Republican party self-destruction?

[brian0123]

I'm curious to hear your thoughts (more-so from Republicans) about the current state of the party. As a liberal who has always enjoyed good debate and respected a lot of Repubs in the past... I'll admit that the current Republican party is actually kind of depressing me. It's almost like they are trying to make it too easy for Democrats to win. 

 

I have some intelligent, conservative friends who just seem at a loss. Insightful, moderate, or just well-reasoned Republicans seem to be ostracized for anything... all while Tea Party conservatives seem hell-bent on changing the party completely. Whether or not you agree, you can't deny the fact that the party's image is at an all time low (see most recent gallup poll http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/republican-party-favorability-sinks-record-low.aspx)

 

I don't want this thread to turn into liberal/conservative bashing. Instead, I'd like to keep it focused strictly on the party itself. Are you worried about the current direction, what plans you have for voting as the party changes (i.e. will you go libertarian, etc.?). Do you plan to work in the primaries against/for Tea Party candidates... will you just sit back and hold your nose when you vote for the ® on the ticket?  OR, is there no problem at all and liberals like me are just completely off base and everything is peachy in the Republican camp?

[livincinco]

I hope that we're starting to see the end of the two party system in the US. What I find incredibly frustrating about both parties is that there are assumptions made that I think are increasingly out of touch with most Americans beliefs. If you believe A, then you need to believe B and C as well. Well what if you don't? You aren't going to get representation from either party.

[Montrose1100]

I think that it certainly seems that way because of the extreme diversity in the republican party. Religion, business, and conservatism all have divided issues, yet they are all under the same party.

 

I'm crossing my fingers for both parties to completely fail and the American public wakes up. Both parties only represent companies, and not the people anymore. It is almost a joke how our government has become. Wasting billions, and all they can do is point the finger at each other, and it doesn't even matter who was to actually blame, people will still vote for them.

 

We need a government that can pump money into our failing public education system, health care, infrastructure, and human rights. Look at how much China & Brazil fund science. I know this might sound dramatic as it has been a slow decline, but if we don't start to change our system, we will fail.

[livincinco]

For quite a while Republicans have been holding up Ronald Reagan as an example, but I'd prefer if they emulated Dwight Eisenhower instead.  IMO, Eisenhower is the last president that truly put nation ahead of party...

[KinkaidAlum]

Today's Democratic Party is the Republican Party of 20-30 years ago.

 

 

[brian0123]

Today's Democratic Party is the Republican Party of 20-30 years ago.

 

I couldn't agree more. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of moderate Repubs are looking across the aisle and planning their "transition" to the other side so they can escape the sinking ship.

[arche_757]

There is an interesting series of articles on The Atlantic discussing this very topic.

 

And for my opinion - I'm center-line moderate who votes for the best candidates regardless of political leaning - I feel the Republicans have dug themselves a deep hole that will take a few election cycles to get out of.  This has been completely self-imposed.  Party leadership has failed to rein in the far right of the party and thus are staring at a GOP who is made up of two very different wholes: the Moderate Republicans and the Staunch Ultra-Conservatives who are identified by the Tea Party moniker.  I believe the later group will "break off" and form a 3rd party that, unlike the Libertarians and others, will wield power in the halls of Congress.  I don't see a "tea-party" person emerging and running successfully for president - far from it.  But I do see this new 3rd party as a very devisive group, at least in the short term.  However, I don't think the end game motives of this new party will result in catastrophe for America.  I believe we will see other smaller parties emerge that will allow the more fringe elements of our voting demographics to join ranks with very like minded people.

[plumber2]

I don't see the Republicans losing anything over this, especially here in Texas. Sure they may have gotten a little bad press, and some finger pointing, but come election day, whoever's got that little ® by their name wins. 

[arche_757]

I certainly see them losing, even in Texas.  They may not be big losses (here) in terms of overall numbers but they will be losses all the same.  Nationally the Republicans will lose big time.  They really gambled on the shutdown and it has dropped them to an all time low in approval rating.  People like Ted Cruz were the "winners" of the shutdown, but he won't advance very far into the primaries for the Republican nomination.

 

For me (a moderate, who is not affliated with either party, though I tend to be socially liberal with more conservative international/foreign policy views) I will certainly look twice before I decide to press any buttons for the Republicans.

[brian0123]

Great article in the NYT today talking about this very subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/us/fiscal-crisis-sounds-the-charge-in-gops-civil-war.html?src=recg

[august948]

Today's Democratic Party is the Republican Party of 20-30 years ago.

