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.

Quote:

---

C) A hypocrite? lol, please explain.

---

Bridge to Nowhere, also for a so-called fiscal conservative alaska gets a whole lot of government welfare

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

You really should learn to take a joke. :P

---

BusHitler.

Quote:

---

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

---

You should try listening to other media besides the media telling you about the media brainwashing everyone into following the media.

Quote:

---

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).

---

Oh dear...

Anybody who wants to debate creationism is encouraged to start another thread. I'm still interested to hear opinions about (a) whether we are in danger of becoming a one-party state, and (b) if not, why not.

In danger of becoming a one party state? I think we're there. Most Americans look to the government to solve all of their problems for them. Few if any show any sort of self-confidence to address their own problems themselves. R or D, we have consistently ceded freedom and liberty, in the hopes that whoever was in office would "Just make all the bad stuff go away". We're sheep, and we've gotten what we deserve.

If your question is whether the Democrats are approaching a permanent majority? Again, with the way the media editorializes on politics, and presents current events in ways that would make Pravda blush, the answer is a resounding yes. What's more, I don't see much hope for the fiscally conservative wing of the Democratic party, the Blue Dog Democrats.

Or haven't you heard about Accountability Now and Campaign for America's Future, two groups who are dedicated to targeting Democrats in primaries that "aren't liberal enough". Looks like your big tent is getting a little snug there too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Haven't young people almost always been liberal?

---

Yes, this is reflected in my own generation (Generation X) which, as I recall, were decidedly more liberal in our youth. As we grew older, we grew more conservative. The Baby Boomers are the one generation that bucked the trend in that they still possess a modest liberal bias even as the eldest of their ranks passes from middle to old age.

It remains to be seen how long Generation Y will remain solidly liberal. Reagan exerted enormous influence on my generation not simply because he was so sunny and optimistic (that will only get you so far) but because he brought positive, tangible results with him shortly after entering office. It remains to be seen whether Obama can actually deliver on the hype and his promises. Given that Obama's answer is to tax, borrow and spend irresponsibly, essentially the same position as his predecessor (albeit taken to obscene heights) and current Congressional peers then I think it's safe to say the popularity and degree of satisfaction his presidency brings won't come remotely close to emulating Reagan's.

One thing for sure, the Generation Y'ers that are so adamantly in favor of Obama are the most poorly educated & equipped generation to come along in a long time. I don't have much love or respect for my generation but when I see these young 'uns going about their daily business of recklessly pushing themselves needlessly into debt by living way above their means and acting like overgrown children who happen to have jobs, (depleted) bank accounts and 401Ks I wonder what the hell they're going to be like when they smash into reality and are forced to abandon their pursuit of la vida loca. So we'll see how their ideological position changes when more of them settle down, have kids, are confronted with piles of bills and mortgages to pay and... yes, grow old. They may just richochet hard to the right or... there's a good chance that, given their lack of connection to a generation reared in a culture that emphasized moderation and responsbility, will push the country even further to the left. Out of their inability to deal with even the basic challenges of life I can easily see Gen Y'ers turning to government to provide all the answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Anybody who wants to debate creationism is encouraged to start another thread. I'm still interested to hear opinions about (a) whether we are in danger of becoming a one-party state, and (b) if not, why not.

---

Personally, I'm all for letting Democrats have absolute control. The sooner they get to screw things up, the sooner people can get disgusted with them and the sooner we can be rid of them. I'd rather have people like Specter or Snowe in office as Democrats than Republicans.

Being "moderate" and not having any driving principles behind them is what got the GOP thrown out of power. They came to power with the Contract with America and were helped by the complacency of the Democrats at the time. However, with disappointing speed, members of the GOP quickly abandoned their principles and became more interested in pandering and feathering their own nests than in following up on the principles that got them the majority in the first place. An unfortunate side-effect of the "contract" was that the most principled members of the GOP left office by self-limiting their terms in office as they all supposedly agreed to (see Pat Toomey).

Quote:

---

In 1998, Toomey ran for the 15th District seat being vacated by incumbent Paul McHale against state Senator and future Allentown Mayor Roy C. Afflerbach. Toomey successfully flipped the seat from the Democratic McHale and won by an unexpectedly wide ten-point margin. He may have been helped by Governor Tom Ridge's landslide reelection victory.

Toomey was reelected two more times by relatively comfortable margins. While the 15th has historically been a Democratic district, it has a fairly strong tinge of social conservatism.

