This is true in more ways than one. When you think Pub, you think old and white. But old and white also means social security, medicare and a host of things that are ‘social welfare.’ They can pretend that they’ll exempt people who are currently retired or too close to adequately plan for any changes, but that’s bullshit if they’re going to make any significant cuts NOW. Although I don’t doubt that they could make the claim with a straight face, I seriously doubt anyone is going to believe or trust them.
For a long time it looked like the abortion issue would screw the party, but the Pubs managed to get far enough to the center where they needed to so as to remain viable while leaving the whack-a-do’s to propose transvaginal ultrasounds in places where that seemed like a “good idea.” :rolleyes:
But I think co-opting the Tea Party movement, even though at the time it seemed like a brilliant move, has caused a level of polarization that is forcing a lot of voters who were previously independent to choose sides. Between their bible thumping fascism on social issues and avowed obstructionism regarding any issue but tax cuts, they’ve managed to transform the party from being merely knuckle-dragging neo-cons to something even the monoliths from Kubrick’s 2001 couldn’t work with.
If I were in that audience, I’d vote against. Why would I ever want to do anything to discourage the Republican Party from committing electoral suicide?
And it seems like they changed no minds, but got some who didn’t vote before to vote against.
What Republican demographic (besides Mormons) is out-reproducing Democratic ones? People above 65? And, as shown by the fact that Dems are winning the youth vote, if they are educating their children to be Republicans they are doing a piss poor job of it.
And they will stay unacceptable to Republican stalwarts. But this debate is about what makes a party acceptable to the center. And the LBGT movement is increasingly acceptable, and opposition to SSM is getting increasingly unacceptable. Notice that Dems are not splitting with their party to come out against SSM, but the vice is versa for Republicans.
I think foolsguinea was suggesting the red states are outbreeding the blue states. while they are behind with the young and in demographics today, eventually, they may have more voters in general.
Ugh. You’ve got to be kidding. Brooks is the worst. Ham salad has more élan . . . and better ideas. Next you’re going to tell you think Tom Friedman is very insightful.
While NPR’s radio audience is generally pretty liberal, I’m not sure that necessarily applies to the live audience for Intelligence Squared events in general, or for this specific debate in particular. Looking at the website for the show, it looks like tickets cost $40 a pop. How many liberals are going to pay $40 for the privilege of watching Ralph Reed, unless it’s to watch him be eaten by wolves?
Yes. David Brooks has no ideas. His column is what you get if you gave a marketing consultant space on the NYT editorial page.
David Brooks portrays himself as one not beholden to heroic conservatism or revolutionary liberalism. Instead, he fancies himself a pragmatist. But he doesn’t care about results. Instead, he just constantly insists that “both sides have good ideas.”
Here’s an example. In a recent column, Brooks approvingly cited an essay he assigned to one of his students at Yale:
One thing you will notice in this snippet, as well as the column as a whole, is that there is not a shred of evidence provided for the assertions made. Leave it to David Brooks to wax philosophical about how the “Cynic Kids” require empirical confirmation before committing to believe without providing anything in the way of empirical confirmation.
The article makes other punchy claims that are initially striking, until you realize that they’re just flat assertions of a gauzy moderation that Brooks is counting on his readers to share. The Cynic Kid accordingly informs us: “‘The Occupy movement,’ Buhler notes, ‘launched more traffic jams than legislation.’ The Arab Spring seemed like a popular awakening but has not fulfilled its promise.”
Well, I say the Arab Spring is fulfilling its promise and that the Occupy Movement has reinvigorated income inequality as a subject for policy intervention. But the point is not whether these are true; the point is that Brooks’s MO is (1) To assure that he is a sober moderate who scrupulously reality-tests his theses, and then (2) say whatever inoffensive mish-mash he thinks aligns with the preconceptions of a substantial segment of his readership, quite apart from any evidence he may or may not have. Then (3) collect plaudits for how sensible a moderate he is.
In other words, he’s a consummate bullshit artist who counts on people enjoying seeing their half-thought-out preconceived notions blessed in the NYT editorial section.
