From Lincoln to Lincoln: The way home for a wayward G.O.P

[ICantSpellDawg]

The politics have shifted. The change is palpable and clear to most. In the same way that Reagan has changed the national discussion, so has the failure of Bush and the evolution of the current oval office occupier. The Grand Ole Party is standing at the crossroads while it's big tents empty in every direction. We know the way forward, but it is hard to do. The elderly won't live forever and new demographics are begging to be allowed to vote for an alternative. It's time to start cultivating a new platform. The Republican Party began as a radical party and has always had a progressive streak. What would they need to do to allow you to vote for them in 2016, 2020, beyond? What are the issues and in which direction does the vane point? What is the rationale?

All honest suggestions are welcome.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Let me start. A clear eyed view of:

Regulation - it exists to prevent the little guy from being trampled by the big guy. It has been warped to keep the little guys from gaining on the big guys. Reform that allows individuals to start businesses easily, run them easily and not need accountants and attorneys for every step of the way. Keep regulations in place that prevent fraud, discourage monopolization and increase transparency. Reforms that make snake oil salesman more transparent to the college, home, car, financial services, food, etc buyer. Reforms with this in mind? good. reforms that pay lip service to this and make people less informed or more confused, bad.

Taxes - again, corporate rates need to be revised. Notice I say revised, not just lowered. Simplify. The G.O.P. need to push lower cost to do business, not lower taxes. I don't care if we raise income tax rates, increase progressiveness in the code, increase capital gains rates (except on IPO's or other direct cash injections) - if we just zero out - close to zero out the corporate rates. Adopt some modified version of the territorial system, as proposed by Geithner. The position proposed by Norquist has been poisonous. More taxes just hurt the little guy, big companies hollow out the code and evade while their little competitors cant stand the heat and are forced out of the kitchen. At the same time, as business is freed into the international marketplace, some way to prevent companies from gaming and exploiting the people that helped get them that freedom is needed. Get creative.

Spending - This is a good area to stay conservative. Get back to core responsibilities of the Federal government and give up whatever you can to the states as a matter of course. Reverse the switch that sucks all power to as few people, as far away as possible.

Immigration - Let people with clean records and some level of education into the country without a hassle for work permits. Spend money on a basic outreach at the point of origin. Seek out and approach international talent for expedited membership into the club. Cut the hostility to immigrants. Let the voters who vote out of hatred leave the party and shrivel on the vine, more poison. College graduates in maths, engineering should be fast tracked to citizenship. Illegals should be offered work permits if they fess up and walk onto the grid.

Social Policies - abandon areas that are in the purview of religion. Government doesn't need to sanction or even recognize marriage, churches and communities and individuals do. Government can enforce and regulate contracts, but it should be up to individuals what to put into those contracts and who to enter into them with, wherever possible. Abortion is homicide - make compromises with whomever we need to to eradicate this practice, hopefully the argument will go away when women can give children up for in-vitro adoption over the next 10 years. We need to make this practice extinct, for now, push a change in hearts and minds, make it harder to get. On the flip side, as we make abortion harder to come by, support birth control wholeheartedly, make it easier to come by or at least shut-up about it and let women control their lives. End the prohibition on marijuana, flat out, reduce restriction on all drug use. Make guns easier to come by for people with clean or nonviolent criminal records and allow safety courses to open up types of guns that one can purchase.

Health-Care - Take the responsibility away from buisnesses. They mis-use and abuse it and have shown themselves incapable of protecting employees or expanding services. The affordable care act is law now, deal with it and find a way to achieve universal health care with as much individual choice, cost control and as near universal participation is possible.

This is a start, just off of my head.

[Major Robert Dump]

You left out God. Fail.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You left out God. Fail.

Hahaha. Both parties are God's.

[a completely inoffensive name]

America is a socially conservative country. The only reason the GOP lost is because it is the white party. The GOP will change it's tune on immigration, that's it. And the Catholic Hispanics will flock to it.

[CountArach]

Social Policies - abandon areas that are in the purview of religion. Government doesn't need to sanction or even recognize marriage, churches and communities and individuals do.
Gay marriage is a popular policy and one that is becoming increasingly popular, particularly in younger demographics. If the GOP doesn't change its stance, and fast, then it will lose any chance it has of winning over younger voters. Doing so will alienate their core voters, however, and that is why they will not change. Any GOP member who is not vociferously anti-gay marriage will not be nominated, period.