 

That's funny because I recall in the eighties there was talk of the demise of the Democratic party.  Now it's the Republican's turn though if there's a real split in the party along conservative/moderate lines they may not really recover.  If we end up with 3 parties out of this it's likely the Democrats will have a lock on the presidency for a while as the vote gets split.  You can bet those never-named Republican "insiders" will fight tooth and nail to prevent that split.

 

[livincinco]

That's funny because I recall in the eighties there was talk of the demise of the Democratic party. Now it's the Republican's turn though if there's a real split in the party along conservative/moderate lines they may not really recover. If we end up with 3 parties out of this it's likely the Democrats will have a lock on the presidency for a while as the vote gets split. You can bet those never-named Republican "insiders" will fight tooth and nail to prevent that split.

Don't count on it. A split of the Republican party isn't such a great scenario for the Dems because they would have competition for the moderate voter. I think they like the current scenario where the wing nuts control the party line.

[KinkaidAlum]

I'd argue that the Democratic Party of the 80s is dead. While it's easy to look at the Dems from the right and claim they are liberal socialists, the evidence points to the contrary. Clinton pushed through welfare reform. Obama escalated wars after running against them. Obama gifted big financial institutions bailout money. Hillary in 2016 would just mean more of the same but with a "she's a she" feel good story instead of "he's black."

 

Of course, the social causes that the Dems stand up for used to be conservative causes (individual liberties and protections from an over-reaching government) but today's "conservatives" are all about banning marriage, shoving cameras up woo-hoos, burning books, and denying science. Funny, but there's nothing "conservative" about those stances.

 

The entire country has veered right for the most part since the 1970s. Today's Democratic Party is pretty centrist. You'll find lots of progressives and liberals who are disenchanted with the Democratic Establishment. It'll be interesting to see if some rising stars like Elizabeth Warren can bring the Party back. I'd vote for Warren over another Clinton any day of the week.

[august948]

I'd argue that the Democratic Party of the 80s is dead. While it's easy to look at the Dems from the right and claim they are liberal socialists, the evidence points to the contrary. Clinton pushed through welfare reform. Obama escalated wars after running against them. Obama gifted big financial institutions bailout money. Hillary in 2016 would just mean more of the same but with a "she's a she" feel good story instead of "he's black."

 

Of course, the social causes that the Dems stand up for used to be conservative causes (individual liberties and protections from an over-reaching government) but today's "conservatives" are all about banning marriage, shoving cameras up woo-hoos, burning books, and denying science. Funny, but there's nothing "conservative" about those stances.

 

The entire country has veered right for the most part since the 1970s. Today's Democratic Party is pretty centrist. You'll find lots of progressives and liberals who are disenchanted with the Democratic Establishment. It'll be interesting to see if some rising stars like Elizabeth Warren can bring the Party back. I'd vote for Warren over another Clinton any day of the week.

 

Unfortunately, I have had a sinking feeling for quite a while that both the Democrats and Republicans are in such a firm grip of special interests, the same special interests, that what we see and vote on is just the panem et circenses.  Once the show is over, the real decisions are made behind closed doors regardless of which party is in power.

 

[august948]

Don't count on it. A split of the Republican party isn't such a great scenario for the Dems because they would have competition for the moderate voter. I think they like the current scenario where the wing nuts control the party line.

 

I don't know.  I get flashbacks to the Perot campaigns of the 90's and how it split the vote.  Would be nice, though, if moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans could break off and come together in a centerist party.  Might be the only way we could ever get away from domination by the fringes.

 

[KinkaidAlum]

August- you nailed it. Other than a few big name donors on each side, the same monied interests own the parties. The ®s pander to the far right and then never follow through and the (D)s hardly bother with pandering anymore because people on the left are so freaked out by the proposals from the right that they'd vote for a one-legged kangaroo as long as it didn't have an ® next to the name on the ballot. Sorry for the run-on sentence.

 

At the end of the day, I have often wondered if the Dems and Repubs are in cahoots. There's billions being made in politics and it's all really just theatrics. As long as we all hate each other, the money will continue to flow.

[august948]

I was just sitting here thinking how what we are taught in school about how our political system works differs so much from how it actually seems to operate.  I have to wonder if it ever really worked that way or that's just been a part of the show from the outset.

[Slick Vik]

I'd argue that the Democratic Party of the 80s is dead. While it's easy to look at the Dems from the right and claim they are liberal socialists, the evidence points to the contrary. Clinton pushed through welfare reform. Obama escalated wars after running against them. Obama gifted big financial institutions bailout money. Hillary in 2016 would just mean more of the same but with a "she's a she" feel good story instead of "he's black."