Toomey did not run for reelection to his House seat in 2004, fulfilling a pledge that he had signed in 1998 to only serve three terms.[3]

---

As I bemoaned during the Bush years, people like the RSC- the true Republican conservatives, were dismissed and even mocked by the party establishment, jokingly referring to them as the "minority" party since, according to them, that's what the party would become if their principles were put into legislation. Well, the RSC clearly didn't get it's way- and guess what happened? :oops:

I fully expect that after a number of years, the pendulum will again swing the other way and the GOP will be back in power again on a platform of limited government.... sadly, it's also just as likely that they'll quickly betray those principles again too. History repeats itself.... :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

One thing for sure, the Generation Y'ers that are so adamantly in favor of Obama are the most poorly educated & equipped generation to come along in a long time. I don't have much love or respect for my generation but when I see these young 'uns going about their daily business of recklessly pushing themselves needlessly into debt by living way above their means and acting like overgrown children who happen to have jobs, (depleted) bank accounts and 401Ks I wonder what the hell they're going to be like when they smash into reality and are forced to abandon their pursuit of la vida loca. So we'll see how their ideological position changes when more of them settle down, have kids, are confronted with piles of bills and mortgages to pay and... yes, grow old. They may just richochet hard to the right or... there's a good chance that, given their lack of connection to a generation reared in a culture that emphasized moderation and responsbility, will push the country even further to the left. Out of their inability to deal with even the basic challenges of life I can easily see Gen Y'ers turning to government to provide all the answers.

---

Get off my lawn! ~D

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I pretty much agree here. Too spoiled, too attached to some alternative reality.

Will the GOP be able financially to contest seriously for House and Senate seats? If they run Palin in 2012, it could very well be the end of the Republican party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

If they run Palin in 2012, it could very well be the end of the Republican party.

---

I'm ambivalent towards Palin. I think she took a terrible beating on the McCain ticket. Part of it was certainly due to her inexperience, but much of it I also blame on the ineptitude of the McCain campaign. I also think the enthusiasm with which she was ripped in the new coverage was pretty astonishing too.

Regardless, she now has a very deep hole to dig herself out of. If she comes back in 2012 and is extremely polished, runs a perfect campaign and is able to repair her image- great, she would deserve to win the primary. However, if she's still rough around the edges and makes too many missteps, then she'll lose- and in that case, good. If she runs, she'll start out as damaged goods- and if she can overcome that, she'll probably have earned the nomination. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

In danger of becoming a one party state? I think we're there. Most Americans look to the government to solve all of their problems for them. Few if any show any sort of self-confidence to address their own problems themselves.

---

I think this is overly pessimistic. Just looking around me, the vast majority of people I know work for a living. The only person I know on public assistance is a state-certified paranoid schitzophrenic who has to take medicine or the voices start again. And in his case, I don't see why the minimal support he gets is a bad thing. Would we rather he were on the streets, unmedicated, defecating in his hand and screaming about demons?

Anyway, if you're going to argue that the vast majority of Americans are welfare-suckling statists who can't make their own way, it would be helpful if you provided some sort of backup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Personally, I'm all for letting Democrats have absolute control. The sooner they get to screw things up, the sooner people can get disgusted with them and the sooner we can be rid of them. I'd rather have people like Specter or Snowe in office as Democrats than Republicans.

---

Ugh. The problem with this approach is once you pass a bill or create a government program, department or entity it's incredibly hard to get rid of it unless you can achieve a similarly solid majority... and possess the political will to take a legislative axe to the offending branches. The Dems with a non-filibusterable majority are going to be downright scary, in many cases far worse than what we saw during the last 8 years. Better buckle up... and buy a damn good buttplug... :help:

Quote:

---

I fully expect that after a number of years, the pendulum will again swing the other way and the GOP will be back in power again on a platform of limited government.... sadly, it's also just as likely that they'll quickly betray those principles again too. History repeats itself.... :shame:

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Anyway, if you're going to argue that the vast majority of Americans are welfare-suckling statists who can't make their own way, it would be helpful if you provided some sort of backup.

---

For starters, let's look at the public demand for:

-the stimulus package
-subsidized home ownership
-universal healthcare
-government renogotiating debt contracts (mortgages, credit cards, etcetera)

In other words, the public is looking for socialism. Pleading for it. Demanding it. We don't say we are, we claim to all be "hard-working, do-it-ourselfers". But when push comes to shove, what's our answer? Beg the government to solve our problems for us.

Hell, just look at gas going over $2.50/gallon. What's the average reaction in the street? A whiny: The government ought to do something about this...

I wish we had just listened to George Washington and not had political parties in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I wish we had just listened to George Washington and not had political parties in the first place.

---

It's a nice thought but it doesn't jibe well with human nature. Human beings are naturally very hierarchical, tribal animals. We have a marked tendency to draw lines where none exist. Such is the lot of primates.

Why don't you just become like Canadians? They have that cheesy notion that that anyone can just buckle up and make an honest living, while at the same time being sort of socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I wish we had just listened to George Washington and not had political parties in the first place.

