Politics Warning: The Future of the Republican Party

[Buccaneer]

They have been on the presidential ballot since I started voting in 1980 (I voted for their candidate in 1984 and/or 1988, I believe). Their problem (which I am not a party member, nor will I be) is that they need to start at the grass-roots level, like local elections. They have finally starting doing that in the state of New Hampshire (which is one of the reasons why my wife and I will be moving there in the future - "Live Free or Die") where they are concentrating on the local representatives (where they have millions of them in the legislature). I haven't heard if they have made any headways in the last year or two?

As far as the party itself, I certainly agree with their fundamental principles but in some of the platforms, their practicality is not right: like disbanding the military and having no immigration laws. Much like any candidate running on a party's platform, one does not always agree with everything. But at least they are consistent with the ideals of a very limited central govt (think Jefferson) - if you don't want the Feds to invade in one area of your life, it shouldn't be in any area of your life. I certainly don't go that far for practical reasons but at least I want to get others to start thinking in that direction instead of the usual bigger and bigger federal govt that the Republocrats believe.

[Leonidas]

Bucc, you make good points on the head in the sand foriegn policy ideas of the Libertarians. But you also eloquently state that you can't always agree with everything your top choice advocates,

Another problem the Libertatrian party has I think is the tendency for people with Libertarian ideals to drop it and vote Republican out of fear of the Democrats. I freely admit myself to having this fault. I know deep in my heart I am a Libertarian, but it's really hard to not go the pragmatic route and vote for a Republican because the Democrats really scare me with their touchy-feely, lack of rational thought form of politics. But I think the the current administration may have finally pushed me to go Libertarian all the way this time around. You'd think Ralph Nader and Ross Perot would teach the SOBs in Washington that the public is getting sick of the two party system, but the two parties seem to be only getting worse. I think I'll finally put my money where my mouth is and go away from the two parties. I hope a lot of other folks do as well. Something's got to change.

[Buccaneer]

Leonidas, nice words. A year ago, I made up mind to vote for the Lib. candidate this year because I knew that any one of the Dems running would not win Colorado. SkyDog and his wife feel the same way because none of us would stomach having a Dem president again. But since then, not only has my 'hatred' of the Dems and Kerry grown deeper but interestingly enough, my resolve to vote Lib has grown much deeper that I'll be voting that way no matter who would win Colorado.

[Glengoyne]

I am a registered Democrat, but in reality vote more than half of the time for Republicans. I would love it if the John McCains of the Republican party were in power. As it is the power brokers are making sure that the nominee is from the Bush Cheney mold.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

Aadik, I think you should dump the Republican Party and become a Libertarian, because that's how you are describing yourself. I once considered becoming a Republican because they said all the right things about individual rights and the economy, but the reality is there really is not much difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to running the government. Look at the huge deficit Bush has run up. Also, Republican Congressmen and Senators pass through as many pork barrel projects off our tax dollars as any democrats. I think there are a lot of people out there who are Republicans for the sake of going against Democrats, but deep down really should be Libertarians. Makes me wonder if people thought they could make a go of a third party and stand up to thje two party system if we might not actually be able to make some significant changes.

leonidas, I am more of a libertarian at heart- that ebing said, I don't neccessarily believe in taking them to the extremes that some libertarians do. For example, I am in favor of some sort of welfare net, because I accept there are people who fall through the cracks due to no fault of their own. I guess I see in the Republican party the potential to be Reasoned libertarians.

For what its worth, I think most of you know that Im not American - not that this should affect the debate in any way, since I do live here- its just that the I am a Republican/Democrat/Tree-Hugger/Facist bit means I can't vote like the lot of you..

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Clinton ran as a moderate and governed as a liberal. Both welfare reform and the balanced budget were forced on him by the Republican Congress.

CLinton ran as a democrat who wanted to balance the budget. As for welfare reform, the plan he signed was his plan and not the Republicans. He vowed to "end welfare as we know it" when he ran, meaning he wanted to end it as an entitlement, which he did. It did not take a republican congress for him to do that. In fact, when he signed the welfare reform act, he was perceived as ready to be reelected, and could have signed a more moderate democrats alternative plan.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Jon

CLinton ran as a democrat who wanted to balance the budget. As for welfare reform, the plan he signed was his plan and not the Republicans. He vowed to "end welfare as we know it" when he ran, meaning he wanted to end it as an entitlement, which he did. It did not take a republican congress for him to do that. In fact, when he signed the welfare reform act, he was perceived as ready to be reelected, and could have signed a more moderate democrats alternative plan.