 

Of course, the social causes that the Dems stand up for used to be conservative causes (individual liberties and protections from an over-reaching government) but today's "conservatives" are all about banning marriage, shoving cameras up woo-hoos, burning books, and denying science. Funny, but there's nothing "conservative" about those stances.

 

The entire country has veered right for the most part since the 1970s. Today's Democratic Party is pretty centrist. You'll find lots of progressives and liberals who are disenchanted with the Democratic Establishment. It'll be interesting to see if some rising stars like Elizabeth Warren can bring the Party back. I'd vote for Warren over another Clinton any day of the week.

 

Great point. A root cause of a lot of this was that in the 70's, conservatives really had a huge fear that the country was becoming too liberal. The hippies and vietnam protests scared them to death. So with billions of dollars, politicians and judges were bought and think tanks were created to push the conservative message out, and over time, it has worked. Obamacare was a Republican idea! When someone has the guts to protest like occupy wall street, they are painted as criminals and losers without jobs. Nobody protested war in Iraq like they did Vietnam. It's sad what has happened but money talks.

[livincinco]

Great point. A root cause of a lot of this was that in the 70's, conservatives really had a huge fear that the country was becoming too liberal. The hippies and vietnam protests scared them to death. So with billions of dollars, politicians and judges were bought and think tanks were created to push the conservative message out, and over time, it has worked. Obamacare was a Republican idea! When someone has the guts to protest like occupy wall street, they are painted as criminals and losers without jobs. Nobody protested war in Iraq like they did Vietnam. It's sad what has happened but money talks.

 

Is there anything that you don't view as a conspiracy?  Money impacts politics from all sides, left, right and center and spending money to extend influence is by no means something exclusive to conservatives.

 

The Democratic party moved to the center because there was a huge tactical advantage in doing so.  During the 70s, they made the same mistake that the Republican party is making now.  They catered to the most extreme elements of their party and got out of touch with the majority of the population.  As a result, they lost the presidency for 12 years.  Clinton won it back by being a moderate and capturing the center again.  Obama has continued that style of governance.

 

In a two party system, the party that captures the center wins.

[august948]

Nobody protested war in Iraq like they did Vietnam. It's sad what has happened but money talks.

 

Not exactly.  Did you forget about Code Pink or the permanent protest camp in Crawford?  Or this list:

• 2 Prior to the invasion of Iraq
  • 2.1 September 2002
  • 2.2 October 2002
  • 2.3 November 2002
  • 2.4 January 2003
  • 2.5 February 2003
  • 2.6 March 2003
• 3 Invasion to the fall of Baghdad
  • 3.1 March 20, 2003
  • 3.2 March 21, 2003
  • 3.3 March 22–23, 2003
  • 3.4 March 24, 2003
  • 3.5 March 25, 2003
  • 3.6 March 27, 2003
  • 3.7 March 28, 2003
  • 3.8 March 29, 2003
  • 3.9 March 30, 2003
  • 3.10 April 7, 2003
• 4 After the fall of Baghdad
  • 4.1 April 12, 2003
  • 4.2 October 25, 2003
  • 4.3 June 4, 2004
  • 4.4 June 5, 2004
  • 4.5 August 29, 2004
  • 4.6 October 2, 2004
  • 4.7 October 17, 2004
  • 4.8 November 30, 2004
  • 4.9 December 6, 2004
  • 4.10 January 20, 2005
  • 4.11 March 19, 2005
  • 4.12 June 21, 2005
  • 4.13 August 6, 2005 to August 31, 2005
  • 4.14 September 24, 2005
  • 4.15 November 4–5, 2005
  • 4.16 March 18–20, 2006
  • 4.17 April 1, 2006
  • 4.18 April 29, 2006
  • 4.19 May 22–31, 2006
  • 4.20 August 9, 2006
  • 4.21 September 23, 2006
  • 4.22 October 5, 2006
  • 4.23 November 3, 2006
  • 4.24 January 4, 2007
  • 4.25 January 10–11, 2007
  • 4.26 January 27, 2007
  • 4.27 March 11, 2007
  • 4.28 March 16, 2007
  • 4.29 March 17, 2007
  • 4.30 September 15, 2007
  • 4.31 September 29, 2007
  • 4.32 March 19, 2008
  • 4.33 March 21, 2009
  • 4.34 April 4, 2009
  • 4.35 March 20, 2010
  • 4.36 March 19, 2011
  • 4.37 May 20, 2012

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

 

[livincinco]

C'mon, you know better than that. You should never let facts influence your thinking.

