Expectations for the Republican Party until 2012

The Republicans are a mess.

Ever since Reagan, they've been an alliance of the National Coalition (aka Sensible Party), New Ascendant American Century Party (aka Sith Lords), and Christian Coalition (aka American Taliban).

These parties don't actually have all that much in common, and especially the Sith Lords and the Taliban have really made a pig's breakfast of things. John McCain ran as the Sensible Party candidate, with Sarah Palin the American Taliban candidate. That clearly didn't work out too well: the sensible people abandoned McCain over Palin, and the Taliban people abandoned Palin over McCain.

As dte pointed out in another thread here (even though he may not have intended to make that point ), the Republicans have another, longer-term problem.

Demographics.

They're doing great in rural areas and small towns, whereas the Dems pwn the filthy, sodomite, decadent, mongrel cities. Not to mention the young people.

The trouble is that the trend is towards (sub)urbanization. Cities are getting bigger, the countryside is emptying, and small towns are getting smaller. I've seen this myself, both in Finland and in America -- Missoula, Montana is a lovely small town, but the economic opportunities are so limited that pretty much every young person with any amount of ambition at least considers moving to Portland or Seattle. And lots of them do.

The consequence of this is pretty simple, really. If the Republicans persist in branding themselves the party of "Real America" -- meaning, small-town, mid-Western, white, Christian America -- they will, over the next decade or so, become a permanent minority. There just won't be enough white, Mid-Western, small-town Christians to vote them in (always assuming they won't cause another once-in-a-century disaster that'll cause an "anyone-but-the-incumbent" moment like now).

This is very worrying. A democracy cannot function without an effective loyal opposition. An effective single-party state will do great for the first two or three cycles it wins, but once the memory of being in opposition fades, it will corrode the system. IOW, America's future well-being depends as much on the Republicans getting their act together as it does on President Obama's and the Democratic majority's ability to govern. I would expect them to breeze through 2012, but if the Republicans are still unable to mount a credible challenge in the 2014 midterms or the 2016 presidential elections, you're going to be in serious trouble.

So, my resident redneck fascists -- what do you expect of your party during its stint in the wilderness? What do you hope of it? What kind of Grand Old Party would you like to see emerge from the one that's mostly just looking, y'know, Old, right now? You know my views -- I'm hoping for the Sensible Party to take the reins again, with perhaps a third party emerging, to see something like the British Labor/Conservative/(Liberal) constellation arrive. What do you think are the odds of that happening?

To me, this had nothing to do with Republican vs Democrat politics, but more about keeping the most devastating block out of the government.

Whatever politic ideas the republican party used to have, all I can see of the republican party are the extremes you mentioned. To me they represent people who have no room in politics at all, based on what history taught us.

When you examine the word "conservative" and what it actually means, the groups that hijacked the republican party are the radicals while the democrats are the conservatives. The republicans seem as stable and as aware of the importance of structure as aging nitroglycerine.

I'm going to have to ponder this one for a while, PJ. Didn't want you to think I missed it.

Not as many takers on this one as I would have hoped. (Is dte really the lone Repub around? That would be... sad.)

However, David Brooks had a pretty interesting piece on this out today.

He believes that (1) in the short term, the Republican party will tack right, because the remaining caucus is more traditionalist than the preceding one, and the right wing owns the institutional base and the financial supporters of the GOP; (2) because of reasons similar to what I outlined above, this means that the GOP will keep losing elections, and (3) eventually, after it really gets tired of losing, the "reformers" -- something like my Sensible Party -- will manage to put together a new set of institutions and ideas, which will usher in a new era of Republican dominance.

It's pretty clear where his sympathies lie. Any thoughts on whether there's something to it beyond wishful thinking?

*sniff* It's just little ol' me. bn's busy saving the financial world. Admitting to being Republican these days is almost as painful as magerette being a liberal in Oklahoma, so you probably won't get many volunteers.

Like bn, I think Saint Barack will lose in 2012, just as McCain would lose in 2012 had he won this year. There's too many stinky pills for the public to swallow in the next few years, and the incumbent will pay the price. If Saint Barack actually follows thru on some of his "tough love for the nation" campaign promises, he'll virtually guarantee getting tossed in 2012.

Which brings us back to the original question. After much pondering and a fair bit of reading, I haven't got a frickin clue. The Neo-cons have taken a beating, but is it sufficient to push them to the fringe for good? I'm not sure. 3 years is a long time to let people forget. Palin and the zealots are poised to step into the driver's seat, but I'm not sure that's in the cards, either. The zealots don't really have a viable candidate outside of Palin, and a lot of Republicans were embarassed by her VP run. Throwing Palin in the battle undercuts Obama's minority appeal, though. In a way, the battle between the Reaganites and the zealots will require the neo-cons to be the deciding factor. There's their door back from the fringes.

The Reaganites don't really have a dynamic personality to get behind right now. That's going to slow them down. The zealots will share each other's zeal, making a dynamic personality less mandatory (although that will hurt outside the party in the general elections). Nobody will want to admit to being a Neo-con until the game is already played.

If you pin me down to a prediction, here's my best guess:
2012- Obama out, alliance of neo-cons and zealots in.
2016- following 4 years of Christian global holy war, America realizes what they've done, democrats get the landslide Obama did not, stake in the heart for neo-cons, zealots pushed to the fringe
2020- Reaganites get their manure together, but lack the powerbase to win the main election, democratic incumbent re-elected
2024- following 8 years of democrats, America insists on changing horses for better or worse. Reaganite candidate wins a squeeker.

edit- this is actually very close to what Mr. Brooks is predicting.

dteowner said:

2012- Obama out, alliance of neo-cons and zealots in.
2016- following 4 years of Christian global holy war

Click to expand...