---

You like one party-system :grin:? Go to Russia then!! We may have different parties, but only Putin's United Russia holds any power. jk. But they are pretty powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

You like one party-system :grin:? Go to Russia then!! We may have different parties, but only Putin's United Russia holds any power. jk. But they are pretty powerful.

---

What? I said I didn't want any parties whatsoever.

For what it's worth, I'm clearly not the only person thinking about this.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows the depth of the party's problems. Just 21 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans. That's the lowest since the fall of 1983, when just 19 percent identified themselves as Republicans. Party identification does fluctuate with events. But as a snapshot indicator, the latest figures highlight the impact of Obama's opening months on the Republican Party. From a high-water mark of 35 percent in the fall of 2003, Republicans have slid steadily to their present state of affairs. It's just not as cool to be a Republican as it once was.

The Republicans have many demographic challenges as they plot their comeback. Obama has attracted strong support from young voters and Latinos -- two keys to the future for both parties and once part of the GOP's calculation for sustaining themselves in power. Suburban voters have moved toward the Democrats. Specter can see that problem acutely in the suburbs around his home in Philadelphia home. Obama is also holding a solid advantage among independents, the proxy measure for the center or swing portion of the electorate.

Reihan Salam, co-author of "Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save America," said this week that the danger for Republicans is to believe they now represent a vast, silent majority that is waiting to reassert itself. A louder voice from a smaller cadre of supporters is not the answer, he warned. That will just prevent Republicans from reassessing their old agenda, developing new ideas and once again learning to reach out broadly. [...]

Sixty percent of the country trusts Obama to make the right decisions for the country's future -- but just 21 percent trust Republicans in Congress.

Despite their solid opposition to the president's economic and budgetary policies, Republicans in Congress have seen this trust quotient decline eight points since January. A CBS News-New York Times poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe Republicans have opposed those policies for political reasons, rather than because GOP lawmakers genuinely believe the policies are bad for the economy.

. A CBS News-New York Times poll found that 70 percent of Americans believe Republicans have opposed those policies for political reasons, rather than because GOP lawmakers genuinely believe the policies are bad for the economy.
I wonder how the questions were phrased...

I think that reveals two key things concerning public views of Republicans and politicians in general. Few seriously believe that the Republicans have an ideological conflict with passing big budgets, and some no doubt do have conflicts with passing big budgets. The public is so cynical as to believe this is a purely political move, and it is, to an extent but it's also an affirmation of some Republicans that they don't believe that the budget it the right idea. They are actually sticking to conservative principles in some form or another.

The Republicans can claim a youth vote just as easily as Obama did. The youth aren't going to always going to swing one way, so if the Republicans can sell it right they could take in the youth vote. Besides, Obama is a President, and like all Presidents after two terms we will tire of him. Besides, no one has ever maintained serious control of Congress (filibuster proof Senate and House majority) during a favorable Presidency.
The Republicans need to be able to embrace Schwarzenegger (California) and Crist (Florida), and get their followers to do so. They are fiscally conservative but they're open on social issues, and that's where Republicans need to moderate, move back to close-center at least.

Marshal Murat, I suspect that a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Repub party would be a force to be reckoned with. But how to accomplish such a thing without a revolt from the social conservatives/religious right is beyond my tiny lemur brain's capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

I wonder how the questions were phrased...

---

A worthwhile question. Here's the WSJ/NBC poll (PDF warning). Here's the NYT/CBS poll he's referencing.

Subliminal messaging.

8 Years of a Democratic House, Senate and Administration will do more for the Republican cause than anything the GOP could ever do for itself.

Democrats would be nowhere without GWB.

People have been digging up some rather amusing things about Specter in light of his party switch....

Like his speech after Jim Jeffords aligned with the Democrats:

Quote:

---

How should these issues be handled by the Senate for the future? I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in midsession, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting.

---

I guess he's now pretty happy that his rule was never adopted. :beam:

Then there's this video he made in support of a GOP challenger in a House election where he warned how letting the Democrats get any more seats could be dangerous to the country.

And here's an interview he gave just last month where he denied that he was switching parties, again citing the importance of keeping Democrats in check. Of course, all of the above goes out the window when his reelection is on the line.

My favorite part of his speech today was how he said he was changing parties because he didn't want his time in the Senate to be judged by Pennsylvania Republicans. Of course, he didn't mind us judging him for the 30yrs that we reelected him- it's only when he may not get reelected that we're suddenly beneath him. :laugh4:

Gentlemen,

I have removed the off-topic and frankly snarky tangent on creationism. Please ensure it does not try to adapt to the new environment otherwise I shall be forced to make you extinct.

