A Problem of Shrinkage

Read some disturbing articles about the GOP today. First there is a report that the percentage of Americans who self-identify as Republicans has shrunk to 21 percent, the lowest it's been in a quarter-century. From the article: "In that same poll, 35 percent self-identified as Democrats and 38 percent called them Independents." That means that Indies outnumber Repubs by almost two to one.

Then I read about how the base of the GOP is getting more ideological and angry, rather than less, in the face of defeats.

But outside Washington, the reality is very different. Rank-and-file Republicans remain, by all indications, staunchly conservative, and they appear to have no desire to moderate their views. GOP activists and operatives say they hear intense anger at the White House and at the party’s own leaders on familiar issues – taxes, homosexuality, and immigration. Within the party, conservative groups have grown stronger absent the emergence of any organized moderate faction.

There is little appetite for compromise on what many see as core issues, and the road to the presidential nomination lies – as always – through a series of states where the conservative base holds sway, and where the anger appears to be, if anything, particularly intense.

In other words, the Republican base may be getting smaller, older, whiter and angrier. And any politico who hopes to run the gauntlet for the party's nomination to any office is going to have to please this crew, which increases the likelihood that unelectable people will be given the nod.

Seems to me that the only hope for the Repubs to regroup and recoup is for the Dems to make a series of grievous mistakes. And while I have supreme faith in the Democrats' ability to lose a winning hand, I don't see President 44 as a typical Dem in this respect. That means we may face four to eight years of continuing Republican decline.

This would be a Bad Thing. We cannot become a one-party nation. If the Republicans are going the way of the Whigs and the Federalists, we might face a serious political vacuum. Assuming the Dems haven't messed up so badly as to revive the Republicans' fortunes, given the lack of a healthy opposition, they'll certainly get fat and stupid as quickly as possible. I don't want to see the U.S.A. facing the sort of single-party complacency that the Japanese had under the LDP for decades.

What do Orgahs think? Obviously, rumors of the Decline and Fall of the House Ron Built are premature. The Dems have not been given a proper chance to foul their own nest yet, and that's what usually brings balance to the equation. But what if they don't, at least not in time for the Repubs?

I've heard several Republican Orgahs argue that ideological purity and adherence to conservative principle is the way forward, and that "moderate" candidates get them nowhere. Problems that I see with this logic:

(1) America is a moderate nation. It's the rare and exceptional politician who rouses the rabble to move in any direction at all. (Reagan springs to mind, as does Obama.) Ideologically pure Republicans don't sell well in the national setting. I expect Sarah Palin to become the Jesse Jackson, Jr. of the Republicans for this very reason. (In other words, an unelectable pariah whom nobody within the party dare criticize.)

(2) The quest for ideological purity is not compatible with building a national coalition. One of the strengths of the Dems is that they have no principles or ideology. Oh, it suits some people in campaign mode to yammer about this Dem or that being a "socialist" or an "extreme leftist," but the truth of the matter is that there is no ideological underpinning for the Democratic Party in the same way that modern conservatism serves the Republican Party. This accounts for the Dems' weakness as well as their resilience. Weakness because they have no overarching agenda, resilience because they can accept anyone into their coalition at no cost. Wanna be a pro-gun Dem? Fine, sign up. Wanna be a pro-life Dem? Sign up.

Republicans, on the other hand, have any number of litmus tests to determine if a politician is or isn't a RINO. Thus in the Repub world, heresy is common, damnable and results in expulsion. This accounts for the Repubs' discipline and shrinkage problem. Discipline because their members know that they must toe the line or be basted by any number of ideological organs, including various think tanks and talk radio gurus, not to mention party leadership. Shrinkage problem because an exclusive church which expels the heretics must also be engaged in conversion if it wants to grow. And at the moment, I don't see any evidence that the Repubs are engaged in any serious attempt at conversion. The polling among the thirty-and-younger crowd is eye-popping.

Really, I suppose this is a two-part question: How can/should the Republicans turn around their shrinkage problem? And what will the consequences be if America becomes a de facto one-party state?

Then it simply promotes other parties. A two Party state is just half as worse as a one party state. A multi-party state is almost perfect, and could finally make America something to be proud of, and indeed the envy of nations. Something that's been severely lacking for the past 60 years

but you are forgetting that multi parites is a mess. just look at israels system. to get a government going, you need the majority of the seats, and since that is so hard to do, coalitions are formed and its a mess.
if there were more than 2 parties, getting the 270 electoral votes to win would be really hard.

