Is history repeating itself? Is the GOP following the Whigs?

Musing over the subtext of the Shutdown thread -- TEA party v GOP moderates -- I decided to do a little reading.

While the Democratic Party can trace its roots back to Jefferson, its ups and downs have not torn the party apart -- despite deep divisions that lasted for decades (Dixiecrats and Northern Democrats for example) and despite temporary fragmentation (War v Peace Democrats in 1861-1865).

By contrast, the Whig party that formed to oppose the growth of Presidential power under Jackson, was torn apart and destroyed by the slavery question. The anti-slavery elements of the party opted out, denying the party's nomination for President even though he was an incumbent, and...in a very few years...the party folded. The new party, the Republicans, took advantage of a major rift between southern and northern democrats to elect Lincoln in 1860.

Following the civil war, however, the democrats reformed, brining in the conservative dixiecrats who were often at odds with their northern party members but nevertheless maintained a mostly coordinated effort on behalf of the party. The democrats remained viable despite the domination of the Presidency through most of the last half of the 19th century.

So, unlike the Democratic party, the GOP comes from a group that has already demonstrated that they will withdraw support from a party and kill it rather than give up their point.

Is this happening again?

Are the situations analogous? Is limited government/stricter constitutionalism as focal an issue as slavery? The nascent GOP of the 1850s were the "liberal" party. Are the TEA conservatives fundamentally different so that that analogy does not apply, or is this issue as divisive as slavery?

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Is limited government/stricter constitutionalism as focal an issue as slavery? [...] is this issue as divisive as slavery?

---

I would question the premise that the Tea Party is about limited government. The #1 predictor of Tea Party involvement is not libertarian registration, or independent registration, or any particular stance on issues. No, the #1 predictor of Tea Party involvement is previous engagement with GOP politics (PDF warning).

A better analogy for the Tea Party might be the John Birch Society (which did not destroy the GOP).

Medicare then, as Obamacare now, was the key evil. An editorial in the Morning News announced that “JFK’s support of Medicare sounds suspiciously similar to a pro-Medicare editorial that appeared in the Worker—the official publication of the U.S. Communist Party.” [...]

The whole thing came to a climax with the famous black-bordered flyer that appeared on the day of J.F.K.’s visit to Dallas, which showed him in front face and profile, as in a “Wanted” poster, with the headline “WANTED FOR TREASON.” The style of that treason is familiar mix of deliberate subversion and personal depravity. “He has been wrong on innumerable issues affecting the security of the United States”; “He has been caught in fantastic lies to the American people, including personal ones like his previous marriage and divorce.” Birth certificate, please?

The really weird thing—the American exception in it all—then as much as now, is how tiny all the offenses are. French right-wingers really did have a powerful, Soviet-affiliated Communist Party to deal with, as their British counterparts really had honest-to-god Socialists around, socializing stuff. But the Bircher-centered loonies and the Tea Partiers created a world of fantasy, willing mild-mannered, conflict-adverse centrists like J.F.K. and Obama into socialist Supermen.

https://i.imgur.com/kwAzg4Y.jpg

It depends on what is worth more, ideology or money. You could see Tea Party members split to form a new party but it would mean the death of both on the national scale. It's going to be interesting to see what happens in the next few years. It mostly depends on how the TP does in elections and where groups put their money.

:cheerleader:USA:cheerleader:

There is too much money involved to let a little thing like ideology get in the way of good business.

For the people with the money. The people with the ideology? That's a different story. Would the TP splinter off if it felt it wasn't being respected?

The "leading lights" among the TEA party Republicans are mostly in very secure districts. Ryan, Paul, Cruz and a number of others were seated/returned by large majorities.

In a couple of other places, notably NV and CO, the TEA party candidate bested the establishment choice for the nomination, but then went down to defeat in the general (though most of them were defeated by modest, not resounding, margins...except Contreras and Rankin, who got whupped).