Health-Care - Take the responsibility away from buisnesses. They mis-use and abuse it and have shown themselves incapable of protecting employees or expanding services. The affordable care act is law now, deal with it and find a way to achieve universal health care with as much individual choice, cost control and as near universal participation is possible.
And thus alienate your base of fiscal conservatives.

The only thing that I think the GOP is likely to compromise on is immigration reform, and honestly the Democrats are just likely to do it better in the eyes of the Hispanic community. The party doesn't just have to change its policy, it has to change at the roots of the party and that takes time and will alienate a lot of the angry white people who form the core of the party.

[Ironside]

I'd vote for dawg's, platform

*My only contention is on the Abortion issue. While I am personally against it, I don't think its something that should be legislated. Let it be a personal choice, or at the very most a state-by-state issue.

The problem I have with having abortion as a state-by-state issue is that it doesn't really solve anything. If state A throws the emotional investment of saying that abortion is murder, then they can't really blindside if neighbour state B got free abortions (in particular since almost every state A resident that wants an abortion will go over the border and do it there instead).

[Hax]

Hahaha. Both parties are God's.

So they're like Hezbollah?


Hezbollah (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-llāh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ll%C4%81h), literally "Party of Allah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah)" or "Party of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)")

[gaelic cowboy]

Neither Lincoln or Reagan would get nominated in today's Republican Party so I would say the GOP's problem is intractable.

[CountArach]

Well, yeah. You're right. But the point of making it a state-by-state issue is that you can have laws which actually reflect the morality and level of social conservatism that exists in the region, as opposed to trying to legislate a blanket morality over a very large and very diverse nation. Allowing it to be a state-by-state issue takes the onus off the federal government, and still lets outraged moralists in certain states feel good about themselves.
Then things get a bit murky with universal rights. The question has to be asked - why should people in one geographical location have different rights to people in another location?

Once again the attachment of Americans to their state system baffles me.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Then things get a bit murky with universal rights. The question has to be asked - why should people in one geographical location have different rights to people in another location?

Once again the attachment of Americans to their state system baffles me.

You seem to misunderstand American culture. Universal or "human" rights are already elaborated or more less in our Dec. of Ind. and our Constitution. We are attached to the state system because people have differing views on what civil rights people are entitled to. Abortion isn't a universal right, people who claim it is are idiots. It is a civil right and the SCOTUS inadvertently admits so with Roe vs. Wade by having to link abortion with privacy of all things in order to ensure it's legality. Reading between the lines, its obvious the decision was based off of pragmatism, and not any real legal backing.

[CountArach]

You seem to misunderstand American culture. Universal or "human" rights are already elaborated or more less in our Dec. of Ind. and our Constitution. We are attached to the state system because people have differing views on what civil rights people are entitled to. Abortion isn't a universal right, people who claim it is are idiots. It is a civil right and the SCOTUS inadvertently admits so with Roe vs. Wade by having to link abortion with privacy of all things in order to ensure it's legality. Reading between the lines, its obvious the decision was based off of pragmatism, and not any real legal backing.
I'm not going to disagree with you on the nature of Roe vs Wade, but I would argue that there is no fundamental difference between universal and civil rights, other than what we deem it is appropriate for our governments to interfere in.

[Ironside]

Then things get a bit murky with universal rights. The question has to be asked - why should people in one geographical location have different rights to people in another location?

Once again the attachment of Americans to their state system baffles me.

Makes a bit more sense if you see the US as some kind of super EU.

[rvg]

Makes a bit more sense if you see the US as some kind of super EU.
And the U.S. is anything but that.

[Ironside]

And the U.S. is anything but that.

The states cannot be compared to the administrational units within most countries, which are what most people do. Such a unit can have had more than 1000 years of history, switched both state and nationality and been an independent nation several times, so they certainly have a richer and more varied backround than a US state. They aren't some arbitary idea formed by the state.

Rather, USA was formed by having the states agreeing into a union, where you have some matters on a federal level and the rest at state level (as the EU). With time, that state level has declined into something between a region and a state. Being comparably homogenous, that process is much easier than any similar process in the EU.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not going to disagree with you on the nature of Roe vs Wade, but I would argue that there is no fundamental difference between universal and civil rights, other than what we deem it is appropriate for our governments to interfere in.