Then don't follow Israels example. Just a simple Majority. Whoever has the most votes, wins. Simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

Then don't follow Israels example. Just a simple Majority. Whoever has the most votes, wins. Simple.

---

That would be ideal, but those sort of conditions tend to create 2-party systems, because the only way to get into power is to form large parties with a broad range of ideologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

Then don't follow Israels example. Just a simple Majority. Whoever has the most votes, wins. Simple.

---

you know, that kind of stuff led to the Civil War. just sayin'

Quote:

---

Really, I suppose this is a two-part question: How can/should the Republicans turn around their shrinkage problem? And what will the consequences be if America becomes a de facto one-party state?

---

Aren't we? The politicians in the executive branch favor expanding executive power, while the politicians in the legislative branch favor re-election at any cost. The letter next to their name and their pet causes don't matter very much.

Political vacuum is always filled, usually instantly. I think Republicans are just having a temporary drop.

On the other hand, I think it would be beneficial for US if this would allow some other party or parties to fill the gap. I don't like two-party system much, but considering the political system in the US, that isn't likely to happen. Setting up a new party to rival Reps and Dems would be extremely difficult and extremely expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Political vacuum is always filled, usually instantly. I think Republicans are just having a temporary drop.

Setting up a new party to rival Reps and Dems would be extremely difficult and extremely expensive.

---

Same here. Politics is full of ups and downs, just like economics. Republicans are many things, but not stupid, or at least as stupid as some of us may perceive them to be. They will change or die, and more likely, they will change. It would be immensely difficult for another, new party to establish themselves in the US Gov't, so it is easier to simply give the old corpse a new dress than to raise a new child to adulthood. Unless of course the other party makes a grave misted, and the mistake would have to be grave indeed, since even the contrasting performances of the Republican Harding and Democrat FDR were not enough to give the Democrats an edge.

Not to mention, after a 2-3 Democrats in the power, the people will once again beg for change, and so the cycle is renewed. Then a line of Republicans again, then Democrats, and so on ad perpetuum. Pathetic, but each day this cycle continues, the more firmly entrenched it becomes. Parties change views and constituents to unrecognisability, but the name and the symbols carry on. Kinda difficult to imagine what the Republicans were before Reagan, without working class men, or the Democrats before FDR, without the blacks, but it was so some time ago.

Quote:

---

Kinda difficult to imagine what the Republicans were before Reagan

---

Deliciously smug?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Deliciously smug?

---

He's my new hero :2thumbsup: Then again, I do not associate myself with American conservatives...

Yeah, maybe my perspective's changed too far, but NRO feels like a rag without him in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Yeah, maybe my perspective's changed too far, but NRO feels like a rag without him in it.

---

Definitely. What draws me away from the American conservatives is their associations with the South, religion, and anti-intellectualism. And that lad was everything I could have wished for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Read some disturbing articles about the GOP today. First there is a report that the percentage of Americans who self-identify as Republicans has shrunk to 21 percent, the lowest it's been in a quarter-century. From the article: "In that same poll, 35 percent self-identified as Democrats and 38 percent called them Independents." That means that Indies outnumber Repubs by almost two to one..........................

..............Really, I suppose this is a two-part question: How can/should the Republicans turn around their shrinkage problem? And what will the consequences be if America becomes a de facto one-party state?

---

this happens from time to time, a party ceases to represent the desires of the people and without realising it they become an irrelevance, and a new party rises to fill the vacuum.

It happened to the Whigs in Britain one hundred years ago.

America won't be a one-party state, either the republicans will evolve back into the sphere of visible public interest or they will whither and a new party will arise.

Ah, right, I expected a thread about swimming...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychonaut

Ah, right, I expected a thread about swimming...

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I want my coffee back...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

if there were more than 2 parties, getting the 270 electoral votes to win would be really hard.

---

There are a number of ways to fix this:
Elect the President by popular vote
Preferential voting
OR
A permanent solution

I have always been a big fan of preferential voting... I think bigger partys tend to be against the idea as it means small partys can actually make gains without people feeling thier vote is wasted. You can make your idealogical choice (the one that is actually closest to your paticular views) and vote for the guys who are better than those other guys, the hold your nose vote...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

There are a number of ways to fix this:
Elect the President by popular vote
Preferential voting
OR
A permanent solution

---

you know, a while back before the 2008 election i posted that question, and i believe you were one of the people who bashed on the idea of going to popular vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

you know, a while back before the 2008 election i posted that question, and i believe you were one of the people who bashed on the idea of going to popular vote.