Exactly. Clinton ran as a "new Democrat" (basically, it was just a Southern Democrat that moved further to the left). He did a huge turn left once in office, and then Dick Morris got him to pander to the right after the 1994 election. SFL Cat's post of the history of the Clinton legacy is a really good synopsis.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by Aadik

For those of you who've avoided the morass that is the "God Hate Fags", I understand- for those who've read it, I think it leads to some interesting observations. I think people like Bubba are racist bigots, who would be best left in a theocracy- Bubba thinks people like are sinners who will burn for eternity. As of now, we're probably both Republicans. What the thread highlighted for me is the divisions that are apparent within the Republican party- on the one hand, you have people like me, who are Republicans primarily because we see them as the party of the individual, and see their economic philosophies in line with mine- a laissez faire attitude towards governance for the most part. For some of us- its the economy stupid..
On the other hand, you have the Bubba's of the world- who see the Republican party as the moral party so to speak- working to ensure the judeo-christian nature of society imprinted, and hoping to set up a sort of moral majority to create a religous, "morally sound" fabric. As someone who can never be considered a social republican (Im pro-choice,except in the late 2nd and 3rd trimester, pro-gay rights, and very much a free-trader, be it at the percieved cost of jobs), I find it scary that these interests are supposed to be represented by people I view as far socially constrictive and controlling than I would like. I don't think this is a limited debate- here in Pennsylvania, we have seen the recent Specter-Toomey primaries to see just how this debate has played out. What Im interested in is people's take on the question- does the Republican party have to take a road to travel and define itself, or is it viable for it to continue to straddle the middle-ground and attempt to unify these diverse interests. Im not really looking for discussion of Republican vs Democratic here- rather, Im asking people to put on their political theorists hats and consider what they see the future of the Republican party as.

Although some of the posts have deviated somewhat from the actual question, most of the answers are pretty good.

My belief is that the Republican Party will go through a number of stages. I think the possibilities of these stages mainly depend on Bush's re-election. If Bush gets re-elected, I expect Bush's policy to be more heavily religiously motivated. We have already seen a glimpse of this with his insistence on faith based prisons and tax breaks for Christian organizations that help the less fortunate. There can also be an argument that the religious faction of the Republican Party has also driven the FCC to crack down in "indecent" material.

If Bush gets re-elected and presumably widens his "Jesus driven policy" the Republicans will experience a heavy backlash from party moderates, and this will probably lead to the polarization of the religious faction for a few years.

If Bush loses, I see the religious faction of the Republican Party getting stronger and will continue to be a thorn in many sides.

*Opinion*
Speaking as a liberal Democrat, I would just like to see the old Republicans back (even though it won't happen) because I see the religious faction as an enormous threat to Americans rights and liberties.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Exactly. Clinton ran as a "new Democrat" (basically, it was just a Southern Democrat that moved further to the left). He did a huge turn left once in office, and then Dick Morris got him to pander to the right after the 1994 election. SFL Cat's post of the history of the Clinton legacy is a really good synopsis.

The New Democrats preexisted Bill Clinton as a national candidate. The concept was started after the 1980 election, when Reagan killed Carter and, viewed as more important by the New Dems, was the Senate takeover by the Republicans. It was formed by Colorado and midwestern dems, not southern ones. As for Clinton, he really is not that liberal if you look at what he believes and what he did as governor of Arkansas.

As for the Clinton legacy, imo, one of his biggest failures was to move the Democratic party to the center like he intended. He campaigned as a moderate, but pandered, not to the right, but to the left when he first took office. His post 1994 moves actually were, in many ways, what he campaigned on. To say that his last several years were spent simply covering up a bj is not a correct assessment. I know Clinton wasn't the topic, but I just have to respond to those who take whatever opportunity they get to bash Clinton. He wasn't perfect, but he was still, in my opinion, a great president. He had one of the most successful presidencies in history, in that he enacted most of what he promised. (okay, before I'm flamed I would like to concede that I don't have the name of the study in front of me, I don't remember it, but it was done by Michigan State Univ., who has the most comprehensive database of political science date in the nation. And, please remember, this is my opinion, not a research paper).

As for the Republicans, I don't think the religious right is going to destroy the party. They are going to be okay. Most campaigns are candidate centered rather than party centered and the region usually dictates what ideology the nominee has. Although the right wing will control the party (as the left wing controls the Dems, that's just how it is), the fact that more moderate people will ultimately win most of the elections (since the party cant' control the party label) will prevent the religious right from dominating too much in the future. This is the legacy of the state-run primary, I guess.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Jon

The New Democrats preexisted Bill Clinton as a national candidate. The concept was started after the 1980 election, when Reagan killed Carter and, viewed as more important by the New Dems, was the Senate takeover by the Republicans. It was formed by Colorado and midwestern dems, not southern ones. As for Clinton, he really is not that liberal if you look at what he believes and what he did as governor of Arkansas.

I re-read my statement, but I couldn't find where I said he "invented" the New Democrat. I said he ran as one (which if you'll read the articles from 1992 you'll see that referenced over and over) and how he embodied it.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I re-read my statement, but I couldn't find where I said he "invented" the New Democrat. I said he ran as one (which if you'll read the articles from 1992 you'll see that referenced over and over) and how he embodied it.

I'm sorry for not being clear. I wasn't trying to say that you said that he invented it. I was trying to point out that a New Democrat is more than simply a southern democrat who moved to the left. It was a national movement designed to reflect the fact that the politics of the left just don't cut it anymore. He wasn't the first, but was the first presidential new democrat. Joe Lieberman is also a "new Democrat," as is John Edwards.

On a side note, this whole conversation (and seeing Chris Rock's never scared) of left and right has made me wonder-- do you really think most people are ideogical -- or do you think they base their opinions on the issues? I tend to believe the latter, but I think the group here is more ideological than most people (which is not a bad thing).