According to Gallup, the TEA party is slightly more likely to be white, male, religious, and gainfully employed than the national average. So far, there are few indications that the party has a funding problem. Most of their losses seem to be a result of the inevitable split among GOP voters following some of the primaries and not a lack of funding support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Comparing the issue to slavery is asking for trouble, but there are some similarities. Prior to the rise of Lincoln and the Republicans, slavery was the pressure-point for ideological voting. You either supported states' rights to do as they pleased, or you were some kind of hippy who wanted the federal government to step in and do something about the backwards reactionaries who refused to accept social and economic change.

The issues are different, but the political situation is very much the same. Reactionary forces have dug in and chosen their issues, and the rest of the nation has begun to recognize that they're loonies not to be taken seriously.

---

I certainly was not making any claim about moral equivalence between the issues. Only about the political divisiveness factor.

I see smaller government as a more moral choice of governance, but human freedom is even more so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I see smaller government as a more moral choice of governance

---

Is that a well-thought-out position?

A corporation can be amoral and oppressive. So can a union, a military, a government, a fraternity, a church—there is no human organization that is guaranteed to be good.

Are small business inherently "more moral" than big businesses?

Are small armies inherently "more moral" than big armies?

Is a small church inherently "more moral" than a big religion?

So why would we take "small government as a more moral choice of governance" as any sort of given?

To flog the old and obvious example, Somalia has a very small government indeed. And Finland has a very involved and expansive government. Where would you rather raise your children?

Anyway, I think as a fixed point of reasoning, "smaller is better" leaves a lot to be desired.

And I don't 100% buy the premise that the Tea Party is really about small government. Seems to be a lot more at work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Is that a well-thought-out position?

A corporation can be amoral and oppressive. So can a union, a military, a government, a fraternity, a church—there is no human organization that is guaranteed to be good.

Are small business inherently "more moral" than big businesses?

Are small armies inherently "more moral" than big armies?

Is a small church inherently "more moral" than a big religion?

So why would we take "small government as a more moral choice of governance" as any sort of given?

To flog the old and obvious example, Somalia has a very small government indeed. And Finland has a very involved and expansive government. Where would you rather raise your children?

Anyway, I think as a fixed point of reasoning, "smaller is better" leaves a lot to be desired.

And I don't 100% buy the premise that the Tea Party is really about small government. Seems to be a lot more at work.

---

Sorry if I was not clear. I believe smaller government to be a more moral choice as an expression of personal belief, reflecting my values. I did not make the claim that "smaller is better" in a general sense [few men would ;-)], nor for that matter am I asserting that only a small government is moral. For that matter, I agree with you that any organization of any size might enact good or evil. Size is not indicative of the morality OF the organization. My assertion refers to the morality of how/why/for what government is enacted -- not the morality of the government itself.

Smaller is, obviously, a relative term. Small for the sake of being small would be a.....small-minded choice [sorry, couldn't resist].

I am suggesting that government, funded of course by the governed, should be large enough to handle those concerns which individuals cannot handle for themselves in any practicable fashion. Moreover, I would extend that by saying that government functions should be controlled at the lowest possible level capable of performing that function (community by preference over municipality, municipality by preference over state, etc.) Keeping government "smaller" in relative terms is, to me, the only realist means of avoiding what Hannah Arendt termed "structural violence" wherein a bureaucratic system has become so byzantine that it discourages taking responsibility and ends up consuming more resources than it utilizes adequately. This is what undergirds my belief that smaller is a more "moral" choice in that it is a better safeguard of the public monies entrusted and more easily overseen by the governed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I am suggesting that government, funded of course by the governed, should be large enough to handle those concerns which individuals cannot handle for themselves in any practicable fashion.

---

What level do you think this is? Or more exactly, what do you think government handles right now that it shouldn't?

Quote:

---

Moreover, I would extend that by saying that government functions should be controlled at the lowest possible level capable of performing that function (community by preference over municipality, municipality by preference over state, etc.)

---

Are you not worried about basically taking one federal program and making 50 state ones? Wouldn't that increase the size of the government and it's complexity?

It's a natural phenomenon in multi-party systems that parties rise and vanish, or that smaller ones band together to stay relevant. Traditionally the Netherlands has had three main political parties*. None of them ever had an absolute majority, but a combination of 2 of 3 of them usually did in the decades following WW2.
Generally though the last few decades 2 out of these 3 were not enough; and another coalition partner was needed - a smaller "fourth party" (there has never been a grand coalition between the big three together)

Outside these big three, the "fourth parties" have come and gone over the years.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

* the big three are PvdA (Labour), VVD (right-wing liberal) and CDA (religious centrists).

