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.


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?

Reply

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

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

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...

Reply

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.

Reply

That doesn't sound at all like me.

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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

Reply

I want my coffee back...

Reply

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

Reply

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.

Reply

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.

Reply

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?

Reply

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.

Reply

I've tried, reading through the 5 pages of this thread, to generate interest in the outcome of the Republican Party.

But I've failed. I just don't care (enough) to have an opinion or a prediction about their resurrection or demise. "But, Kukri, why say anything then?", you ask.

Because:
Lemur was correct there, in my opinion. Someone (a significantly large minority) needs to play the loyal opposition, to keep the current majority honest (or as honest as a political body can be).

They had their opportunity: in what everyone perceived as an emergency, we gave them the white house and both parts of congress - a move unprecedented in recent history, because we prefer a balance, despite "gridlock" - to see us through that emergency. They stumbled through that time, and a 9-11 attack didn't recur. Fine. But they went too far, piling authority onto the Executive to the point where the only thing stopping GWB being coronated was the Constitutional provision of presidential term-limits. I half-expected there to be a move in 2006 to suspend that provision "temporarily" during the by then never-ending "emergency".

But it didn't happen. Instead, we took away his congressional majority. I remember his face the day after that election. He was stunned. Surprised. One more thing he "never saw coming".

Lesson for future Presidents: America will give you whatever you need to solve an emergency, but you only get about 5 years to resolve that emergency, no longer. After that, if unresolved, we're gonna start taking away some of those tools, thinking you can't handle the job.

I think Pres. Obama gets that, hence his push to get as much done as possible as soon as possible, since we've given him the same tools GW got given. He shouldn't count on being given a congressional majority forever. His second term, if he gets one, will be more difficult than his first.

I just don't know if his opposition will be from the almost-extinct Republican Party, a wing of his own party, or some up-and-coming new group. I sense that many americans are beyond disappointment with the folks in the parties, and are more at the sick-and-tired stage. That's good for the country, I think, but not so hot for any incumbents, of either party.

Reply

New York & California are prime examples of one party dominated government entities that have and continue to spend way above their means, and then try to tax themselves back to prosperity. Ain't gonna work and the only reason both have not been bankrupted yet is the one-shot federal largess both received this year. We need an effective opposition party, I don't care who or what they call themselves, that can offer more than just rhetoric to this massive debt without even including this proposed healthcare boondoggle put forth by the Democrats.

Reply