:bow:

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):

---

You're absolutely right. Here's a graph that illustrates the liberal-leanings of the youth vote even better (Compared to the nation overall):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...Figures004.jpg

This and other similar graphs and data samples from this Conservative GOP Analyst. She has written a lot of other stuff regarding the future of the GOP in terms of raw data here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

8 Years of a Democratic House, Senate and Administration will do more for the Republican cause than anything the GOP could ever do for itself.

Democrats would be nowhere without GWB.

---

So true. The Dems ought to erect a statute of GWB in the DNC headquarters.

With the Democrats having a solid lock on Congress and the White House this is shaping up to be a repeat of the Carter years. Dobbs posted some House & Senate numbers last night and it's 1976 - 1979 all over again, complete with a filibuster proof 60 seat lock in the Senate.

The big question now is who will be the one to issue the rally cry for conservatives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

You're absolutely right. Here's a graph that illustrates the liberal-leanings of the youth vote even better (Compared to the nation overall):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...Figures004.jpg

This and other similar graphs and data samples from this Conservative GOP Analyst. She has written a lot of other stuff regarding the future of the GOP in terms of raw data here.

---

The Achilles heel of the youth vote is that despite their noise and excitement the youngsters never turn out in large numbers to vote. This recent election didn't see the explosive youth turnout the media and DNC kept insisting would happen.

What will be important is whether these kiddies stay true to the liberal causes the older they get. The fact that so many of them are overwhelmingly liberal means they could wind up being like the Baby Boomers, forever liberal... albeit less so as they hit their golden years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

You're absolutely right. Here's a graph that illustrates the liberal-leanings of the youth vote even better (Compared to the nation overall):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...Figures004.jpg

This and other similar graphs and data samples from this Conservative GOP Analyst. She has written a lot of other stuff regarding the future of the GOP in terms of raw data here.

---

Lol at the drop after 88, looks like the first Bush totally ****** it up for the conservative movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

The Achilles heel of the youth vote is that despite their noise and excitement the youngsters never turn out in large numbers to vote. This recent election didn't see the explosive youth turnout the media and DNC kept insisting would happen.

What will be important is whether these kiddies stay true to the liberal causes the older they get. The fact that so many of them are overwhelmingly liberal means they could wind up being like the Baby Boomers, forever liberal... albeit less so as they hit their golden years.

---

Methinks the baby boomers were plenty conservative in their younger days. When one stands to benefit from government handouts, it is rather interesting what it can do to their ideology.

However, I don't see any Republican being the rallying cry in '12. The gov'nuh from New Mexico that CR linked to seems like the most qualified person I've seen yet, however he has pretty much no press and will have to really storm the scene. And he may be too libertarian for the social conservatives that he'll need to win over to get the Republican nomination, particularly if their battle cry continues to get increasingly shrill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

The Achilles heel of the youth vote is that despite their noise and excitement the youngsters never turn out in large numbers to vote. This recent election didn't see the explosive youth turnout the media and DNC kept insisting would happen.

---

This is a trend that has been reversing itself over the last 3 elections. There is still a lot of inequality in terms of voter turnout. What I find interesting about that article is the effect that education on voting patterns - a more educated citizenry is genuinely more engaged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Lol at the drop after 88, looks like the first Bush totally ****** it up for the conservative movement.

---

In the article this is explained largely by the election of Bill Clinton rather than Bush I. The idea of a young man being elected rather than another old guy was quite appealing I would imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

You're absolutely right. Here's a graph that illustrates the liberal-leanings of the youth vote even better (Compared to the nation overall):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...Figures004.jpg

This and other similar graphs and data samples from this Conservative GOP Analyst. She has written a lot of other stuff regarding the future of the GOP in terms of raw data here.

---

And yet, the Battleground poll from August 2008 still said 60% of the country considered itself very or somewhat conservative vs 36% very or somewhat liberal....

if the GOP ceases to exist i hope the Libertarian Party fills the vacuum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

What will be important is whether these kiddies stay true to the liberal causes the older they get. The fact that so many of them are overwhelmingly liberal means they could wind up being like the Baby Boomers, forever liberal... albeit less so as they hit their golden years.

---

A longish article on this subject. Interesting bit:

I've been troubled in recent months when discussing the issue of young voters with some fellow Republicans. There seems to be a sort of conventional wisdom that we should expect young voters to trend liberal and Democratic, that the behavior of young voters in 2008 is not serious cause for concern. This stems from a belief in partisanship as a life-cycle factor, that voters start liberal and Democratic and wind up older, conservative, and Republican. But the data paint a very different picture. Take the graph of partisan identification for instance; over the last few decades, young voters have not identified with the Democratic party in substantially higher numbers than voters overall. Even conservatism had its moment among young voters in the 1980's. Yet with the end of the Reagan presidency, young voters shifted toward liberalism. This ideological shift did not play out into actual partisan identification in a meaningful way until 2006 and 2008.