Actually the CDA is a fusion of three post-war parties itself, which focused on the various christian denominations. They banded together when religious affiliation became less and less relevant as a factor for determining one's ballot choice. At their high period, these christian splinter parties could easily have formed an absolute majority with eachother.

As for them 'mericans: I'm an outsider and I don't know enough about the slavery/state rights comparison to comment on that.

The democrats and republicans are usually considered "catch-all" parties, in the sense that they cater to many different interests and opinions in order to secure an absolute majority for themselves.
I tend to think that the Tea Party (with its current attitude and views) is simply not viable on its own. It would not attract the same number of votes in a presidential election that the GOP could, the support of moderate republican voters is also needed. It might feel good to call a moderate republican a RINO, but the truth is that the GOP has always needed the votes that so-called RINO's bring in.

I think it depends. Some support the TEA party because they believe that the current coalition can no longer win major national elections. They want to see the party de-stablize, reduce and be able to form a new coalition that sucks winnable levels of support from traditional Democrats interested in things alien to the current GOP. Other people support the TEA party because they are radical anti-government opponents who believe in minimal government and detest where the modern Federal and many State governments are headed. Others fall in between those two.

Opponents of TEA party or other minarchist factions in the GOP tend to be big government statists who are relatively socially and economically "conservative", but believe in an all-powerful Federal arbiter of stupid things like loss of rights without due process or conviction, forcing cable companies to sell channels a la carte, banning guns based on what they look like.

Old people who are angry also tend to support the TEA party and insurgent factions, but don't realize that we are attempting to re-structure their pensions because they are ripping us all off.

The TEA party is a pariah with young people, but minarchist organizations and ideologies are taking off. The web site Young Americans for Liberty constantly drives membership and doesn't have a terrible presentation. It attracts social and economic libertarians as well as Orwellian socialists and people who are interested in overcoming discrimination. This is a winning coalition which will be built on. We attract young people by tearing things apart. This is what young people like; always and forever. Stodgy collectivist garbage is for old people. We want the Capitalist machine to be cogs in our wheel and we recognize that the natural enemy of the worker is the policeman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

According to Gallup, the TEA party is slightly more likely to be white, male, religious, and gainfully employed than the national average.

---

CBS/NYT polling also indicates that they're better educated than the national average. There's a lot of stereotyping about the TEA party... lots of it is untrue.

Quote:

---

Sorry if I was not clear. I believe smaller government to be a more moral choice as an expression of personal belief, reflecting my values. I did not make the claim that "smaller is better" in a general sense [few men would ;-)], nor for that matter am I asserting that only a small government is moral. For that matter, I agree with you that any organization of any size might enact good or evil. Size is not indicative of the morality OF the organization. My assertion refers to the morality of how/why/for what government is enacted -- not the morality of the government itself.

---

I think of it in terms of the KISS principle of design.....

"KISS is an acronym for "Keep it simple, stupid" as a design principle noted by the U.S. Navy in 1960.[1][2] The KISS principle states that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complex; therefore simplicity should be a key goal in design and unnecessary complexity should be avoided."

Smaller government would really be more the result than the intent- which is less complex government. Less complex and more open, as opposed to just "smaller" is generally desirable in any organization.

I think our federal government, as it exists today versus how it was originally constituted is a classic example of feature creep. ~D

"KISS" is actually a very good principle in theory. However, in power sharing arguments, it comes more complicated as getting rid of the democratic function of a government would keep it a 'lot more simple'.

But I think it comes down to having 'Independent Systems' working in a co-operation with each-other, rather than a large sprawling mass of government. Having the Post Office, NHS Police, Armed Forces and others play a separate part outside the main sphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

"KISS" is actually a very good principle in theory. However, in power sharing arguments, it comes more complicated as getting rid of the democratic function of a government would keep it a 'lot more simple'.

