Where is the GOP going?

[AdmiralCrunch]

@Sam_Stone

Thirty years ago, Ronald Reagan managed it. Interestingly, he wasn’t much of a religious conservative. He paid lip service to it, but he was a California Republican with a spotty church-going record. His administration focused mainly on economics and the cold war. The Republicans in 1994 captured the energy on the right through a platform of smaller government, welfare reform, and lower regulation.

Not to crap on your otherwise excellent and frank post, but Reagan’s economic policy consisted of running up massive fiscal deficits by stimulating the economy through cold war spending to make it look like his economic policy actually worked. It’s actually the exact thing that Republicans are so pissed off about with Obama. They’re mad that he gets to cheat to make his policies look good just like Reagan did. Except they don’t acknowledge that’s exactly what Reagan did. This doesn’t bode will for any Liberatarian power grab.

@Simplicpo

Nixon was an outsider?

I know this has little bearing on the point, but it’s a favorite quote of mine. It’s Nixon, speaking of the popular Republican retreat, the Bohemian Grove.

@Tricky Dick

"The Bohemian Grove, that I attend from time to time — the Easterners and the others come there — but it is the most faggy goddamn thing you could ever imagine…

[Northern_Piper]

@Shodan

And the “outsider” thing is also good. Dole, Bush Sr. and Jr., McCain - all party insiders. Need some new blood.

In the presidential elections from 1952 onwards, there have only been two (1964, 2008) where Nixon, Dole, or a Bush wasn’t somewhere on the ballot for the Republicans. That says a lot about the lack of new blood.

And, of course, they were all outsiders. :rolleyes:

[DSeid]

The GOP will field someone who can win early primaries. Which has little to do with winning a general election.

So of “the Big Tent” which wing can get its people organized and energized?

Most often that has been the RR but they seem to be a bit disillusioned. Right now the libertarian element is revved. And the Rich, they’ll pull behind the scenes as always.

A lot depends on how long the economy takes to recover. If we get into a year from now plus and unemployment is over 10%, and we have either significant inflation or deflation, then anything can happen. If unemployment is dropping even slightly and confidence is solidly increasing then some strident wing will hold the GOP mantle in blood drenched hands.

[Sam_Stone]

@BlankSlate

Do you have a cite for this? I went looking for data but there is a lot of conflicting information.
I only ask because the so-called “crack epidemic” was an eighties phenomenon so it can’t be true that all types of drug use declined.

Here’s the best cite I could find for some overall statistics: Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse Factsheet

It does seem to indicate that drug use declined rather dramatically starting in the 80’s. Only cocaine use increased in Reagan’s first term, then it declined to the point where it was lower at the end of his second than it was when he became President.

[elucidator]

Well, perhaps the total number of individual people who took drugs may have declined, but those of us who took drugs took a lot more! I mean, it was the only way…

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain_Carrot

In my view, once you have served two terms as Vice President, you can never again credibly claim to be an outsider.

Al Gore ain’t no insider. (He was once.)

[Shodan]

He isn’t a true Scotsman, either.

Regards,
Shodan

[Spoke]

@Sam_Stone

Here’s the best cite I could find for some overall statistics: Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse Factsheet

It does seem to indicate that drug use declined rather dramatically starting in the 80’s. Only cocaine use increased in Reagan’s first term, then it declined to the point where it was lower at the end of his second than it was when he became President.

I suspect that’s just demographics at work: as the Baby Boomers moved into their 30s and 40s, they took fewer drugs. Don’t think Reagan can take credit.

[Mosier]

@Shodan

He isn’t a true Scotsman, either.

Regards,
Shodan

I think you missed the point. BG is saying that while Gore was an insider when he ran for president, he is so disconnected with the business of running elections and has lost so much of his political clout that he’s no longer a Washington insider.

[XT]

I seriously doubt that Gore is all that disconnected from the Washington establishment, even today. At a guess he’s still connected to several environmental lobby groups and global warming groups at a minimum…and probably still has contacts in the government at various levels as well.

Once you are an insider you’d probably have to work damn hard to NOT be one anymore, as it’s a two way street…you have their contact info and they have yours. It wouldn’t be in Gores own best interests considering his own goals to completely and irrevocably sever all of those ties and contacts, even if, as seems evident, he doesn’t intend to ever run for office again.