Another bit of conventional wisdom I hear from my fellow Republicans about the youth vote is that they need to vote Democratic twice before they are "locked in for life", supporting the notion that there is still time to turn the tide among this generation. Unfortunately, given that the shift began in 2006 and not 2008, for many voters the GOP may simply be too late. For the rest, if the Republican Party does not take immediate action to repair its brand, this generation may exhibit similarly low levels of Republican identification for years to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A longish article on this subject. Interesting bit:

I've been troubled in recent months when discussing the issue of young voters with some fellow Republicans. There seems to be a sort of conventional wisdom that we should expect young voters to trend liberal and Democratic, that the behavior of young voters in 2008 is not serious cause for concern. This stems from a belief in partisanship as a life-cycle factor, that voters start liberal and Democratic and wind up older, conservative, and Republican. But the data paint a very different picture. Take the graph of partisan identification for instance; over the last few decades, young voters have not identified with the Democratic party in substantially higher numbers than voters overall. Even conservatism had its moment among young voters in the 1980's. Yet with the end of the Reagan presidency, young voters shifted toward liberalism. This ideological shift did not play out into actual partisan identification in a meaningful way until 2006 and 2008.

Another bit of conventional wisdom I hear from my fellow Republicans about the youth vote is that they need to vote Democratic twice before they are "locked in for life", supporting the notion that there is still time to turn the tide among this generation. Unfortunately, given that the shift began in 2006 and not 2008, for many voters the GOP may simply be too late. For the rest, if the Republican Party does not take immediate action to repair its brand, this generation may exhibit similarly low levels of Republican identification for years to come.

---

Big deal. We'll see what happens when it happens. The GOP will change when it needs to change. They're out of congressional power for what, 4 years and administrative power for just over 100 days - and we're sealing their coffin? How ridiculous can we be about things?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Vuk Again

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.

---

To quote Bender: Oh... your... God.

That woman is appalling on a level I never before imagined. Even after I saw Ann Coulter, I thought to myself... there is no way a woman can be as disturbed as this woman... and then we saw Palin. Who is like Ann Coulter, except more extreme and less articulate.

Liberals are afraid of her because she's a partisan extremist demagogue who WILL drive this nation into a ditch of despair and partisanship and...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ameilius Paulus

South, religion, and anti-intellectualism

---

Which just about sums up why the Republicans are failing as a party. There's nothing inherently better or different about the South than the North, and that sort of regionalism makes people pissed off. Religion is fine but not everyone agrees with your religion nor do they believe it has a place in politics. Anti-intellectualism just feeds on the average joe's resentment with being at the bottom of the social ladder and blames everything on the evils of elitism and education. I'm all for equality but you know what? I'd rather vote for a well-educated, successful, intelligent person over someone who doesn't know what they are doing, and most people would too. Hence the resentment against such people who always lose to them in life. It's rallying people around laughable concepts like regionalism, religion-in-politics when religion is a personal thing, not a public thing to be legislated, and populist anger at not attending Harvard, which creates the feeling that everyone from an Ivy League school must be evil.

Palin is a one-trick pony. She was a third place finisher of Miss Alaska, and so therefore she appeals to certain men, and she talks about things which play on prejudices; religious intolerance, regionalism, and populism. Then she doesn't take a consistent stand on anything, smiles, and shrieks in a voice which makes paint peel, in a folksy manner (horribly reminiscent of Bush) and doesn't understand her own party's positions or the arguments she was given to parrot for them. She can't explain herself or what she believes. Maybe she is smart, but she's pulling off an incredible act convincing me that she's either dumb or terribly, terribly unqualified for any sort of public service.

More people than just liberals have an unfavorable opinion of her. There's much to be unfavorable about. And I think that the ethics complaints against her aren't fabrications, either, sorry. Convince me otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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.

---

it looks like labour could face terminal decline from obselescence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...don-Brown.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

it looks like labour could face terminal decline from obselescence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...don-Brown.html

---

If they could come back to government after the Winter of Discontent via the nadir of Michael Foot, they can come back from anything. Brown may well have condemned them to a long time in the wilderness again, but the party is likely to reinvent itself. Plus, many commentators are describing the coming election as a good one to lose - the winner is going to have to implement some very nasty tax increases and severe public sector cuts. (Excellent, one might say, but the feeble-minded electorate loves to believe that they can have it all, and will baulk at anyone who tells them the party cannot continue).