---

True. But the "democratic function" was one of the original design requirements. So government would not be fit for purpose without that feature. ~;p

Boehner Hoping To Remain Leader Of Republican Parties

Good (but incomplete) advice from NRO (boils down to "nihilism ain't attractive, and winning elections is maybe as important as ideological purity")

There is no alternative to seeking to expand the conservative base beyond its present inadequate numbers and to win the votes of people who aren’t yet conservatives or are not yet conservatives on all issues. The defunders often said that those who predicted their failure were “defeatists.” Yet it is they who have given in to despair. They are the ones who entertain the ideas that everything has gotten worse; that the last few decades of conservative thought and action have been for nothing; that engagement in politics as traditionally conceived is hopeless; that government programs, once begun, must corrupt the citizenry so that they can never be ended or reformed; that the country will soon be past the point of regeneration, if it is not there already.

Effective political movements create the conditions for their own success. Conservatism has not done enough of that, but when it has prospered it has never been moved by despair. The apocalyptic style of politics holds that the future of the country is at stake. That is true, which is why conservatives need to get to the work of persuading and electioneering — and drop the fantasy of a shortcut.

Which do you think voters will find to be a more irritating situation - higher health plan payments out of their pockets; which they will blame on Democrats, or the etherial impact of 2 weeks of lightweight shutdown?

To be honest, If you were to have asked 3 weeks ago, the ACA was the ethereal threat while the shutdown was pressing in the minds of voters (even though they felt no direct effect). The President has taken a legitimacy hit with this roll out. The emperor has shown that he is the embodiment of hype. I couldn't have expected a more awful proof that the guy is garbage and everything he has said about what to expect is bullshit. But here he is, failing entirely in a way that his enemies could have never even hoped to injure his legitimacy - and yet here we are, with bills that the voters can take with them into the polling place in frustration. The "affordable" care act being shown to be the political BS.

Maybe it will magically get better before the mid-terms.

I challenge your assertion that "most Americans want Obamacare" at this point. Most people want everything as advertised, the trouble is that some advertisements are just fantasy. Americans want less expensive healthcare, period. This doesn't give that to them and makes their health care cost more money. Barack Obama is either a liar or he is incompetent to fix our problem. If you think that Americans will blame the party that has been obsessing over how stupid this law is and trying to repeal/reform it for 5 years you have had too much kool-aid.

Americans want an Affordable health care act. They also want a Democratic People's Republic of North Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Challenge away lol.

I'm not really arguing for the ACA. You know I think its a far cry from ideal. I'm just saying that most Americans want affordable healthcare for all like the rest of the first world. The specifics don't matter. The Republicans are doing absolutely nothing to convince people they are serious about healthcare reform, only that they are serious about stopping it.

---

Marketability issues. The TEA wing would prefer, in their ideal world, Untaxed medical savings accounts and private insurance. They would also want Medicaid reserved for the completely indigent and Medicare done away with in favor of MSAs.

"The ACA is becoming a boondoggle" is a marketable, if not sweepingly popular, stance. The TEA ideal stance would market....poorly.

A way forward for the GOP?:

http://aje.me/19GDHUG

A very interesting guy :yes:

Good essay in the Economist on this topic. Choice quote:

[M]any of the so-called policy planks in contemporary hard-right politics are more the product of a need to attack sitting GOP officeholders for supposed moderate treachery than they are the result of any serious or consistent conservative ideology. This is why, for example, when conservative policy wonks at the American Enterprise Institute sit down to come up with an alternative universal health-insurance plan, what they come up with shares enough features with Obamacare that GOP politicians have to reject it out of hand.

The subordination of policy to tactics is a feature of apocalyptic-extremist factional politics. It's a mistake to think that extremist parties are characterised by ideological rigidity; in fact, on any question on which there can be internal competition in such parties, there tends to be a succession of changes in position. Each shift produces apostates who can be purged on the basis of previously holding positions that have now been revealed as incorrect, and this provides opportunities for advancement to lower-ranking members. A party caught up in this dynamic can't take any policy positions on which it might be able to compromise with the opposition, or win new constituencies outside of existing insiders; the compromise would be a death sentence for the members who agree to it, and allegiance to new constituents is suspect in the eyes of existing ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Good essay in the Economist on this topic. Choice quote:

[M]any of the so-called policy planks in contemporary hard-right politics are more the product of a need to attack sitting GOP officeholders for supposed moderate treachery than they are the result of any serious or consistent conservative ideology. This is why, for example, when conservative policy wonks at the American Enterprise Institute sit down to come up with an alternative universal health-insurance plan, what they come up with shares enough features with Obamacare that GOP politicians have to reject it out of hand.