[august948]

Great point. A root cause of a lot of this was that in the 70's, conservatives really had a huge fear that the country was becoming too liberal. The hippies and vietnam protests scared them to death. So with billions of dollars, politicians and judges were bought and think tanks were created to push the conservative message out, and over time, it has worked. Obamacare was a Republican idea! When someone has the guts to protest like occupy wall street, they are painted as criminals and losers without jobs. Nobody protested war in Iraq like they did Vietnam. It's sad what has happened but money talks.

 

An alternate theory to this is that the young folks who drove the protests in the '60's grew up, got jobs, got married, got a mortgage, had children and formed the base for the Reagan revolution.

 

[Slick Vik]

Is there anything that you don't view as a conspiracy? Money impacts politics from all sides, left, right and center and spending money to extend influence is by no means something exclusive to conservatives.

The Democratic party moved to the center because there was a huge tactical advantage in doing so. During the 70s, they made the same mistake that the Republican party is making now. They catered to the most extreme elements of their party and got out of touch with the majority of the population. As a result, they lost the presidency for 12 years. Clinton won it back by being a moderate and capturing the center again. Obama has continued that style of governance.

In a two party system, the party that captures the center wins.

No. Reagan won because carter had bad luck and Reagan had the movie star charm that connected with people. He was a horrific president. Bush went against Dukakis who was a very intelligent candidate but mundane in personality. And then Clinton came along. You can view things as conspiracies just because you don't want to believe them but the truth is the truth.

Not exactly. Did you forget about Code Pink or the permanent protest camp in Crawford? Or this list:

• 2 Prior to the invasion of Iraq
  • 2.1 September 2002
  • 2.2 October 2002
  • 2.3 November 2002
  • 2.4 January 2003
  • 2.5 February 2003
  • 2.6 March 2003
• 3 Invasion to the fall of Baghdad
  • 3.1 March 20, 2003
  • 3.2 March 21, 2003
  • 3.3 March 22–23, 2003
  • 3.4 March 24, 2003
  • 3.5 March 25, 2003
  • 3.6 March 27, 2003
  • 3.7 March 28, 2003
  • 3.8 March 29, 2003
  • 3.9 March 30, 2003
  • 3.10 April 7, 2003
• 4 After the fall of Baghdad
  • 4.1 April 12, 2003
  • 4.2 October 25, 2003
  • 4.3 June 4, 2004
  • 4.4 June 5, 2004
  • 4.5 August 29, 2004
  • 4.6 October 2, 2004
  • 4.7 October 17, 2004
  • 4.8 November 30, 2004
  • 4.9 December 6, 2004
  • 4.10 January 20, 2005
  • 4.11 March 19, 2005
  • 4.12 June 21, 2005
  • 4.13 August 6, 2005 to August 31, 2005
  • 4.14 September 24, 2005
  • 4.15 November 4–5, 2005
  • 4.16 March 18–20, 2006
  • 4.17 April 1, 2006
  • 4.18 April 29, 2006
  • 4.19 May 22–31, 2006
  • 4.20 August 9, 2006
  • 4.21 September 23, 2006
  • 4.22 October 5, 2006
  • 4.23 November 3, 2006
  • 4.24 January 4, 2007
  • 4.25 January 10–11, 2007
  • 4.26 January 27, 2007
  • 4.27 March 11, 2007
  • 4.28 March 16, 2007
  • 4.29 March 17, 2007
  • 4.30 September 15, 2007
  • 4.31 September 29, 2007
  • 4.32 March 19, 2008
  • 4.33 March 21, 2009
  • 4.34 April 4, 2009
  • 4.35 March 20, 2010
  • 4.36 March 19, 2011
  • 4.37 May 20, 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

Those protests at least in the us were not on the same scale as Vietnam which were strong enough to stop the war and endured over a longer period of time.

C'mon, you know better than that. You should never let facts influence your thinking.

Stay on topic

An alternate theory to this is that the young folks who drove the protests in the '60's grew up, got jobs, got married, got a mortgage, had children and formed the base for the Reagan revolution.

No

[livincinco]

No. Reagan won because carter had bad luck and Reagan had the movie star charm that connected with people. He was a horrific president. Bush went against Dukakis who was a very intelligent candidate but mundane in personality. And then Clinton came along. You can view things as conspiracies just because you don't want to believe them but the truth is the truth.

Jimmy Carter is a wonderful man, but he was a horrible president. Reagan won because he presented hope to a country that was down and depressed and feeling like it was losing its standing in the world. Dukakis was a complete train wreck of a candidate and just showed how out of touch the Democratic party was at that time. Clinton seized the center and won as a moderate. There was very little that was liberal about his presidency. He was more of a fiscal conservative than most candidates the Republicans have fielded in the last 50 years.