The Conservative Party has performed the same resurrection trick. After Major's defeat, pretty much everyone said they were finished - and like Labour before them (and despite that lesson) they retreated into the core vote, elected some astonishingly silly leaders rather than the moderate heavyweights they had available, in a desperate spiral of searching for "purity". A party that for fifty or more years had been the "natural party of government" (through pragmatism of an exemplary standard) made itself utterly irrelevant. Finally, more by accident than judgement, they ended up with Cameron and came back towards the centre. Like New Labour, they are ideology free, but Brown is such a spectacularly incompetent leader, he gifts them endless opportunity whilst all the Tories have to do is watch and laugh. There's no evidence of an appetite for a Tory agenda, but no-one outside of a mental institution is considering voting for Brown. Yet if he hadn't been yellow to the very spine, Mr Brown may well have won a snap October 07 election and Cameron (who was on the verge of being dumped by his own party) would have made the same foot note in history as Iain Duncan Smith.

Such are the vagaries of power. The Republican party looks as if it might be in danger of imploding in the way some do when they think their core is all-important, but they'll recover their senses. Maybe not soon, but that will depend on the Democrats - it is almost always the government that loses elections, not oppositions that win them. In my opinion, the biggest obstacle facing any US party trying to rebuild is the primary system. As I understand it, only candidates who can mobilise the core vote have much of a chance these days, and thus those who then face the wider electorate (where they need to change significantly to appeal to those voters who currently don't like them) are often unappealing.

i agree with you, it takes a lot of hard work over a long time to become completely irrelevant to the voter, quite how the whigs/liberals have managed to perpetuate such a feat is beyond my imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

If they could come back to government after the Winter of Discontent via the nadir of Michael Foot, they can come back from anything. Brown may well have condemned them to a long time in the wilderness again, but the party is likely to reinvent itself. Plus, many commentators are describing the coming election as a good one to lose - the winner is going to have to implement some very nasty tax increases and severe public sector cuts. (Excellent, one might say, but the feeble-minded electorate loves to believe that they can have it all, and will baulk at anyone who tells them the party cannot continue).

The Conservative Party has performed the same resurrection trick. After Major's defeat, pretty much everyone said they were finished - and like Labour before them (and despite that lesson) they retreated into the core vote, elected some astonishingly silly leaders rather than the moderate heavyweights they had available, in a desperate spiral of searching for "purity". A party that for fifty or more years had been the "natural party of government" (through pragmatism of an exemplary standard) made itself utterly irrelevant. Finally, more by accident than judgement, they ended up with Cameron and came back towards the centre. Like New Labour, they are ideology free, but Brown is such a spectacularly incompetent leader, he gifts them endless opportunity whilst all the Tories have to do is watch and laugh. There's no evidence of an appetite for a Tory agenda, but no-one outside of a mental institution is considering voting for Brown. Yet if he hadn't been yellow to the very spine, Mr Brown may well have won a snap October 07 election and Cameron (who was on the verge of being dumped by his own party) would have made the same foot note in history as Iain Duncan Smith.

Such are the vagaries of power. The Republican party looks as if it might be in danger of imploding in the way some do when they think their core is all-important, but they'll recover their senses. Maybe not soon, but that will depend on the Democrats - it is almost always the government that loses elections, not oppositions that win them. In my opinion, the biggest obstacle facing any US party trying to rebuild is the primary system. As I understand it, only candidates who can mobilise the core vote have much of a chance these days, and thus those who then face the wider electorate (where they need to change significantly to appeal to those voters who currently don't like them) are often unappealing.

---

I see where you are coming from - these are rational thoughts and expectations. On the flip side, the US is a different place than Britain and the difference is more than just locale. Republicans could implode just like the tories in a monumental desert-destined defeat. Or not.

I do like the Idea of the big tent. We need to include everyone who supports at least one pillar of that tent. This shouldn't be a hard sell. There are plenty of Republicans who seem to have their heads on straight and can convince people in a crowd that they have decent ideas.

I'm not all that afraid. I plan on changing my registration to Republican as my own counterbalance. I was an Independent when they were in power and I will be a Republican when they are out of power. Democrats havn't won the social debate, they havn't won the economic debate (they are barely letting anyone know what the plan is here) and they've essentially caved on the foreign policy debate into a transcendent pan-party ideology.

We just need to wait for their large scale failure on one of those pillars to inflame sensitivities JUST enough to get people to stop thinking that the GOP is the enemy of hip and smart. PLUS we have to welcome more "smart".





Which pillar will it be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I see where you are coming from - these are rational thoughts and expectations. On the flip side, the US is a different place than Britain and the difference is more than just locale. Republicans could implode just like the tories in a monumental desert-destined defeat. Or not.

I do like the Idea of the big tent. We need to include everyone who supports at least one pillar of that tent. This shouldn't be a hard sell. There are plenty of Republicans who seem to have their heads on straight and can convince people in a crowd that they have decent ideas.