The subordination of policy to tactics is a feature of apocalyptic-extremist factional politics. It's a mistake to think that extremist parties are characterised by ideological rigidity; in fact, on any question on which there can be internal competition in such parties, there tends to be a succession of changes in position. Each shift produces apostates who can be purged on the basis of previously holding positions that have now been revealed as incorrect, and this provides opportunities for advancement to lower-ranking members. A party caught up in this dynamic can't take any policy positions on which it might be able to compromise with the opposition, or win new constituencies outside of existing insiders; the compromise would be a death sentence for the members who agree to it, and allegiance to new constituents is suspect in the eyes of existing ones.

---

Beh, this is a problem with every ideology. Look at Democrats who were in favor of civil unions a few years back. They are viewed as interminable bigots within the same party today, unless they "update" their thinking. I don't care about this and it doesn't make the GOP particularly bad. Something must be done to allow us to build a winning coalition. I would like to see certain plank purges in order to do this. Which planks? I'm not sure, but most likely the strong on national security at the expense of individual rights are in the crosshairs right now. Also, the GOP members who are overtly racist and looking to harm immigrants are being purged as well. It may not seem like this, but xenophobia and economic protectionism are much more natural bedfellows. Let the Democrats have them back

@Lemur
Which AEI plan is that?

Here, let me Google that for you ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here, let me Google that for you ...

---

The plan put forward by the second link wants to do away with employer tax incentives, but proposes nothing about giving that incentive to the individuals purchasing the plan. It just talks about taking that money and using it to give it to poor people. That plan isn't going anywhere. What part of "health care/insurance is unafordable for the majority of Americans" are Democrats unable to understand. First, it was "health care is too expensive? let us fix it by making it even more expensive". I'm not against some income support, but the idea that you are going to take away employer tax benefits and then just let consumers eat the cost increase does not lower the cost of care - yet this point fails to be apparent to so many policy people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

What part of "health care/insurance is unafordable for the majority of Americans" are Democrats unable to understand.

---

Uh, AEI is generally seen as a rightwing/libertarian thinktank. Now, your rambling syntax being what it is, it's possible you had switched subjects and were no longer talking about AEI at that point ... but that's an impossible judgment to make objectively. I'm sure you can clarify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Uh, AEI is generally seen as a rightwing/libertarian thinktank. Now, your rambling syntax being what it is, it's possible you had switched subjects and were no longer talking about AEI at that point ... but that's an impossible judgment to make objectively. I'm sure you can clarify.

---

http://www.aei.org/papers/health/hea...worlds-report/

I'm possibly overlooking it, but this website seems to suggest that employer based tax benefits for health plans should be ended and the money should instead go to paying low income individual's health premiums. It says nothing about individual HSA expansion, the ability to pay premiums out of an HSA or anything that will help the majority of Americans finance their own care.
I don't know who runs AEI, I don't care. If they have a bad policy, it shouldn't be used to characterize all policies which I might support.

Maybe I'm just glossing over the part where they suggest some beneficial reform that won't just benefit the extremely wealthy or the extremely poor

"And I call upon my fellow Backroom members, to head my call, the Republicans shall rise again."

Of course, with a two party system, it is only inevitable that eventually the people you identify with will somehow stumble back into office.

I was never overly enamored of the Tea Party, but I've begun to actively dislike them as I find out how more of their focus is on being more conservative on social issues than the GOP establishment (and thus less supporting of small government that wouldn't dictate on social issues), instead of actually focusing on fiscal conservatism and not caring so much about social conservatism.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I was never overly enamored of the Tea Party, but I've begun to actively dislike them as I find out how more of their focus is on being more conservative on social issues than the GOP establishment (and thus less supporting of small government that wouldn't dictate on social issues), instead of actually focusing on fiscal conservatism and not caring so much about social conservatism.

