A lot of objections have been raised against the people/character of the GOP since Trumpism came along. So let’s set that aside for a moment - “bad people should be kicked out of a party” should be taken for granted, and let’s say that this hypothetical Republican Party does indeed kick them out. This thread is about policy, not people:
What do liberals/Democrats want the Republican Party to be - in a way that still remains distinct and different from the Democratic Party? (in other words, the GOP can’t just be a 2nd Democratic Party, otherwise that’s redundant)
(Saying “if the Republicans changed their ways, they wouldn’t be Republicans any more” is fighting the hypothetical.)
Wear masks, distance, close non-essential venues? Totally fair, the coronavirus shouldn’t be a liberal or conservative issue.
Balance the budget - but with tax increases on the wealthy? OK, that’s fair.
Support voter ID, but by making such ID readily accessible to all? OK, that’s fair.
Support capital punishment, but with such rigorous care that no innocents are executed?
Oppose abortion, but also while supporting contraception and post-birth care for those who do carry pregnancies to term?
Support free speech, but crack down on the more extreme fringes such as KKK-ers and Neo-Nazis?
Support gun ownership, but with much stronger background checks, regulations?
Oppose defunding of police, but support body cams for all cops and rigorous investigation of all shootings?
Oppose affirmative action, but also get rid of all legacy admissions and also put more emphasis on non-SAT, non-GPA factors?
Oppose same-sex marriage? I’m having a hard time seeing how Democrats could get aboard with any GOP platform to such effect.
Raising the minimum wage? Totally fair; there shouldn’t be anything un-conservative about this, in theory.
I don’t agree with this one. It is an established conservative policy that the government should not set a minimum wage. Certainly not raise to $15/hr our more. I’m okay with the Republicans opposing it, and perhaps a compromise can be reached.
Which, I think, leads me to my answer to the OP. I would like the Republican party to be conservative, but rational and willing to compromise and work with the other party. (I’m not sure that’s “policy,” but perhaps it is)
I’ll settle for reasonable on both sides of the fence. Move to the center, agree to moderation, reach a consensus, and get something done for a change.
How about that the Republicans compete in good faith in the marketplace of ideas, and accept when their ideas fail to garner a majority of support? Can we start there?
Most all of the OP is at the ideas, and solutions, level. That is fine, as far as it is concerned, but it is of no value when the actual real live Republican Party is not really engaged in good faith arguments of ideas.
Can we start with “honest”? Can they just be honest about their intentions? Be honest about what a bill is for and not couch in it in misleading names and acronyms? Make honest arguments for their policies and positions?
The problem with a party simply stopping to push its ideas if the ideas aren’t popular yet is that - well, many things aren’t popular until they are popular. Same-sex marriage wasn’t a majority opinion until around 2010 or later. If the Democrats, for instance, quit supporting SSM the moment they realized it wasn’t a majority popular view (which would be the very first moment SSM was ever seriously discussed,) there wouldn’t be any SSM today.
Some things require consistent pushing, regardless of popularity or unpopularity, in order to get through.
The compromise could be an improved EITC, which was originally a Republican program. Expansion of the EITC has been promoted as an alternative to an increased minimum wage as recently as 2016 (Marco Rubio was talking about it on the campaign trail) and the EITC is both better targeted and less distorting to the labor market than an increased minimum wage.
Sadly, I believe that one reason Democrats aren’t going for this much better program is that it’s perceived by some as a subsidy to employers (it isn’t).
You are focusing on the wrong part of my response. The key to my criticism is in arguing in good faith. Not lying, not “makin’ sh*t up”, not seeking power for power’s sake, not suppressing voting (yes, it is a central strategy of the Republican playbook), etc. etc. etc.
Particularly at the national level, show some actual interest in actually governing. For two years (January '17 to January '19), the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, and did bloody little in the way of governing. They cut taxes, and appointed a crap-ton of federal judges, and damned little else.
Stop with the meme of “government is always bloated and ineffecient and can’t accomplish anything.”
Relatedly, stop with the meme of “the free market / capitalism is always the best solution.” There are some things (healthcare, parcel delivery, prisons, etc.) which every American should have a right to fair and equitable operation of, that are measurably worse, at least for some people, when you allow for-profit businesses to run them.
But, the biggest thing is to stop with the endless dirty tricks and shenangians conducted in the name of clinging to power with a minority of the U.S. supporting you. Voter supperession, blatant gerrymandering, and, now, screwing with the USPS to inhibit mail-in voting, are a really, really bad look for you. The GOP realizes that they’re on the wrong side of demographic trends, but rather than try to broaden their appeal, they look for ways to maintain control despite being in the minority.
A lot of the responses here thus far are, “Do things in a more ethical, honest way.” Sure, that’s great - and it should be that way - but what about the concrete, actual policy? (That’s what the thread is about.)
I.e., increase taxes on the wealthy? Cut defense spending?
I’ve always thought that, just like the Constitution, bills should always include a preamble that describes the intent of the bill, in plain terms.
Unlike the Constitution, this preamble should be taken seriously, and be considered a part when a court rules on it. If the preamble says that it is meant to help orphanages get medicine, but it actually just gives a tax break to millionaires, then the court should rule it invalid.
If there is a question about congressional intent, then it doesn’t need to be such a problem, you look at what congress said that they intended when they wrote the bill.
I would suppose that the Democrats really want more time to consider Senate legislation before it is put to the vote, a fair chance to propose laws and amendments, etc. Standard procedure under McConnell is to pull a law out from his ass, immediately fill all the amendment slots with useless things like changing the effective date, and immediately move to close all debate on the law.
As far as that goes, having a difference of opinion on policy is a good thing. We should have differences on policies, that’s what keeps our country running. The moment that everyone agrees is the moment that democracy has either become obsolete or has failed.
Have whatever policies you think are good conservative policies, and conservatives should be the ones that are in charge of determine that. But argue for them in good faith, put them into public with honesty, and accept the results of free and fair elections.
It is not the policies that republicans have that are a threat to democracy, it is holding onto, and continuing to force those policies after it has been shown that they are failures both in practice and in public reaction.
I think we could use a party that actually was for small government and for “conservatism” in the sense of blocking unnecessary change.
Real small government: not ‘expand LawNOrder to enforce everything I don’t like but don’t pass any rules against anything I might feel like doing.’ And really unnecessary change: not as in ‘I want everything to be the way I thought it was in 1959’ but as in ‘Show me why and how changing this would actually produce an improvement, and if I’m not convinced I’m not voting for it’.
I doubt I’d join that party. But having a party of that sort, if it were honest and not just interested in being the one in power, would be a good check on excess tendencies in the other direction; and would help in getting laws and regulations to be written so that they’d do more good than harm.
I’d start with them treating the bigots the way Joe Biden just did with Richard Spencer. For those who are not aware, Richard Spencer is a white supremacist and a neo-Nazi. For whatever reason, and I don’t think it’s worthwhile to dig into those reasons, Richard Spencer endorsed Joe Biden. Biden replied by saying “your support is 10,000 % unwelcome here.” The Republicans need to do the same with the white supremacists and neo-Nazis.
I think the biggest thing that the GOP supports that is completely antithetical to their stated values is unitary executive theory.
I also think there are a number of issues where they like to throw wrenches in the Democrats’ policy ideas, but have no idea what their own policy is (i.e. health coverage). I think on issues like this they should either endorse the Democratic policy or have an alternative they actually want to implement.
They can do that. I am saying that it should always be done, and always be considered.
The fact that people consider the preamble to to Constitution to be meaningless when it comes to creating and interpreting legislation has always been a bit of a problem for me.