You're really just practicing revisionist history at this point.

[Ross]

No. Reagan won because carter had bad luck and Reagan had the movie star charm that connected with people. He was a horrific president. Bush went against Dukakis who was a very intelligent candidate but mundane in personality. And then Clinton came along. You can view things as conspiracies just because you don't want to believe them but the truth is the truth.

 

 

You have no idea just how horrifically bad a President Jimmy Carter was. He had zero charisma, and no leadership ability at all. He was the biggest downer of a President in my life, and  Eisenhower was in the White House when I was born. Reagan made the country feel good about itself again, showed leadership, and was the most inspiring President since Kennedy. Reagan was a pretty decent President to boot.

 

Sadly, Reagan could not win the Republican nomination these days because he would not be radical enough to get the support of the idiots who have taken over the party, instituting religious tests, etc. As someone said above, you cannot get elected in this country without getting the vote from the center.

[Slick Vik]

Jimmy Carter is a wonderful man, but he was a horrible president. Reagan won because he presented hope to a country that was down and depressed and feeling like it was losing its standing in the world. Dukakis was a complete train wreck of a candidate and just showed how out of touch the Democratic party was at that time. Clinton seized the center and won as a moderate. There was very little that was liberal about his presidency. He was more of a fiscal conservative than most candidates the Republicans have fielded in the last 50 years.

You're really just practicing revisionist history at this point.

Clinton pushed for universal health care at the beginning of his first term

[Slick Vik]

You have no idea just how horrifically bad a President Jimmy Carter was. He had zero charisma, and no leadership ability at all. He was the biggest downer of a President in my life, and Eisenhower was in the White House when I was born. Reagan made the country feel good about itself again, showed leadership, and was the most inspiring President since Kennedy. Reagan was a pretty decent President to boot.

Sadly, Reagan could not win the Republican nomination these days because he would not be radical enough to get the support of the idiots who have taken over the party, instituting religious tests, etc. As someone said above, you cannot get elected in this country without getting the vote from the center.

Nixon was worse than carter he was a disgrace. The one good thing that Reagan did was amnesty but he did a lot of deregulation that came back to haunt the economy later.

[plumber2]

Just think how different things might have been if Florida had been using more up to date voting equipment in 2000. Really, how long had it been since the rest of the country had ditched punch cards. "Undercount", Overcount", "hanging chad", remember those terms. Al Gore would have taken decisive action against the terrorist hide outs after the Sept 11th attacks, and then we would have been doen with it. No long protracted war in Iraq or Afghanistan. How many billions of dollars and innnocent lives would have been saved for something better.

 

I still think about this! I don't believe in revisionist history, but I do engage in "what ifs".

[livincinco]

Just think how different things might have been if Florida had been using more up to date voting equipment in 2000. Really, how long had it been since the rest of the country had ditched punch cards. "Undercount", Overcount", "hanging chad", remember those terms. Al Gore would have taken decisive action against the terrorist hide outs after the Sept 11th attacks, and then we would have been doen with it. No long protracted war in Iraq or Afghanistan. How many billions of dollars and innnocent lives would have been saved for something better.

I still think about this! I don't believe in revisionist history, but I do engage in "what ifs".

That's a lot of assumptions about what Gore would have done based on incomplete information. One of the things that I find really interesting about the Bush/Obama transition is that Obama came into office highly critical of actions taken by the Bush administration regarding things like Guantanamo. Once he got in, he got noticeably quieter and slower to take action. That really leads me to believe that there's a lot of information in highly classified files that we aren't aware of. We probably won't really know what happened for 50 years or so.

A good example of this is the Rosenberg trials in the 1950s. Held up for years as an example of the excesses of the McCarthy years (and not denying that McCarthy went too far), but guess what - in 2008, it was confirmed that they were spies and that they were passing material to the Soviets.

[Slick Vik]

That's a lot of assumptions about what Gore would have done based on incomplete information. One of the things that I find really interesting about the Bush/Obama transition is that Obama came into office highly critical of actions taken by the Bush administration regarding things like Guantanamo. Once he got in, he got noticeably quieter and slower to take action. That really leads me to believe that there's a lot of information in highly classified files that we aren't aware of. We probably won't really know what happened for 50 years or so.

A good example of this is the Rosenberg trials in the 1950s. Held up for years as an example of the excesses of the McCarthy years (and not denying that McCarthy went too far), but guess what - in 2008, it was confirmed that they were spies and that they were passing material to the Soviets.

So McCarthy's methods were acceptable?