CR

---

Decent point. Dictating social mores should be, at best, reserved to the states. The Feds need to focus on national issues. Taxation and economics are a better focus to galvanize action. The cadre of social issues is more off-putting to the middling crowd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Social conservatism is THE reason the GOP is on the wane. It will take a concerted effort by all aspects of the party to re-brand themselves as something constructive.

Unfortunately for middle of the road GOPers that concerted effort is unlikely. First party leaders have to acknowledge the need for a total re-branding (unlikely) then they would have to convince my generation that the last twenty years or so are in the past by adopting their own progressive policies that pass the twenty-something cynic smell test (very unlikely).

---

A tough issue for the GOP. While social conservatism is not THE issue for a majority of Republicans, it is THE issue for a surprising portion of grass roots party activists -- and those people matter to getting candidates elected. That was one of the leverage tools Robertson and Falwell manipulated during the 1970s. They were part of the "Reagan Revolution" even though the Reagan administration was a little leery of much of the Moral Majority legislative agenda.

Reagan, though mostly a social conservative himself, did NOT do a lot of preaching about it -- focusing most of his efforts on economic issues, de-regulation, and hammering communism. He spoke in favor of traditional values, but the only legislative/executive measures he acted on were regarding the right to life -- and even there he was fairly limited.

As I've stated in the past, I am a social conservative but I also want to get the government out of our lives. I live like a social conservative and do whatever I can to undermine government authority over our personal lives. I think that the gay marriage debate is the dumbest debate I've ever heard of, but it doesnt mean that they don't bring up good legal points; what business is it of the government who I love or share my life with? Why do they need to value or accept who I love or live with? Contracts need a mediator, but I don't need you to value my lifestyle and, I'd prefer that you didn't.

On the abortion issue, the thing is homicide. Unacceptable and people who kill their kids rather than be responsible and use birth control should be ashamed of themselves. I understand the duress that they are under but their ethics are hideously grotesque.

Hey, free birth control for ever insured person. There is even less of an excuse not to destroy your childs life for your own selfishness.

Quote:

---

be responsible and use birth control

---

Isn't that what they're doing? :wiseguy:

I think one peeve of mine with the social conservative issues voter is that they (talking generally here) support 'values" candidates who have very little chance of getting elected. But even if they do get elected the politicians won't be able to pass any social conservative issues/whatever into law. Abortion won't be banned, nor will gay marriage. These voters just get the GOP portrayed -rightfully - as out of touch and clinging to issues that are less and less relevant to increasing numbers of people - for no potential benefit even if they do win.

CR

I can tell that your opinions have shifted, Crazed Rabbit. Not shifted as in, away from your ideological fundamentals, but your opinions of the Tea Party and such.

Its time we get smarter about our priorities. Lindsay Graham is talking about an abortion bill. Nonsense at this point as it won't pass the Senate and would never be signed into law by this President, it would be vetoed out of hand. To me, this is a pointless vote grabber for morons. We have some priorities that can be worked on - tax reform, immigration reform, and healthcare reform. Right now, democrats are reeling from a major credibility hit on health care. Let's get in there and help them fix it.

Graham is an Israel-firster on foreign policy, that's hardly pragmatist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Lindsey Graham is an excellent pragmatist, and one of my favorite Republicans. The fact that he is backing the far right is a sign that he doesn't think the future is with moderation. The same can often be said of McCain.

Personally I desire a strong and sensible Republican party, if only so that the Dems are held to task. They get very lazy without opposition and the Republicans have an uphill battle to be competitive in 2016.

---

How Republicans can't win in 2016

Quote:

---

If demography is destiny, Republicans can't win the presidency by acting more like Democrats. The GOP's best shot in 2016 is not to nominate a moderate. They must nominate a conservative who can attract more conservative voters to the polls, just like President Obama built his own coalition and increased the relative electoral power of each constituent part. Not that it will be easy.

---

The GOP's last two nominations were moderates- and they both lost badly. Clearly, it's not the way forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That analysis assumes that there is a great swath of ultra-conservative voters just waiting to be had in some kind of parity with the rise of the liberal youth vote. That is not the case.

---

This. A thousand times, this.

