The future of the Republican Party

[Achilles]

A great deal of the buzz I'm hearing today seems to revolve around the question, "What's next for the Republican Party?".

 

Based on the overwhelming response we saw during yesterday's election, it would seem that the modern American conservative movement has been sent a message. Will the centrist try to take the wheel and move the party closer to the center in a bid to regain influence? Or will the far-right redouble their efforts and end up moving even further right?

 

In what might be one of the most important ramifications of an Obama presidency is the fact that he will most likely appoint 1, if not 2, Supreme Court Justices during his 1st term. If he does so within the next two years, he will most certainly have a cooperative Congress doing the confirmations. If the Democrats either keep their current seats or grow their majority (which I suspect they will, but I'm hardly an expert or a fortune teller) in the 2010 mid-term election, then he might even appoint a 3rd justice with an ever more cooperative Congress.

 

What will happen to the conservative groups pushing their pro-religion/anti-science agenda (I'm using a broad brush here. I feel that all the specific issues I could list off would comfortably fit under this umbrella)? We've seen the conservative movement go underground only to come back stronger later. Is this something we should be thinking about going forward.

 

A lot of questions here. Hopefully this will generate some good discussion. Thanks reading and thanks in advance for your responses.

[Rogue15]

this country is going to hell lol

[Achilles]

Listening to this now.

[tk102]

Will the centrist try to take the wheel and move the party closer to the center in a bid to regain influence? Or will the far-right redouble their efforts and end up moving even further right?

I would expect a farther lean to the right. It worked in 2000/2004 and centrism didn't pan out too well for McCain. Though a lot could change in two years, I doubt that is enough time to see conservatism gain substantial power. If Obama is able to sustain his popularity through his first term enough for re-election in 2012, I would very much expect another rise in conservatism in 2014, just as it did in 1998 (Clinton's 2nd term) and the way liberalism rose in 2006 (Bush's 2nd term). By then there will almost certainly be enough fodder to build a campaign upon (scandals, narrow passage/defeat of controversial legislation, and questionable executive decisions).

 

I'm not sure what role Palin will play in the future. I really liked Tina Fey.

[Achilles]

I would expect a farther lean to the right. It worked in 2000/2004 and centrism didn't pan out too well for McCain.

Hmm...

 

I think I would be inclined to argue that Bush won in 2000 because he "out-centristed" McCain. My impression is that Bush did well because he made a case of "compassionate conservatism", not the hard-right conservatism.

 

McCain didn't run in 04 and some have argued that he didn't do well in this election because he didn't do enough to cater to the center (I'll admit that I'm simply parroting what I've heard on this last point. Feel free to blow it out of the water.).

 

Though a lot could change in two years, I doubt that is enough time to see conservatism gain substantial power.

I think that the previous power-brokers are all gone. The movement would need a new generation of leaders gain momentum. I think you're correct in saying that 2 years isn't enough time.

 

If Obama is able to sustain his popularity through his first term enough for re-election in 2012, I would very much expect another rise in conservatism in 2014, just as it did in 1998 (Clinton's 2nd term) and the way liberalism rose in 2006 (Bush's 2nd term). By then there will almost certainly be enough fodder to build a campaign upon (scandals, narrow passage/defeat of controversial legislation, and questionable executive decisions).

2nd terms are always the most fun, aren't they?

 

I'm not sure what role Palin will play in the future. I really liked Tina Fey.

[added by edit]Can Palin resurrect the GOP? Does she want to?[/edit]

 

If there is any merit to the stories that are coming out now (she didn't know that Africa was a continent, not a country?!), then I think her time in the limelight will be short-lived indeed.

 

Quasi-unrelated: It will be interesting to see how McCain spends what might be his last two years in the Senate.

[tk102]

Hmm...

 

I think I would be inclined to argue that Bush won in 2000 because he "out-centristed" McCain. My impression is that Bush did well because he made a case of "compassionate conservatism", not the hard-right conservatism.

 

I was thinking of the post-primary time period in 2000, rather than the pre-primary one. At that point Bush selected Cheney and galvanized his ties with PNAC.

 

But even in the 2000 pre-primary campaign against McCain, the New York Times noted:

Mr. Bush, as the first votes of the primary season near, has sought to galvanize his party's conservative base. Originally Mr. Bush tried to run from the center as if already in the general election campaign, using his ''compassionate conservatism'' to distinguish himself from the harder-edged conservatism of Congressional Republicans.

 

But now, with Mr. McCain drawing support from independents and moderates, Mr. Bush has tried to paint himself as the true conservative of the duo. He has charged that the senator's ideas on campaign finance law would ''hurt Republicans and hurt the conservative cause.'' He has put heavy emphasis on his sweeping tax-cut proposal and constantly tries to tie Mr. McCain to Vice President Al Gore, saying that they are the ''two voices'' in the campaign who say his plan is too large.