Universal rights are universal, abortion has all sorts of contingencies attached to it in most jurisdictions, like marriage it's a Civil matter, not a moral one.

[Kralizec]

Universal rights are universal, abortion has all sorts of contingencies attached to it in most jurisdictions, like marriage it's a Civil matter, not a moral one.

That's really just an emperical observation. Allthough that does touch upon the question what human rights really are.

Speaking personally, I do support a woman's right to abortion, and human rights are super-duper awesome, but I'd hesitate to include it among them. If human rights, as a secular concept, is to have any meaning it should be restricted to those rights which are self-evidently necessary for a dignified existence. I don't think there are any good reasons to deny early abortions, but I can think of all sorts of dumb stuff governments do that adversely affect people's life that still don't quite qualify as human rights breeches. You could argue, with good reasons, that if a woman is severely distressed and might go suicidal if forced to carry a baby to term. That would mean that denying an abortion could violate her human rights in her situation - but not necessarily for all cases.

Again- I support abortion righs, but I don't think the reasoning behind them is as clear-cut as others. If we're to take the right to due process for example, that's acknowledged in several treaties including the ICCPR, which has been ratified by the vast majority of countries worldwide (China's a notable exception). Of course many countries don't abide by them in practice, but the crucial point is that there are no arguments of reason against it. Dictators know this and at least pretend to abide by them.

@Count Arach: Germany is a federal republic as well. The government of Berlin wants to make college education free or has already done so, don't remember. (which pissed Bavaria off - Bavaria does have college fees, and is also a large net contributor to Germany's financial transfer scheme whereas Berlin is a net receiver. But I digress).
I imagine there are Australian examples as well, being a federal country and all. Do you draw the line at a certain point, or are you opposed to federalism in any form?

[The Lurker Below]

Then things get a bit murky with universal rights. The question has to be asked - why should people in one geographical location have different rights to people in another location?

Once again the attachment of Americans to their state system baffles me.

Americans cling to the states because none are completely satisfied with the federal gov't. We cling to the hope that here we're not as disgraceful as the Californicators or as backwards as the swamp people. The amusing part is that when it comes to voting our opinions, we have relatively little opinion on local matters, but we all get our feathers in a ruffle over the federal gov'.

[lars573]

And the U.S. is anything but that.
USA v1.0 very much was the EU. Minus the 1000 years of history, and the nationalism based on such. And it still didn't work. That's why you live in USA v2.27.

[Fisherking]

You Europeans underestimate our cultural differences. The reason USA 1.0 (or, rather, the Articles of the Confederation) didn't work was precisely because of those differences. Just because people from West Virginia speak the same language (kind of) as people from California doesn't mean much at all.

When it comes to policy, I'd say most of Europe is more homogeneous than we are.


No. We are about as different as the parts of England are from each other. Not the UK, just England. Our States are about the equivalent as the German States. What is different is that we take up a lot more room than Europe. Things in Europe are much more compressed. The rivalries and jealousies are much more intense.

You can find a wider variance in peoples ideas, ideals, and customs going from region to region, or sometimes village to village in Europe than can between Alabama and Massachusetts. The US is much more homogenized than you think.

[lars573]

You Europeans underestimate our cultural differences. The reason USA 1.0 (or, rather, the Articles of the Confederation) didn't work was precisely because of those differences. Just because people from West Virginia speak the same language (kind of) as people from California doesn't mean much at all.

When it comes to policy, I'd say most of Europe is more homogeneous than we are.
One problem, I'm Canadian (born and bred as they say). Second problem, the USA is very culturally homogeneous even today. More so in the late 18th century. And yet a loose confederation didn't work. USA 1.0, EU, or the ancient Greek leagues, none of them worked.

[Ironside]

You Europeans underestimate our cultural differences. The reason USA 1.0 (or, rather, the Articles of the Confederation) didn't work was precisely because of those differences. Just because people from West Virginia speak the same language (kind of) as people from California doesn't mean much at all.

When it comes to policy, I'd say most of Europe is more homogeneous than we are.

Not really. There's 2 issues I can think of that's more controversial in the US than in Europe. Gun rights and death penalty. Abortion is less controversial within the countries, but have pretty much the full range as a whole over Europe. It's just less common to see certain opinions on the English parts of the net, since it's not a native language. Also, the general attitude in the US is to win, not comprimise so the discussions becomes louder. There are no European attitude on that, but varies from country to country btw. The American dream? No such European equalence. For something simple, normal dinner times? Varies from 5-10 pm.