Rightwing Americans have a number of ways in which they convince themselves that they are the majority. Evidence does not bear this out, and they are ill-served by believing it. Voters are more nuanced, issue-by-issue, and in general far more pro-government than their representatives.

[D]espite the far more strident conservative tone of political discourse since then, support for government spending has varied somewhat cyclically since then, but only within a relatively narrow range, as recorded by the gold standard of public opinion research, the General Social Survey [data archives here].

The GSS asks about more than two dozen specific problems or program areas, asking if the amount we’re spending is “too little,” “too much” or “about right.” Not only do most Americans think we’re spending too little in almost every area — most conservatives also think the same. Indeed — hold onto your hats — even most conservative Republicans feel that way as well.

Take Social Security and Medicare, for example: two top “entitlements” that Republicans insist must be cut significantly, and that Obama has repeatedly indicated he would cut … if Republicans would agree to raise revenues as well. Progressives long have argued that these programs need more revenues, not less spending, so it’s not surprising that liberals surveyed by the GSS think we’re spending too little on such programs. Combining GSS data from 2000 to 2012, and asking about Social Security and spending on “improving and protecting the nation’s health” (GSS’s closest match with Medicare), liberal Democrats thought we were spending “too little” rather than “too much” on one or both by a margin of 87.1 percent to 2.4 percent — a ratio of over 36-to-1. But all other groups of Americans held the same view, even conservative Republicans — just not by the same overwhelming amount. They “only” thought we were spending “too little” rather than “too much” by a margin of 59.2 percent to 13.1 percent— a ratio of 4.5-to-1. With figures like that — all well to the left of Democrats in D.C. — it’s no wonder that conservatives in Congress always talk about “saving” Social Security and Medicare, and forever try to get Democrats to take the lead in proposing actual cuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

And McCain and Romney lost because they were old white men whose talking points "evolved" to meet the needs of the fringe lunatics as the primaries progressed. Very transparent tools of a very select political minority. That's what the Republicans need to stop doing. :rtwno:

---

It's fairly well documented that Romney lost because the base stayed home.

Read the article, it's pretty obvious that you didn't even click on it.

GO ahead and nominate a "true conservative" I will eagerly await the election results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's fairly well documented that Romney lost because the base stayed home.

Read the article, it's pretty obvious that you didn't even click on it.

---

Quote:

---

As long as the GOP nominates someone plausible, they start off with 46 percent of the vote and a large chunk of the electoral college.

---

One flaw is about that plausible. And another is that they will have counter reactions. Appeal to the "true conservatives", and the Democrats gets a bonus (the 2012 voter turnout was very high for US standards and not because Obama was super popular) and you'll also start to lose the Republicans that doesn't like those "true conservatives".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The Republicans have one thing going for them that the Dems will never have: an Aura of efficiency. Yes, they are acting like nihilistic tards right now, but they are acting like nihilistic tards with a purpose. If a moderate Republican came out and presented his party as "Democrats, except we actually get stuff done" they would have a shot. That would mean dropping the social conservative crap, and it would mean agreeing to the need for a real social safety net, but that's how they would win.

---

In other words, Americans are tired of the two-party system and would rather move to a USSR- or DDR-style one-party-system. What happened to democracy offering representative representation for all the various interests?

Your country is really screwed, man...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I read the Article. Its full of wishful thinking. :shrug: When it comes to the Romney campaign there is hardly anything that was fairly well documented. Everyone got everything wrong, but now all of a sudden Republicans have a crystal ball to look at? And it says the same crap they were saying in 2012!? Yeeeaah lemme know how that works out in 2016.

---

Wishful thinking on the part of who? Marc Ambinder isn't a GOP flack, last I checked.

Democrats are going to vote for the Democrat nominee- there's not much helping that. At best, the GOP can convince some Dems that their nominee is so awful that some of them stay home.

Exit polls showed Romney winning independents in 2012, but that didn't save him. The GOP is in a tough spot demographically. They need to turn out every conservative voter they can if they hope to win. You're not going to do that by running to the center.

By the way, I knew you didn't read the article because I realized a couple hours after I posted it that the link was broken (since fixed). :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

They need to turn out every conservative voter they can if they hope to win. You're not going to do that by running to the center.