I’m not sure what this has to do with where the GOP is going though.

-XT

[Steve_MB]

@Gyrate

Excellent post, Sam.

I tend to think that the right-wing blogosphere will attract the social conservatives (the frothing-at-the-mouth factor) and become the noisy fringe, while the grassroots/community-based groups will go for whoever leaves them alone and promises the lowest taxes. Forced to choose between blocking gay marriage and having more money, your average (real) Joe the Plumber will vote with his overstretched wallet.

More to the point, I think, is that if the people who write six-figure checks to the party and its candidates get the idea that social conservatives are scaring away too many moderate voters, thereby electing Democrats and forcing the aforementioned people to add seven figures to the checks they write to the IRS, the social-conservative faction will find itself sat upon, hard.

[Voyager]

@Fish

For the groups you mention — Rich, Fundamentalist, and Libertarian — the Rich are the ones with the most wiggle room in their agenda. Any increase in profits is a win for their side, however small. Fundamentalists have a binary agenda: as long as there is abortion and gay marriage, there is no minor victory to cheer. Libertarians … well, their demands are almost binary.

The rich have lots of money, but not many votes, and I think the new rich are more likely to be Republican and conservative than the old rich, like Rockefeller.

While the Fundamentalist block is not decreasing, more fundamentalist, or rather evangelical, ministers are supporting more liberal positions like environmentalism. Obama’s religiosity (which is far more authentic than Reagan’s) also gets some of the more moderate religious. The extreme social conservative positions are getting more concentrated in a few red states, and are shifting older, so demographics are going against this bloc.

Libertarians got hurt by the crash and what was viewed as the failure of deregulation. Never mind the real causes, even McCain was coming out as someone for more regulations. As for the rich, trickle down and the class war is kind of a joke now.

For the GOP to come back either these groups are going to have to start advocating positions more in line with what the public wants, or the liberal solutions are going to have to fail, or a new bloc which can win primaries will have to emerge. I think a lot of true blue Republicans see the second of these as the only acceptable alternative, thus the desire to see Obama fail (and the premature finding of failure every week or so.) I don’t see where the new bloc would come from myself - the Northeastern Republicans are just about extinct.

[elucidator]

Perhaps, but they may have overlooked the most crucial part of Olympic Tiger Riding - the dismount. At this point, the ruling-class Republicans are outnumbered by the Trogs, massively. The recent *lumpenprole *discontent with the financial class isn’t over, it hasn’t even got to cooking yet. And such stalwarts as Newt! and Huckleberry show signs of ditching them in favor of “populist” old-time religion.

Not the best sort, don’t you know. Can’t be relied upon to understand complex economic issues. Quite all right when they keep their distance and mind their place, but still…

[HorseloverFat]

I think its pretty obvious that this brand of American conservatism has failed. Bush was a good conservative. He followed the politics of deregulation, military action first, social conservatism, etc fairly well. He is the fruit of their ideology. They cant wash their hands of him because he is exactly what they are.

This has dawned on a lot of republicans and they are lost without a strong leader telling them what to do. I imagine they’ll need to tone down their particular flavor of conservatism and embrace some liberal values. Shit like creationism, anti-condom, anti-birthcontrol, anti-secularism, anti-science, anti-intellectualism, etc arent selling like hotcakes anymore. Too many people are demoralized and the kids growing up have little patience for this. The church as an intellectual force is forever dead.

Who knows where this party is going. It will probably just form a different detente for the sake of votes. The old alliance of bible thumpers and billionaires may not pan out. Instead you may get smarmy college kids, billionaires, catholics, and mexican immigrants. This will add a “larger tent” feel to the party.

The days of Texas-style conservatism is probably dead in Washington. My gut feeling is that they move leftward and become a permanent minority party. It looks like the latter part of that is true considering their brightest bulbs are Joe the Plumber, Ann Coulter, and Sarah Palin. Then again the Democrats where hurting pretty badly in 2000-2003. They made a massive rebound.