This reaches peaks of horseshittery with observations like these (from the same column):
Oh really, David? Did they not have TV shows about working class people on television before? I’m sorry that you were watching Knott’s Landing while other people were watching Roseann or Reality Bites. And why isn’t “Thrift Shop” a testament to the Occupy Movement with its line “I call that getting swindled and pimped / I call that getting tricked by a business.” SPOILER ALERT: It’s because David Brooks never heard the goddamned song to begin with. He just wants to prove that Dad can still be cool, kids.
His book Bobos in Paradise is another example. Less critique than an elmwoodian field guide to the shopping habits of the college-educated upper middle class, it attempts to see profound social implications in pedestrian consumer behavior. “Oh, no, David Brooks, I did not know that Bobos like shopping at Lululemon. What’s your fucking point?” Here is his point: In the 60s, they liked Eastern philosophies. In the 80s, they liked expensive fitness apparel. WALLAH, Bobos like expensive yoga apparel. Well, that is some insight David Brooks. Or to use a Boboism: Thanks for sharing.
The Republicans have three directions they can go in:
Change to a less conservative platform to try to recapture moderate voters.
Find a way to sell their conservative platform to voters.
Wait it out. If they really believe their conservative platform is right even if it’s unpopular, then they should believe that the more currently popular moderate platform will eventually collapse from its own inherent faults. All the Republicans have to do is stay true to the faith and be willing to accept a period out of power. Eventually, when the moderate platform collapses, the voters will come back to the conservatives.
The Republicans have been crippled by their propagandists in the Conservative Media Complex. As of now, there are only 3 increments of belief in the conservative mindset: True Conservatives/Republicans, RINOs (people with less than pure Conservative beliefs) and Dirty Filthy Socialists. There is no center.
They will keep selling and repackaging their same message until they implode and the brainwashed masses who rail against exactly what they themselves are (without ever seeing it)* start to become disillusioned.
“Of course I’m on Social Security Disability and Medicare! But at least I’m not one of those moochers on WELFARE!”
It doesn’t matter. The young in those same red states are more liberal than their parents, and more of them are brown. A party devoted to conservatism and racial hatred towards them isn’t going to appeal to them.
I don’t see why they have to change their actual platform. We were one leaked tape away from President Mittens. They can blame negative results of their policies on Dems, which in many cases might even be partially accurate. They could easily come back almost by default if they just stopped saying racist, sexist, and just plain crazy things outloud. This whole idea of the GOP dying out reminds me back when Reps thought they’d have a permanent majority and Dems would have to go out into the wilderness and all that jazz. Voters just go to the other side when they get tired of the other.
Structurally, the US form of government is biased in favor of two parties. With no possibility of coalition government, people will rarely vote for any party other than one of the top two. A party realignment is very rare, because it’s so hard for a plausible replacement for one of the top two parties to appear.
If proven-wrong stances kill a US party, the mostly isolationist GOP should have been destroyed by Pearl Harbor.
If the GOP nominates Rick Santorum in 2016, they’ll be trounced – or, at least, he’ll be trounced.* But it won’t stop the GOP from bouncing back two years later.
Eventually, I do think the GOP will be forced to moderate a bit. But, from their POV, there is no big rush.
EDITED: Or maybe he would just lose by a little. After 8 years of a Democratic presidency, many swing voters will want to give the other party a chance.
I doubt they can, and the situation is likely to only get worse over time. And there is something of a rush, as they appear to be reaching a demographic cliff with their supporters just plain dying on them.
Given that our system is built for two parties and that the Democrats are in essence rapidly becoming the mainstream Right party with the Republicans being the right wing extremists, I think it’s at least as likely as any Republican resurgence that the Republicans will diminish to insignificance while the Democrats split into right and centrist factions to form the new two party system.
Incidentally if they do go moderate, the Republicans have two options:
Go in a Rockefeller Republican direction, moderate on social issues (although they’ll still have to moderate somewhat on economic issues, for instance accepting Obamacare eventually and stop trying to voucherize Medicare), perhaps even taking lead on some issues like the Drug Wars and attempt to recapture the upper middle class vote along with Hispanics and Asians.
Go in a populist direction and attempt to appeal more to the white working class voters in the Midwest along with the South. This will involve taking up economic populism (including protectionism) and some social conservatism (although economic issues will have to emphasized).