---

"You are not going to get every conservative voter by being in a position which all conservatives can agree on, you will have to go to the loony extreme!"

Recipe for massive fail... :creep:

I think it is a mistake to assume that conservatism and its values no longer appeal to the American electorate. Most of us are still imbued with those values, raised to view the USA as something special, and to seek something better for our future and the future of our children.

Since Reagan, far too many of the conservatives have been small minded and mean. Being the party of "Hell no!" is not an agenda and a hope for the future and too readily degenerates into picayune obstructionism.

Conservatism cannot be about who we were. It must be about who we are and who we dare to become. I don't hear that from Paul, or Cruz, or Palin, or Christie, or Jeb Bush, or Bachmann. Reagan's magic was that he did NOT dwell in the past despite being, in many cases, the oldest fellow in the room when he spoke. Until the GOP truly comes to embody a vision of what the future should be -- and not just what we believe it shouldn't be -- we can expect the same results we've enjoyed of late.

I generally think the Dems are headed in the wrong direction, and they have their share of small minded would-be leaders as well, but some of them have vision and a sense of "becoming." At times, some of them can inspire.

I have seen any number of GOP leaders who I find admirable. It has been some time since I was inspired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Exit polls showed Romney winning independents in 2012, but that didn't save him.

---

True fact, but more importantly, he didn't win indies by much (5 points is the most generous reading). Certainly not enough to change the outcome. Same phenomenon with Kerry, who won indies by 1%, which was nowhere near the margin he needed to win.

From an article on this exact subject:

[V]oter's choice to identify as an Independent can change by the day. Republicans who were disenchanted with Romney might have been more apt to identify as Independent, as Democrats were in 2004 when they were dissatisfied with Kerry.

In 2012, a much more reliable indicator of success — and a better example of the "swing" vote — came from voters who identified as "moderate." In every critical battleground state, Obama won the moderate vote. In Iowa, he captured more than 60% of it. Overall, Obama beat Romney by 15 points among moderates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Most of us are still imbued with those values, raised to view the USA as something special, and to seek something better for our future and the future of our children.

---

These seem like common American values, and not particular to the right wing. American conservatism has its particularities and defining features that set it apart, but love of country and belief in a better future are not among them. (Clarification: I believe those two values are pretty much universal among most all Americans, including rightwingers.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

GO ahead and nominate a "true conservative" I will eagerly await the election results.

---

Cruz/Palin 2016 would be amazing.

https://i.imgur.com/Q1EnfdT.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

These seem like common American values, and not particular to the right wing. Declaring that centrists and lefties do not believe these things is normal Fox News-style rhetoric, but I don't see that reflected in anything resembling reality. American conservatism has its particularities and defining features that set it apart, but love of country and belief in a better future are not among them.

---

It's one of the peculiarities of British politics that old-school socialists and Tories got on well together, despite their class differences and political opposition, as they both fundamentally believed in duty to the underprivileged, and only disagreed on the degree and how to do so. It was Thatcherism that made an ideology of prizing the individual over the society, and both socialists and Tories detested her. Although, in retrospect, we can see that Thatcherism routed all other political ideologies. I wonder if US politics will similarly see two seemingly opposite parties routed by a radical third political ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The Tea Party is unique in American politics in that everyone hates them.

---

The tea party has lower unfavorable ratings than Obama. :yes:

Chris Christie isn't a Moderate moderate, like Romney was. Christie is staunchly pro-life, as pro-gun as any Republican President over the past 100 years, against gay marriage, pro-market. He broke the backs of the Teachers Union. He won New Jersey by winning the PR game as a Conservative. Big C.

Is he a libertarian? Unfortunately no. Is he a TEA partier? I'm not sure what that is, by the definitions presented. Chris Christie is Conservative candidate, whose only liberal move has been to take Government funding to relieve the coast of NJ during their time of need and actually speak to minorities like they matter in the life of the nation.

He will be the most Conservative Republican President we've ever elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The tea party has lower unfavorable ratings than Obama. :yes:

---

I'm thinking of a bad old joke about one leper bragging to the other about having more fingers......