fury and cultural rage. I think those are unfortunately just the loudest part of the current Republican Party. And I think this is a problem for Republicans.
First, there’s the obvious. We should be embarrassed to be associated with these idiots. Let’s purge them from the ranks.
Second, if we don’t do it for moral reasons, we should do it for practical reasons. Racism and rage are becoming the public image of the Republican Party. At some point, a lot of moderate voters are going to decide this is no longer a party for them.
Third, there’s the money men. The Republican Party made a deal with big business years ago - they deliver the campaign money and the Republicans deliver the political favors. These guys are not sentimental. They’ll abandon the Republicans without a look back if they think the Democrats can deliver a better deal. Which means the GOP won’t have a slow gradual decline. It’ll reach a certain point and then plummet as its money supply disappears.
Fourth, fanatics aren’t loyal. One of the GOP’s greatest strengths has been our ability to close ranks and present a united front. We could play off disunity in the Democrats. Now, that’s going the other way. The Tea Partiers are against anyone who isn’t one of them. They’ll turn against a Republican as readily as against a Democrat.
No, the Staunch Conservatives are only one part of that huge generation, plus significantly larger portions of the surviving Silent and GI generations. And the Boomers did include a lot of conservatives, it’s just the lefties and hippies were the ones making most of the noise back then. The “Silent Majority” of those three generations were formed by old cultural norms which simply ceased to apply in later years.
It’s not strictly a generational thing; each generation is internally divided by regional and ethnic and religious subcultures – and, vertically, by class subcultures; class does remain more salient than a lot of people like to talk about these days.
The political-cultural center-of-gravity of the rising generations is, I think, best represented by the “Post-Moderns” of the Pew Typology.
Actually, people do not grow more conservative as they age, rather the reverse.
So the Republican Party is only in trouble if it’s stubborn? Oh well then, no problem.
I wonder if I can still join the Whigs.
It’s a thought I’ve had, but practically you can’t do it. If their constituents like them, then you have to accept them at a minimum. Marion Berry is downright insane and a criminal to boot, but Democrats can’t get rid of the guy because he’s popular with many DC voters. And the weirdos on our side, like Tancredo and Bachmann, if they keep on getting reelected… That’s how democracy works. Everyone gets a say, even if their views are crazy or hateful.
Heh. Quite true. But I’m optimistic. Parties generally don’t self annihilate for more than an electoral cycle or two. Getting booted out of power tends to focus the mind. Make Republicans an endangered species in elected office, and very soon you’ll get new Republicans who actually can get elected.
Also, I frankly don’t give a crap about social conservtism and have no patience for nativism. If the GOP has to lose those to appeal to a wider electorate, that’s a feature, not a bug.
So? Nothing wrong with that. It’s not a parliamentary system, there’s no need to get a majority-coalition together to “form a government.” Party L in your scenario could be the “swing vote” but in an issue-specific sense, voting with the Pubs on issue A and with the Dems on issue B as issues arise – in other words, much the way it would go in a big national town-meeting if such a thing were possible.
Furthermore, I don’t think your scenario is a likely result of proportional representation, etc.; I would expect, rather, the permanent breakup of the two-party system as such, the dissolution of the Democratic and Republican parties, and the emergence of five or six parties across the ideological spectrum, all more or less equal in size and none with any hope of being the majority party ever, which means they would have to compromise and ally to form even issue-specific majorities to get anything done – again, the way a national town-meeting would be.
“[Legislatures in the United States] should be an exact portrait, in miniature, of the people at large, as it should think, feel, reason, and act like them.” – John Adams
“… the portrait is excellent in proportion to its being a good likeness,…the legislature ought to be the most exact transcript of the whole society… the faithful echo of the voices of the people.” – James Wilson at the Constitutional Convention.
But what we have instead, what the single-member-district winner-take-all system inevitably produces, is more like a distorting funhouse mirror, with some parts of the image-of-the-whole-people grossly exaggerated and others shrunk to invisibility.
“The Electors [voters] who are on a different side in party politics from the local majority are unrepresented… [This system] is diametrically opposed to the first principle of democracy, representation in proportion to numbers.” – John Stuart Mill, in Considerations on Representative Government (1861)
Yes, of course, but only within certain rational limits. The Tea Partiers are not rational minds. The OWSers, goofy as they appear, are highly rational by comparison.
Being rational implies that you can have a demonstration without getting arrested or creating a local disaster area wherever you’ve been.
How do you explain the fact that the College Republicans outnumber the College Democrats by 250,000 to about 100,00?
Not to mention, Americans don’t like small government and free markets?
The problem with insulting the GOP in such a way is that by extension you insult half the electorate.
Would you have said the same in 1965? How rational or irrational were the civil rights marchers of that day?
They didn’t create the mayhem, those who tried to hose them down and set dogs on them did.
But they got arrested, therefore they were irrational. And?
Through no fault of their own. The OWS protesters acted like fools, purposely broke the law, got arrested. And trashed the area they occupied.
Tea Partiers somehow manage to always have peaceful protests that don’t involve mass arrests. Even with many of them carrying arms.
That might just be testimony to the average age of the 2 groups.