The Republicans’ long term strategy

Great Debates
1

I figured I should do this one in fairness after my thread on the Democrats’ long term strategy. I’ll state right off the bat that this is a devil’s advocate thread for me, and a little bit harder to think out than the last one.

The Republicans, having presently discovered the downside of running on a platform of “brining honor and dignity to the office,” are both needing and in a position to enact a more long-term agenda (I hope they’re not reading this thread :eek: ) Unlike with the Democrats, the divisions in the Republican party are about ends, not about means. They do tend to be the recipients of the stupid people vote which, despite its obvious benefits, is also vulnerable to changes in pop culture. If they could just get the two wings to wings to come closer to each other philosophically, they would have a better chance at more of the more predictable intelligent vote as well.

My prescription for the Democrats was a platform based on political and economic freedom. The best way the Republicans can react to that is by adopting a more hands-on approach to governance. One major thrust of their policy would be allowing religion into education, though things like school vouchers, and activism on sexual education and biology. Another prong would be a systematic, and even scientific, promotion of marriage - primarily traditional marriages, but other also other relationships as it becomes politically neccesary. Education and marriage are the two factors most strongly correlated with economic development,* and they should be defended on principle, even to the point of getting the UN to support them (especially marriage).

I’ve never really believed the mantra that Republicans are the party of small government. One sector of the party wants the government to impose a national free-market religion, and the other just dislikes the government as an impediment to their own rule. By relaxing these claims, and instead turning their efforts towards justifying the need for most important forms of government intervention, they might pick up a few voters presently put off by that contradiction.

*Sorry, no cite. I’ve heard that from a couple of different sources, both liberal and conservative, but in person. That makes sense, because education is correlated with ability, while having a healthy personal life demonstrates motivation. I’ve also heard it as education and women’s rights, but, for a variety of reasons, women’s rights lead to healthier marriages anyway.

2

  1. Work for the interests of Big Business.

  2. Tell people something else.

3

Just keep repeating the big lies.

Hey, it’s worked so far.

4

Please elaborate. I don’t follow your point.

[quoteThey do tend to be the recipients of the stupid people vote which, despite its obvious benefits, is also vulnerable to changes in pop culture.[/quote]

Please rationalize. The Dems aren’t all college professors. Huge blocks of them are union workers and recipients of welfare checks. Personally, I wouldn’t stoop to calling these sorts of people “stupid”, but since you have stooped in the opposite direction, perhaps you can justify your claim.

5

It seems to me that their strategy is simply to question the patriotism of anyone who doesn’t agree with every policy that they might make, and to imply that America isn’t “safe” with unpatriotic folks in office.

6

Thus far, their strategy has had the Republicans in control of the House, Senate, and White House.

Are you sure it’s worth dismissing?

7

The Republicans have three major advantages over the Democrats in todays world.

First and foremost, they are the party of national defense. The Democrats have spent the better part of three decades trying to pay for the welfare state out of the Pentagons wallet. 9/11 blew a hole in that philosophy. And since security is paramount in voters minds, they lean to the right. That was one of the reasons that John Kerry’s entire campaign seemed to consist of “I was in Vietnam and I’m a man too, dammit!”

Second, they are the party that primarily represents the haves rather than the have nots. (Although GWB has increased social spending significantly). There are still more haves than have nots in this country and they will vote their wallets. I have said for years that the Democrats buy votes with social spending and the Republicans buy them with tax cuts.

Third, more people self-identify as conservative than they do liberal. This cite under US population demonstrates that the ratio of self identified conservatives to self indentified liberals hovers near two to one. This is why the democrats are caught in the “run left or run center” dilemma.

I’m sure I’ll hear from the 18 percent (as of 1999) as to why I’m wrong. They’ll say things like “Those are old numbers. GWB is so evil that the number of self-described liberals must be higher by now!” I don’t think so. I’ve felt the same way since Carter and I think most people are the same. Even if that’s true, the Republicans only have to convince half as many people that they are right to get over fifty percent of the vote. The futher the Democrats run left, the harder their task will be.

So the long term Republican plan? Keep killing terrorists, get out of Iraq when the job is done and keep reflecting the values of the majority of the population.

8

Fear has always been a great motivator.

9

But they only need one advantage – a total lack of scruples.

“The majority of the population”? Have you looked at the map lately?

10

Come on now, rjung. You are smart enough to know the difference between a map of transient approval ratings from a leftist website and the actual composition of both houses of congress.

What people think today doesn’t matter. It will matter a year from now. And I will go on record right now and predict that the Republicans will retain majorities in both the House and Senate.

And the scruples comment was too easy. Do you have any counter analysis of what I actually said?

11

The republicans have a long term strategy? I do believe that the republicans in power have a goal, and that the voting republicans are nothing more than a tool to get to that goal.