---

I agree that there are significant differences.

The challenge of 21st century Big Tent Republicanism is one that faces a lot of "conservative" parties these days. It is the huge chasm between the ideologies of fiscal/small government/libertarian conservatives and social conservatives. The former is entirely predicated on reducing and removing government and societal control of citizens' lives. The latter is entirely about regulating citizens' lives down to their very morality, and invariably relies on one single tradition (usually religious) to set the parameters of that control. This of course, is directly antithetical to a free and pluralistic society.

As with the European Union in Britain (it tore apart the Tories for years, but for no reason as the allegedly pro-Europe Blair proved) sacred cows split parties. If the GOP finds the courage to ditch social conservatism and embrace the fiscally responsible constitutionalist soul* it used to have, it will reappear as a powerful force that really appeals to middle America, particularly in these gravely worrying times when an alternative to government largesse and associated power grabs is sought by many, I suspect.

* Including dumping the foreign entanglements. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I agree that there are significant differences.

The challenge of 21st century Big Tent Republicanism is one that faces a lot of "conservative" parties these days. It is the huge chasm between the ideologies of fiscal/small government/libertarian conservatives and social conservatives. The former is entirely predicated on reducing and removing government and societal control of citizens' lives. The latter is entirely about regulating citizens' lives down to their very morality, and invariably relies on one single tradition (usually religious) to set the parameters of that control. This of course, is directly antithetical to a free and pluralistic society.

As with the European Union in Britain (it tore apart the Tories for years, but for no reason as the allegedly pro-Europe Blair proved) sacred cows split parties. If the GOP finds the courage to ditch social conservatism and embrace the fiscally responsible constitutionalist soul* it used to have, it will reappear as a powerful force that really appeals to middle America, particularly in these gravely worrying times when an alternative to government largesse and associated power grabs is sought by many, I suspect.

* Including dumping the foreign entanglements. :wink:

---

There are differences between social conservatives and those who would rule the nation as a theocracy. Ron Paul is agaisnt Abortion, Banquo - in fact he was the only candidate to go to the march for life during the election year.

Most Democrats believe that people should be able to have sex with whomever they'd like at all times and murder their own children as long as they are out of sight. BUT they believe that if you don't wear a seatbelt or recycle you are a monster and should be arrested/killed. Illogical dichotomy is not an exclusive hallmark of the right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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.

---

The simple solution to that problem:

Make it so that you don't have to get a majority in parliament to rule. You only need a majority to throw the government out. As for the practical ruling stuff, they still need a majority on each case, which they will find by seeking support from the other parties. If the other parties decide they no longer wants them in charge, they'll refuse to pass the budget, and the government must take their hat and leave, and another government is formed(minority or majority).

We've had dozens of minority governments, all of them have functioned well. The current government is actually the first majority government we've had in quite some years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Most Democrats believe that people should be able to have sex with whomever they'd like at all times and murder their own children as long as they are out of sight. BUT they believe that if you don't wear a seatbelt or recycle you are a monster and should be arrested/killed. Illogical dichotomy is not an exclusive hallmark of the right.

---

I didn't claim it was.

But, your hyperbole aside, the Democratic party seems to have forged a consensus towards the middle ground which eludes the GOP at present. And it is the GOP's return to power which we are discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I didn't claim it was.

But, your hyperbole aside, the Democratic party seems to have forged a consensus towards the middle ground which eludes the GOP at present. And it is the GOP's return to power which we are discussing.

---

I agree with your point, although I'm not sure that their policies are middle ground. I think they've fielded a talent in Obama and he is using that talent to "put lipstick on a pig" as it were. He has made previously distasteful ideas go down more smoothly, not because he has worked out the kinks, but rather because of the way he words his agenda.

The party is in office because a number of Republican policies have failed miserably. Like you've said, elections are usually lost by the party in power rather than won by the usurper. Obama has been a miraculous talent BUT, as most posters believed, Hillary Clinton would have won the election handily if he had not been present - and she is one of the least politically talented politicos in recent history. I bleeive that a Dog scratching its way out of a paper bag would have been elected before a Republican after the last 8 embarrassing years. Nontheless, talent like Obama managed to make his way to the top of a vacuum and seal the deal, probably for a while.

I give him endless credit. He has put garnish on a glass of pee when the united states is trying to get the taste of GOP vomit out of their mouths.