--(Jan 16, 2000)

 

 

I think that the previous power-brokers are all gone. The movement would need a new generation of leaders gain momentum. I think you're correct in saying that 2 years isn't enough time.

*Googles the current whereabouts of Bill Kristol*

 

If there is any merit to the stories that are coming out now (she didn't know that Africa was a continent, not a country?!), then I think her time in the limelight will be short-lived indeed.

That's my gut feel, but look at the trouble that Senator Stevens is in right now. If he steps aside, I would think her star power would be enough to carry herself back to Washington D.C. And I knew I wasn't the only thinking this.

[Achilles]

But even in the 2000 pre-primary campaign against McCain, the New York Times noted: <snip>

Good read. Thanks for the link.

 

*Googles the current whereabouts of Bill Kristol*

 

I was thinking more along the lines of Tom Delay. Based on what I've been reading lately, I've been made to realize just how far the "team effort" extended. With many big pieces missing, I'm not sure what to expect as far as timeline for resurgence.

 

Going back to the first post, what does the Discovery Institute do now? They don't have someone in the White House advocating that we "teach the controversy".

 

How does the anti-abortion movement proceed with the knowledge that a 6-3 or 7-2 conservative Supreme Court isn't likely to happen?

 

What are the repercussions of the likelihood that U.S. researchers might be on the brink of getting a lot more funding for embryonic stem cell research? Do we need to start eyeing the newspapers for headlines of research facility bombings (ala abortion clinic bombings, etc)?

 

Is the culture war over? Are we just getting a breather? Or will it continue/intesify/whatever?

 

That's my gut feel, but look at the trouble that Senator Stevens is in right now. If he steps aside, I would think her star power would be enough to carry herself back to Washington D.C. And I knew I wasn't the only thinking this.

Oh my. That's an interesting thought indeed.

[mimartin]

[added by edit]Can Palin resurrect the GOP? Does she want to?[/edit]

Grover Norquist, a leading conservative and president of Americans for Tax Reform, called Palin "one of five or six people who is a plausible candidate for president in 2012," along with familiar names like Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

[/Quote] Well Palin is smarter than one of their only plausible candiates for 2012. I've talked to this man on the phone more than once and I would be surprise if he knew where Austin, Texas was. If Perry is one of their five or six plausible candidates the Republican Party is in more trouble than I suspected.

[tk102]

If he steps aside, I would think her star power would be enough to carry herself back to Washington D.C. And I knew I wasn't the only thinking this.

Heh heh, after reading the last paragraph in that article over again, I guess she wouldn't need star power at all, just her governorship.

[Samuel Dravis]

Well Palin is smarter than one of their only plausible candiates for 2012. I've talked to this man on the phone more than once and I would be surprise if he knew where Austin, Texas was. If Perry is one of their five or six plausible candidates the Republican Party is in more trouble than I suspected.

I agree. I can't imagine anyone actually wanting Perry (except, I suppose, a minority of Texans). He carried the last election with less than half of the total votes. The only reason he won was because there were several other contenders that split the opposition. I don't see him being able to swing a candidacy.

[Achilles]

More on this topic here.

[tk102]

More on this topic here.

 

Thanks Achilles. Some of the key points I heard:

 

George Will: 25% of Obama's voters were under 30 so could this signal a generational imprinting?

Cynthia Tucker: That would likely be the case if the administration shows itself to be competent.

Fareed Zakaria: Traditional stances of the GOP (deregulation, low taxes, low spending) and are more irrevelant today than in years past.

David Brooks: GOP needs to address today's issues (China, Russia, healthcare, energy).

Mike Pence: McCain still got 46% of the popular vote, so don't count the party out yet.

[Achilles]

Cynthia Tucker: That would likely be the case if the administration shows itself to be competent.

I found her use of adjectives interesting. Did Bush lower the bar so far that competence is all that's required or is the bar for Obama set so high that "competence" from him would seem like "exceed expectation" for someone else?

Mike Pence: McCain still got 46% of the popular vote, so don't count the party out yet.

Another comment that I found interesting. Especially in light of the other comments that alluded to the Republican party being the party for people with outdated ideas who refused to get with the times.

[tk102]

I found her use of adjectives interesting. Did Bush lower the bar so far that competence is all that's required or is the bar for Obama set so high that "competence" from him would seem like "exceed expectation" for someone else?

I think more of the latter... by the time rolls around that there's enough hindsight to meaningfully discuss the Obama administration's "competency", it will have its own merits or lack thereof to be judged by. If the youth doesn't get disillusioned, they might very well imprint Democratic.

 

 

Another comment that I found interesting. Especially in light of the other comments that alluded to the Republican party being the party for people with outdated ideas who refused to get with the times.

I can only think of GOP jabs as a response so I'll just

[Achilles]

Another round table discussion from NPR's Talk of the Nation (click Listen Now link at the top of the article).

[SkinWalker]

There's an article at Rebuild the Party.com that outlines much of their technical strategy and some of there tactical strategy as well.