---

:inquisitive:

That doesn't sound at all like me.

Im fairly sure a few left wing people were being 'bashed' about just liking the popular vote because Bush would have lost under it in 2000

I've read some articles that say the old conservative scions need to actually adopt conservatism to our modern times, and stop living like it's the 1980s. Also, the GOP in power didn't even try to reflect those old principles.

A new, more libertarian route, may be the way to go. Consider former New Mex gov Gary Johnson, who's said he may run in 2012.

An interview with the man back in '00:

Quote:

---

This practical approach drives his notorious attitude toward drug prohibition, which Johnson has attacked more forcefully and visibly than any other elected official in America today. He rails against the drug war mostly, though not exclusively, on the grounds that it is inefficient. In general, he is more interested in pragmatic concerns than in defending anything as abstract as inalienable rights. When I bring up prostitution, another consensual crime, he endorses decriminalization, but not on the grounds that people own their bodies or that it’s not the state’s business. Instead he frames his response this way: "Given that prostitution takes place, the question is, ‘Are you safer engaging a prostitute in Nevada or New Mexico?’ I think you are clearly safer engaging one in Nevada in a licensed prostitution establishment."
...
Reason: What do you consider your major accomplishments as governor of New Mexico?

Johnson: Building 500 miles of four-lane highway in the state. We have reduced taxes by about $123 million annually. More significantly, before my taking office there was never a set of six years in the state of New Mexico where not a single tax had gone up. We reformed Medicaid and got Medicaid costs under control. We built a couple of new, private prisons in New Mexico. We had prisoners housed out of state, and the federal court system had been running prisons in New Mexico under a consent decree since 1980. We are now out from under that consent decree. We have approximately 1,200 fewer employees in state government today than we did when I took office.

---

CR

Repubs ain't going nowhere. Media is blowing Obama up as big as possible and trying to attach a stigma to anyone who identifies as a Republican, but that has not made conservatives give up their beliefs or jump the country. Wait till next election, you are gonna see a revival like you have never seen in your life. Even before the 08 election was decided there were all kinds of social groups being formed to stop Palin in 2012 :P, and the media has been trying to paint her as a failure all this time. There is a reason liberals are so afraid of her, that gal is dynamite and you are gonna see an historical reinvigoration of the republican base that you will not believe. Why do you think they are barraging her with all these BS ethics charges? Why do you think there are social groups on sites like Facebook dedicated to making an organised effort to discredit her? Why do you think the media is desperately trying to paint her as radical, gun toting loony? They are scared...scared out of their minds. If Palin runs, you will be eating your words Lemur. ~;) They say that people don't like her and that she only attracts people on the fringes, etc, but almost all the conservatives I know, an easy majority of the moderates I know, and even a few libs I know love her.
Don't get me wrong, I know she ain't perfect; I don't think she is the messiah. I am excited about her because I think that she is honest, and that her beliefs are rationally grounded, and that her politics are mostly good, and cause I know that she has one heck of a chance of taking the Obamonster out next election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

Repubs ain't going nowhere.

---

Check the polling for the thirty-and-under crowd. If that doesn't make you sit up and take notice, nothing will. Examples (and this is just me doing some sampling; I'm sure CountArch could illustrate the point far better):

Young Voters Disenchanted with GOP

"The startling collapse of GOP support among young voters is reflected in the poll's findings that show two-thirds of young voters surveyed believe Democrats do a better job than Republicans of representing their views - even on issues Republicans once owned, such as terrorism and taxes. [...] The anti-GOP shift for this generation - which is expected to reach 50 million voters, or 17 percent of the electorate, in 2008 - represents a marked contrast from their predecessors, the Gen Xers born in the mid-'60s to mid-'70s whose demographic represented the strongest Republican voters in the nation, pollster Anna Greenberg said."

"70% of voters under the age of thirty say they like the job President Obama is doing."

I've seen polls with the numbers for the under-thirties pegged as high as 75% approval for Obama. I think this makes one thing abundantly clear: The GOP needs to find a message that resonates with young people.