The goal seems to be an aristocracy, the means seem to be fear, fear, and more fear, along with a gigantic dose of spin to make it seem as if jesus would screw people down on their luck and give more to the rich, who would in turn just stick it to the poor even more. This strategy of playing up to the religious nut jobs seems to work quite well. This might have something to do with modern christianity having more to do with hating other people and riding on their high horse because they go to church on Sundays.

I’m not bitter or anything, but it does get annoying listening to people spew hate out of their mouths in the name of christianity. I’m not religious by any means, mainly becuase I was very put off at a young age by the hate mongering. Sorry about the little rant.

12

Bingo.

I used to go around saying that the Republican Party had three constituencies: millionaires, fundies, and suckers. After watching the fundies get stiffed over and over again (thankfully) I’ve concluded that they deserve to get grouped in with the suckers.

13

That seems more like a small camp within the Party that pulls that crap, plus a few of the more extreme media personalities. There are a few respectable Republicans (and Democrats) left.

I think that’s pretty much the case with all political parties, a few overly vocal, extremest idiots; a whole stretch of bland, useless idiots; and a few exceptional people worth their salt.

14

Well, sure. I like McCain a lot more than I like most Democrats, for example. But he’s the exception.

Anyway, my first reply was just being glib. Apologies.

As for a serious look at the OP, I really don’t think political parties look at “long term” in any way that is meaningful for this discussion because theirs is such a transient occupation. Most offices have term limits and those that do not tend to be in localized offices whose jurisdictions rarely make huge party changes in the short term. More likely, they look at the next election coming up and attempt to either win the winnable and set up those races of the future when they are not winnable.

Additionally, politicians are quite adept at reacting to changes in public opinion. To use an extreme example, if Strom Thurmond was looking towards his long term political prospects as a segregationalist, he would have been sadly mistaken. But more subtle switches in public opinion happen all the time, making it hard for any long term strategy to remain unchanged for any meaningful length of time.

Maybe I’m mistaken but most politicians just want to be right today. Whether today is the approval of them while they’re in office or while they’re running doesn’t matter. And I feel that the two major Political Parties feel the same way.

I think things are different for third parties where the long term goal of simply spreading the message and getting more people aware of what they stand for is important but for the two main parties, they don’t have to do that.

15

There is no such thing as a free market religion. Historically those two ideas come from seperate sources, and they do actually clash on certain social issues. With the Democrats, on the other hand, well, liberalism and neo-liberalism do have an obvious historical connection. They share the general understanding that money is a measure of well-being, they just disagree on how best to increase it.

Well, besides Evil One’s cite, this one (scroll down) shows that Bush’s support in the 2004 election came disproportionately from people with no college degree.

This can be explained by the Republicans’ reliance on religion and patriotism instead of more substantial policy ideas, and like I mentioned before the contrast between their small government rhetoric and their actions.

Keep in mind that people don’t really vote on specific issues or candidates as much as they do for larger philosophies and general impressions. Of course individual candidates are going to be tweaking the agenda as they see fit, but they will need a more general philiosophy to plug into for those 80% of voters or so who probably won’t pay that much attention to an individual race.

16

This idea has always puzzled me. If we had twice the military on 9/11/2001 would the towers still be standing?

17

As I said just keep repeating the big lie. Granted Coulter isn’t part of the administration but she is speaking to their base.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20051124/cm_ucac/newideaforabortionpartyaidtheenemy

18

I doubt it.

At the risk of a hijack, I’ll briefly elaborate. Until 9/11, people who warned that Americans will eventually be killed inside the US were branded by many Democrats as alarmists or as people who wanted to pad the defense budget.

Quite a few Democrats opposed military spending at almost every turn as a matter of course. Pick a weapon system at random and go back into the congressional record and see who opposed its development and funding. To add to the fun, the Church committee gutted the human intelligence capability of the CIA in 1976. The Clinton administration decreed that covert contacts for CIA agents could not have criminal records. This alone is a perfect example of philosophy over pragmatism.

Then the planes came with a big black smoking clue that people really were out to kill us. Security goes to the top of the priority list and the people that never met a weapon system they liked were left out in the cold. Every anti-military effort cast was another chink in the warrior armor they purported to wear.

19

What a crock. The defense cuts began under George HW Bush, according to that dangerous liberal, Dick Cheney. The Cold War ended and there was less need for certain military weapons, equipment, etc. The “peace dividend” was recognized by both parties as entirely appropriate.

So the eeeeeeeevil eeeeeeeeeeevil Democrats and “their” defense cuts enabled 9/11. Yep, it all makes sense to me.

20

If I remember correctly, the most noise from the dems in the late nineties was against a missile shield. Not much good against 9/11 either.