 

Technically speaking, they'd like to take more advantage of the internet and novel media in general -something the Obama campaign demonstrated as extremely effective in fundraising and disseminating information.

 

Tactically, however, they'll need to modify their message. On this site its mentioned:

Obama's victory could be a blessing in disguise for conservatives. Why? Because Obama's winning strategy was built on the back of an inherently conservative idea: that we the people, acting together outside of government, can accomplish great things. Or, in the words of the overused slogan, "Yes We Can."

-and an admission that:

Because of the Internet, "us" becomes a force more powerful than any in politics. The ability to donate or volunteer instantaneously online gives the millions of "us" more leverage than even the most connected group of insiders.

 

But their one failing may actually be the continued appeal to their alleged "base" of evangelical and fundamental but largely ignorant Christians who have a large population and a low education. This population is slowly dying off as older generations make way for younger, more tolerant and less fundamental ones and as education gains a larger foothold among Christian populations, diluting the fundamental mentality with a more eclectic one.

[GarfieldJL]

Excuse me?

 

I'm a Republican and I consider those comments to be out of line, the Republican's base has always been Military, Religious Conservatives, etc.

 

People had better hope the Republicans manage to remain a major party or this country is in real trouble, cause we'd have a One-Party system.

 

 

The reasons why Republicans lost this last election can be traced to multiple factors, however to sum up the situation I find the commentary that Republicans are not tolerant of others to be really insulting, that's the stereotype the media tries to paint Republicans as, that's not what Republicans are, just look at who heads the Republican Party.

[Vikinor]

Well, as much as many people don't like to believe, stereotypes are often based on some form of truth. Not always, but often, whether it is or is not stretched or blown out of proportion.

 

And from what you say about the Republican base being military and religious conservatives, may possibly be one of the key factors to why they aren't a majority in office at this time.

 

Military. Well, I know this isn't a great example and is pretty biased. Iraq.

 

Religious. Somewhat irrelevant because of the separation of Church and State.

 

Not trying to sound like a jerk or anything. And I do apologize if this came across that way.

[GarfieldJL]

Well, here is the thing, was it the Republicans that lost or the unethical behavior of the Media that caused the Democrats to be elected.

 

Seriously, if it were the results of just people going to the left, it wouldn't explain why the constitutional amendment in California passed.

 

 

As far as Iraq is concerned, did anyone else notice the fact they voted here recently without any major incident of violence.

 

Furthermore, I don't want to get into the race/gender media coverage in this thread.

[Kurgan]

Whenever people start talking about an "anti-religious" movement here, I ask them to reconsider how the black vote got Obama elected, and that constituency is largely religious, and conservative on some social issues (Ie: anti-gay marriage).

 

So let's try and avoid too much black and white (pardon the pun) portrayals here.

 

Frankly I think the Republican party has lost its way (yes I was a Ron Paul supporter, and it was amazing to see how different he was from the other candidates running). The big two have just gotten fatter and more centrist, cynical politically sly with each passing year. That's reason enough to remain an independent!

[Tommycat]

Ya get 90% of a demographic to vote for someone, and all of the sudden that means the Republicans are falling apart.

 

McCain never energized the party, let alone the nation. I swear some times it seemed like he was campaigning for Obama.

 

And Vikinor, I would be VERY careful with your generalizations about stereotypes. Especially with us now having an African American president. There are more than a few stereotypes out there. And quite a few are unfounded.

[Vikinor]

And Vikinor, I would be VERY careful with your generalizations about stereotypes. Especially with us now having an African American president. There are more than a few stereotypes out there. And quite a few are unfounded.

 

Not quite sure I understand what you're getting at(or what you interpreted from my post), but I'll keep that in mind.

[Tommycat]

Not quite sure I understand what you're getting at(or what you interpreted from my post), but I'll keep that in mind.

 

Justifying the stereotype of Republicans could easily be used to justify the stereotypes of African Americans. I would rather not go into explaining those. Basically, I'm saying watch your stereotypes, and the justifications you use.

[Darth Avlectus]

Justifying the stereotype of Republicans could easily be used to justify the stereotypes of African Americans. I would rather not go into explaining those. Basically, I'm saying watch your stereotypes, and the justifications you use.

 

Or conservatives for that matter, friends.

 

@general idea

The whole "conservatives are defined by the oldest, dumbest, most racist white guy who loves his guns" stereotype is getting rather old. If it is true, then how do you explain Ted Hayes?

 

I'd have more but I'd rather not rant on and on right now. Just thought I'd toss out an example (a popular one at that) of a stereotype.

[EnderWiggin]

*brevity*

 

 

True, but on the other hand, most members of the group are both in favor of the War and Religious, which may not be the public's wish for a leader right now.

 

While this doesn't include all Republicans, I can see what Viknor was trying to say, even if I don't necessarily agree.

 

_EW_