As for Palin, I think nominating her would be a grave mistake for the Repubs, unless they have no real desire to win in '12. The governor CR cites sounds far more formidable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

the Obamonster

---

You really should get over your ODS.

The Obamination has nothing to fear, I can't see the Republicans coming close in 4 years time. Palin is a joke, and that Johnson fellow will struggle to get the support of the evangelical voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

The Obamination has nothing to fear, I can't see the Republicans coming close in 4 years time.

---

Um, believe t or not, this thread isn't about Obama. And the fact that he has "nothing to fear" is exactly why I think we should be worried. Every leader should have a fire under his posterior. Makes 'em behave better.

@Just Vuk Again

You do realise she is an idiot, don't you? We're talking about someone who not only is a creationalist, but she thought Africa was a country. And she's a hypocrite. And she's stupid. Did I mention she's stupid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Um, believe t or not, this thread isn't about Obama. And the fact that he has "nothing to fear" is exactly why I think we should be worried. Every leader should have a fire under his posterior. Makes 'em behave better.

---

I don't think this is necessarily true. Having something to fear means they will take steps to make sure they get reelected. That isn't synonymous with doing what needs to be done.

****

Haven't young people almost always been liberal?

****

How big a deal is it what people are choosing to call themselves? I don't think the issue polls have shown any radical change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Check the polling for the thirty-and-under crowd. If that doesn't make you sit up and take notice, nothing will. Examples (and this is just me doing some sampling; I'm sure CountArch could illustrate the point far better):

Young Voters Disenchanted with GOP

"The startling collapse of GOP support among young voters is reflected in the poll's findings that show two-thirds of young voters surveyed believe Democrats do a better job than Republicans of representing their views - even on issues Republicans once owned, such as terrorism and taxes. [...] The anti-GOP shift for this generation - which is expected to reach 50 million voters, or 17 percent of the electorate, in 2008 - represents a marked contrast from their predecessors, the Gen Xers born in the mid-'60s to mid-'70s whose demographic represented the strongest Republican voters in the nation, pollster Anna Greenberg said."

"70% of voters under the age of thirty say they like the job President Obama is doing."

I've seen polls with the numbers for the under-thirties pegged as high as 75% approval for Obama. I think this makes one thing abundantly clear: The GOP needs to find a message that resonates with young people.

As for Palin, I think nominating her would be a grave mistake for the Repubs, unless they have no real desire to win in '12. The governor CR cites sounds far more formidable.

---

Just so you know, I do not identify myself as a Republican. I have voted Democrat before and hate the party system. I think you should form your opinion on the candidate, and not let party lines influence you. A negative stigma is being attached to being a republican, so a lot of republicans do not like associating themselves with the negative media image. As I said, Repubs did not pack up and leave, nor did they change their views. And don't worry, today's dems are tomorrows repubs. ~;)
I cannot agree with you on Palin at all Lemur. The left has good reason to be scared of her. She is intelligent, honest, has good policy views, and is very popular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

You really should get over your ODS.

---

You really should learn to take a joke. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

Bush-hatred eventually spread from a molten core of leftists to set the cultural tone of the country. But Obama-hatred could just as easily do the opposite and brand all conservatives as a bunch of Obama-hating cranks.

---

So why the difference? Could it be because the media tells us what to think of each? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Um, believe t or not, this thread isn't about Obama. And the fact that he has "nothing to fear" is exactly why I think we should be worried. Every leader should have a fire under his posterior. Makes 'em behave better.

---

I agree with Sas, it just means they campaign in office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Che Roriniho

@Just Vuk Again

You do realise she is an idiot, don't you? We're talking about someone who not only is a creationalist, but she thought Africa was a country. And she's a hypocrite. And she's stupid. Did I mention she's stupid?

---

A) By saying that she is an idiot for disagreeing with you on the origins of the world, you are calling everyone who believes in Creationism an idiot (me included).
B) She did NOT think Africa was a country.
C) A hypocrite? lol, please explain.
D) Stupid? lmao. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't think this is necessarily true. Having something to fear means they will take steps to make sure they get reelected. That isn't synonymous with doing what needs to be done.

****

Haven't young people almost always been liberal?

****

How big a deal is it what people are choosing to call themselves? I don't think the issue polls have shown any radical change.

---

:2thumbsup: Thank you for saying what I wanted to say better than I could have said it.