Theyre also concerned about the demographic shift of dying baby boomers (and older). Are kids turning 18-25 today as deeply conservative as their parents and grandparents? When I was younger I was the only atheist I knew. Now theyre everywhere and out in the open. Same with gays. Without bible belt pensioners out there voting straight R for a couple pet issues, theyre going to lose that 1 or 2% that wins presidential elections.

Smart republicans have realized that they will not ban abortion ever. Its too unpopular. Nor will they get rid of evolution or global warming. They cant control information anymore. Even with their massive media holdings. Conservatism’s natural enemy is the free flow of information. How many more of them would still believe 9/11 was caused by Saddam if it wasnt for Michael Moore and the internet?

That said, the cynic in me suspects that once Americans fix the economy they’ll become greedy again and vote in a smooth talking Republican who is going to sell them the snake-oil of cut taxes, deregulation, and military action while avoiding the issues of social services cuts and whether or not the US needs a new war every 5 or 6 years.

Americans for all our faults and partisanship still demand results from Washington. I bet the real future of the GOP will be determined by Obama. If his policies work, expect the GOP to continue to crumble. If they dont work well then expect them to a win a lot of elections.

[Sam_Stone]

@spoke-

I suspect that’s just demographics at work: as the Baby Boomers moved into their 30s and 40s, they took fewer drugs. Don’t think Reagan can take credit.

The stats are collected by age group. Drug usage was down across all age groups, with the exception of Cocaine use among boomers, which went up for the first four years, then down afterwards.

[Notassmartasithought]

**Sam Stone:*The rise of the Christian Right in the U.S. has much to do with the fallout from the Civil Rights Act in 1964, which caused a split in the Democratic Party and resulted in a lot of the ‘boll weevil’ Democrats moving to the Republican party. * About this time, there was also a demographic shift where Christians increasingly moved to the South and Midwest in the U.S. [My Italics]

Sam, do you have any citations for this? Honest to God, it’s the first time I’ve ever heard of this particular part of the analysis. Are you saying that the politics of Indiana or Iowa or South Carolina or Alabama or whatever state were changed because of a migration of Christians?

[Notassmartasithought]

@Sam_Stone

I’ll give you the comparison to Obama. I think that’s exactly right. Would you say Obama is building a theocracy in America? Do you think he wants to take away people’s civil liberties? He is, after all, opposed to gay marriage and not at all opposed to funneling big money to churches and religious groups. He’ll speak to them, rally them in his causes, etc.

It’s really a matter of focus and tone. Reagan paid lip service. So did Carter, by the way. If anything, Carter was even more preachy and overtly devout than Reagan. But in the end, what Reagan cared about was winning the cold war and lowering taxes and regulations. The religious stuff was just the window dressing of the job, like kissing babies and attending county fairs. Pandering to the constituents.

I’d make the case, Sam, that Obama is, in fact, more thoughtful about his religion than Reagan. But even more, I think your statement that Carter “paid lip service” is not just plain wrong, but a defamation. Jimmy Carter has demonstrated his commitment to Christianity in ways unusual for any American politician, much less a president. He taught Sunday School while he was president, for Christ’s sake.

[DSeid]

@Notassmartasithought

… He taught Sunday School while he was president, for Christ’s sake.

Cute. Carter would do that for someone else’s sake maybe?

[BrainGlutton]

Well, I guess Specter’s defection and Republican reactions to it are clear signs the GOP is going in the exact opposite direction from the one it needs to go to remain viable.

[Mr.Ohm]

@Polycarp

Those were the characteristics advocated by the Republican Party of ca. 1940-1970. This liberal raised as a small-town Northeast Republican sees some value in them, and thinks that the GOP could put together a majority behind itself if it refocused on them. (But I doubt it will – conservatism is too fractured to come up with a leader that would dare advocate for that sort of moderate platform.)

Good luck with that. The moderate northeast Republican party essentially died with the rise of the evangelical right-wing movement. There are still a few left, such as Susan Collins, (formerly) Arlen Specter, and 2000-era McCain, but they are the last of a dying breed. I don’t see them leading a moderate revolution because the moderate base isn’t there anymore. The country is too polarized between Red vs. Blue to have a truly moderate base.

Sure, I would love to see it happen, because it would spur intelligent debate over issues that really matter, but I’m not holding my breath.