You're big and has more variation than some (probably most) European countries, but Europe as a whole? No.

And don't underestimate different languages, not only is it harder to understand eachother, words and entire concepts might be missing. "Landet lagom" and "välfärdsstaten" are two concepts important to understand Sweden, but requires a long explaination to be able to translate it somewhat.

[CountArach]

@Count Arach: Germany is a federal republic as well. The government of Berlin wants to make college education free or has already done so, don't remember. (which pissed Bavaria off - Bavaria does have college fees, and is also a large net contributor to Germany's financial transfer scheme whereas Berlin is a net receiver. But I digress).
I imagine there are Australian examples as well, being a federal country and all. Do you draw the line at a certain point, or are you opposed to federalism in any form?
Australia has a state system, yeah, but over time our federal government has been taking more power and funding away from them and centralising it and most people agree that we are better off for it. I read somewhere that Australia would save about $1 billion by removing the states just because we would have less red tape. Generally I oppose federalism in any form except in those cases where there are clear cultural differences, such as in Spain where many different areas are culturally distinct. Bavaria could potentially fit into that as well.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not really. There's 2 issues I can think of that's more controversial in the US than in Europe. Gun rights and death penalty. Abortion is less controversial within the countries, but have pretty much the full range as a whole over Europe. It's just less common to see certain opinions on the English parts of the net, since it's not a native language. Also, the general attitude in the US is to win, not comprimise so the discussions becomes louder. There are no European attitude on that, but varies from country to country btw. The American dream? No such European equalence. For something simple, normal dinner times? Varies from 5-10 pm.

You're big and has more variation than some (probably most) European countries, but Europe as a whole? No.

And don't underestimate different languages, not only is it harder to understand eachother, words and entire concepts might be missing. "Landet lagom" and "välfärdsstaten" are two concepts important to understand Sweden, but requires a long explaination to be able to translate it somewhat.

What USAians fail to understand is that they have cultural differences, we in the countries USAians came from still have very geographical boundaries.

Much like the fact they have to think twice before accepting the fact that USAnians is a more correct term than Americans :laugh4:

[Tuuvi]

Much like the fact they have to think twice before accepting the fact that USAnians is a more correct term than Americans :laugh4:

Dude it's called the United States of America. USAians is the most awkward word I've ever tried to read/pronounce.

[Kadagar_AV]

Dude it's called the United States of America. USAians is the most awkward word I've ever tried to read/pronounce.

I just got tired of bringing Canada, Mexico and all of the South American Continent to trial because of stupidity from the USAnians.

[Montmorency]

UKaians? USSRians?

While the former could be the awkward "United-Kingdomers", the citizens of the USSR were well-known as "Soviets".

But really, if you need to call us something else either call us by our home states or just refer to us as Unionists.

[Kadagar_AV]

UKaians? USSRians?

While the former could be the awkward "United-Kingdomers", the citizens of the USSR were well-known as "Soviets".

But really, if you need to call us something else either call us by our home states or just refer to us as Unionists.

The very fact that You deem "unionists" to be a specific USAnian term on an international forum is enough for me to go to bed without second thoughts... So cheers :)

[Montmorency]

Unionist typically refers to an affiliation with a particular sort of political party, or general subscription to a political ideology espousing some sort of geographic union.

I've never heard it used elsewhere as a demonym. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

[Kadagar_AV]

Unionist typically refers to an affiliation with a particular sort of political party, or general subscription to a political ideology espousing some sort of geographic union.

I've never heard it used elsewhere as a demonym. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

For me it would be shocking to consider "unionist" to be a denonym. Look at Sweden, there IS a reason why we have 3 crowns in our heraldry. For sure it should be 4 with the natives included, but we never cared much about them anyway, in fact, we made them a non-existent factor. Guess what that reminds me of?

Care to explain why You jump at things like these?

[Greyblades]

UKaians? USSRians?

While the former could be the awkward "United-Kingdomers"

We prefer "Britons" thank you very much.

[Montmorency]

Care to explain why You jump at things like these?

You advanced a terribly unwieldy and probably linguistically absurd demonym for "Americans". I suggested "Unionists" as an alternative, and you accused me of, I don't know, geographic self-centeredness. I pointed out that we would be taking first dibs on "Unionist" as a demonym, so you should have no cause for protestation.