I believe the same hyperbole can be used for the so-called right:

Most Republicans believe that people who are born with a same-sex preference are horrible sinners who will burn in hell and don't deserve equal rights, freedoms, and protections as straight people. They also don't seem to care about that one percent or so of people who are born hermaphroditic or otherwise sexually irregular, due to intelligent design of the human species. Of course, due to that design, doesn't that mean God welcomes his creations as he made them? BUT they believe that the government has a right to intrude into the bedrooms of consenting adults. If you don't believe that we should allow people to become obscenely rich while others are dying from curable disease, then you're a godless communist. They believe that anyone from Mexico, south America, China, or Arab countries are a threat to this country, regardless of being legal immigrants or second-generation. They think that it is OK for people to own any kind of assault weapon and that's the same as legitimate hunting or home defense firearms. They harp on and on about the rights of the people and the big bad government, then they remove people's rights both domestic and foreign and support the use of torture, in spite of their moral grandstanding on other issues like the life of the unborn, and paint the people who think if a woman has been raped by her father and would not like to have the child and that should be legal as being some child-murdering monsters, overlooking a woman's sovereign right to govern her own body from invaders. If a person is in your home uninvited, don't you have the "right" to shoot them on sight in many states? How is that different, in any way shape or form, from abortion? They also seem to think anyone who votes Democrat must be a pot smoking hippie who should be arrested/killed.

This kind of rhetoric gets us nowhere. Twisting the extremes of a party and then attributing that to the entire party is a pretty strong example of a straw man argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I believe the same hyperbole can be used for the so-called right:

Most Republicans believe that people who are born with a same-sex preference are horrible sinners who will burn in hell and don't deserve equal rights, freedoms, and protections as straight people. They also don't seem to care about that one percent or so of people who are born hermaphroditic or otherwise sexually irregular, due to intelligent design of the human species. Of course, due to that design, doesn't that mean God welcomes his creations as he made them? BUT they believe that the government has a right to intrude into the bedrooms of consenting adults. If you don't believe that we should allow people to become obscenely rich while others are dying from curable disease, then you're a godless communist. They believe that anyone from Mexico, south America, China, or Arab countries are a threat to this country, regardless of being legal immigrants or second-generation. They think that it is OK for people to own any kind of assault weapon and that's the same as legitimate hunting or home defense firearms. They harp on and on about the rights of the people and the big bad government, then they remove people's rights both domestic and foreign and support the use of torture, in spite of their moral grandstanding on other issues like the life of the unborn, and paint the people who think if a woman has been raped by her father and would not like to have the child and that should be legal as being some child-murdering monsters, overlooking a woman's sovereign right to govern her own body from invaders. If a person is in your home uninvited, don't you have the "right" to shoot them on sight in many states? How is that different, in any way shape or form, from abortion? They also seem to think anyone who votes Democrat must be a pot smoking hippie who should be arrested/killed.

This kind of rhetoric gets us nowhere. Twisting the extremes of a party and then attributing that to the entire party is a pretty strong example of a straw man argument.

---

mine was 2 lines and meant to be humorous. Yours was long and boring! teehee

I pointed out that illogical dichotomy was a hallmark of the right BUT that it was not exclusive to the right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

mine was 2 lines and meant to be humorous. Yours was long and boring! teehee

I pointed out that illogical dichotomy was a hallmark of the right BUT that it was not exclusive to the right.

---

I am pointing out that accusing all democrats of being cold, heartless child murderers isn't actually that funny, accurate, or fair. And as for illogical dichotomy, I pointed out that illogical dichotomy was a hallmark of the left BUT that it was not exclusive to the left.

If you can do it, I can do it. It's a fair argument that way.

And all the while, the Whigs are eating your babies. :juggle2:

The Republicans will pick themselves up. People always think parties are dead after a bad election defeat, then as soon as the opposition are in power for a while people forget about the past government and blame everything on the current one. People are just plain stupid, no government will ever be good enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

And all the while, the Whigs are eating your babies. :juggle2

---

I KNEW IT!!! Damn those Whigs! Let's get them!!! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

There are differences between social conservatives and those who would rule the nation as a theocracy. Ron Paul is agaisnt Abortion, Banquo - in fact he was the only candidate to go to the march for life during the election year.

---

There's plenty of common ground between social and economic conservatives. Respecting social tradition isn't incongruous with wanting a smaller, less costly government- the two line up in numerous ways. In fact, I'd say a consummate conservative would want both respect for tradition and a return to a smaller government such as we had pre-New Deal. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

There's plenty of common ground between social and economic conservatives. Respecting social tradition isn't incongruous with wanting a smaller, less costly government- the two line up in numerous ways. In fact, I'd say a consummate conservative would want both respect for tradition and a return to a smaller government such as we had pre-New Deal. :yes:

---

Xiahou, that goes beyond mindless criticism - I don't think it will fly. Social conservatives are moronic zealots who have nothing in common with anyone and should be left on the proverbial curb.

Everybody knows that.