Why should I be forced to explain these things? Was it really unclear?


We prefer "Britons" thank you very much.

Apparently...

[Tellos Athenaios]

I just got tired of bringing Canada, Mexico and all of the South American Continent to trial because of stupidity from the USAnians.

If you cannot stand calling them Americans, you could call them Yankees. If they complain about that, simply ask them if they would prefer "Redneck" instead.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In this thread, OP asks how to reform GOP for future elections, thread gets filled with Europeans telling all the "USAnians" how homogenized we are.

[Sarmatian]

Gay marriage is a popular policy and one that is becoming increasingly popular, particularly in younger demographics. If the GOP doesn't change its stance, and fast, then it will lose any chance it has of winning over younger voters. Doing so will alienate their core voters, however, and that is why they will not change. Any GOP member who is not vociferously anti-gay marriage will not be nominated, period.


This actually doesn't have to happen. Republicans are also, "less government, less regulations, more freedom" etc... and those issues are much more "core" republican values than being against gay marriages. They could vocally express their disagreement with gay marriages but support it because they believe it's not the place of the state to interfere in people lives and tell people how they may live in their household. They could even get points for consistency, as in "look, we're for less regulations and less state meddling even in things we oppose".

It might take some spinning but it would work, and now is the best time to do it. Four years until the next presidential elections and the next democrat candidate will invariably be in the shadow of Obama.

[CountArach]

This actually doesn't have to happen. Republicans are also, "less government, less regulations, more freedom" etc... and those issues are much more "core" republican values than being against gay marriages. They could vocally express their disagreement with gay marriages but support it because they believe it's not the place of the state to interfere in people lives and tell people how they may live in their household. They could even get points for consistency, as in "look, we're for less regulations and less state meddling even in things we oppose".
Theoretically, yes. But in reality? So much of the party's support comes from Evangelical Christians and so many of the party's leaders have made comments to play to this group that switching to "It is a state issue" will seem inconsistent and will ultimately not appease the base, or at the very least will not get them to volunteer in the same way that being vocally opposed or supportive would be. Not only that, but anyone who isn't vocally opposed to these things, particularly in very conservative districts, will ultimately face primary challenges from more conservative candidates who stand every chance of being elected or will ultimately force more money to be spent fighting to protect safe Republican seats. Further, it is entirely based on the idea that these politicians don't genuinely believe that the federal government should legislate against marriage equality.

[Sarmatian]

Further, it is entirely based on the idea that these politicians don't genuinely believe that the federal government should legislate against marriage equality.

Politicians for the most part believe in whatever will get them to power, and the closer they are to gaining power they're more willing to compromise.

It's a great poster issue for the GOP, nevertheless. It's one of those issues that affects only small number of people but attracts a huge amount of media attention, allowing them to talk about change and leave 99% of their (much more important) policies intact. Even better if they launch a new, younger politician to do it and on the plus side, it may bring a total divorce with Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

[CountArach]

Politicians for the most part believe in whatever will get them to power, and the closer they are to gaining power they're more willing to compromise.
For the most part, yes, but for something that is so dependent on religion, and is really a gut call rather than something hypothetically empirical like the economy, there is a large extent to which the personal feelings of a politician will come into play. Otherwise there would be no difference between any politician in a given party. The GOP isn't one big happy family, they have factions and internal disagreements just like any other party and they don't always present a unified front. by changing official party policy towards making marriage equality a states issue they risk alienating some parts of their party and that is when things start to go wrong with lots of primaries in safe seats suddenly making things contestable. The Tea Party is the perfect example of how internal rivalries can weaken the party in its safer seats. It is also an example of how a politician's personal beliefs can come into play.

It's a great poster issue for the GOP, nevertheless. It's one of those issues that affects only small number of people but attracts a huge amount of media attention, allowing them to talk about change and leave 99% of their (much more important) policies intact. Even better if they launch a new, younger politician to do it and on the plus side, it may bring a total divorce with Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
But who will institute that change? That is the problem here - it requires a fundamental change in the idea of who constitutes the 'base' of the party and that can only come about if the politicians hadn't been put in place by that base. Which they had. Thus they are not going to risk their own political career for a cause they may not believe in which may get them kicked out of office.