... cilivization as we knew it is annihiliated. The next war is fought with sticks and stones.

And Fallout 8 is the REAL World, not a game!!

dteowner said:

edit- this is actually very close to what Mr. Brooks is predicting.

Click to expand...

So what are you waiting for? Phone up Dave Brooks and get the ball rolling on restoring sanity to the Republican Party. I'll be cheering you from the sidelines all the way!

Hopes for the republican party would be a bout of soul searching followed by a restoration of dignity and core ideals.

My expectations would be years of whining petulance and active attempts to fuck everything up just because their feelings have been hurt. I mean look at these people suggesting that they're going to show Obama what they think of his policies for taxing high earners by going out there and earning less themselves, let's see how he likes them onions!

Or this demented bitch suggesting that people should tip waitresses less if Obama wins because . . . actually I still don't get the because. Because they're spoilt, melodramatic fools with their heads wedged so firmly up their gigantic arses that they've secretly always felt that they themselves are noble agents of wealth distribution by trickling down on all those people beneath them? Because . . . nope, that first one was all I've got.

Frankly I'd be amazed if that woman had the appetite to eat out for years, she'll be full enough on sour grapes.

Benedict said:

Hopes for the republican party would be a bout of soul searching followed by a restoration of dignity and core ideals.

My expectations would be years of whining petulance and active attempts to fuck everything up just because their feelings have been hurt. I mean look at these people suggesting that they're going to show Obama what they think of his policies for taxing high earners by going out there and earning less themselves, let's see how he likes them onions!

Or this demented bitch suggesting that people should tip waitresses less if Obama wins because . . . actually I still don't get the because. Because they're spoilt, melodramatic fools with their heads wedged so firmly up their gigantic arses that they've secretly always felt that they themselves are noble agents of wealth distribution by trickling down on all those people beneath them? Because . . . nope, that first one was all I've got.

Frankly I'd be amazed if that woman had the appetite to eat out for years, she'll be full enough on sour grapes.

Click to expand...

God, benedict--that first blog is just ridiculous and the second is nauseating--- And who's behind the class warfare again? Rich people are certainly some sore losers. Actually, I'm willing to bet this woman would stiff the waitress anyway for some other made-up reason.

Hilarious! Especially their Ayn Randish vision that only wealthy people who run their own businesses are the core performers of this country and the rest of us are parasites on their ingenuity and all-american drive and stuff, i.e., that the people they employ are not a factor at all in their success. It's like saying Churchill and FDR, et. al. personally beat Hitler without any troops.

You think Ford, GM, and Chrysler are going the John Galt route, too?

The worst part of all this is the idea that there are two classes in this country that don't need each other, and that either one has the right to screw the other because they're being taken advantage of. This is actually somewhat on topic, as I think that's part of the reason behind the Republican party's disarray--they no longer are able to convince anyone but their base that there's any advantage in supporting their platform for the average wage earner.

Unfortunately, I don't see this changing much in the near future. The whining, the petulance, and the chip on the shoulder apparent here get in the way of constructive thought. Eventually, though, surely someone will get a clue.

Pretty shocking stuff isn't it? I do try to see the republicans as essentially reasonable, mature human beings who simply have a different perspective to me that I should respect but my GOD so many of them make that so hard to believe.

I did enjoy this comment though:

And gee, if the server is Republican, I can give an appropriate tip this way: Leave a note saying that instead of giving them cash, I'll instead mail my tip to the CEO of the restaurant chain. The server can then wait for the CEO to pass it back down.

Are you people seriously considering stiffing hard-working people because you may not like the outcome of an election? Grow up, already.

Click to expand...

It's amazing the grasp that these people have on the economy though . . . if they have a massive hissy fit and cut back their workload so that they don't fall into Obama's evil socialist clutches then someone else will step into the economic niche to do that work instead. Most likely several smaller players all earning less doing the job that's newly up for tender more efficiently, spreading the wealth around to more people who'll then spread it around further.

It won't mean that the work just doesn't happen because only they with their MASSIVE republican testicles could possibly do the work properly, and soon Barack will be crying like a little baby for them to come back and show true AMERICAN grit but it'll be TOO LATE by then because REAL americans never pick up their toys after they've thrown them out of the pram.

Not entirely sure about the auto maker bailout, I think if it's done in a similar way to the AIG bailout where the cash is in return for government taking a controlling share of it and bringing in some outside people to cut out ineffective management and drag the companies in a whole new direction then it could be workable, otherwise it's just throwing money away on companies that have taken entirely the wrong path.

Your country has become depressingly polarised though, the political split is extremely divisive. Let's hope Obama can heal some of that resentment, it isn't healthy at all.

There was some pretty funky stuff on Free Republic too -- people fuming that they're going to find all the Obama supporters working for them and fire them tomorrow. Perhaps some of them did, too.

Re the automakers: I'm against bailing them out. Financial institutions like AIG had to be bailed out because letting them go down would have blown up the entire system; letting GM, Ford, and Chrysler go down won't do that. If they go bust, auto manufacturing in the US won't stop: instead, someone else will show up and buy the assets of those companies and continue their work.

As for stimulus, propping up failing companies is a lousy way to go about it. The idea with fiscal stimulus is that government spending creates demand when the private sector falls short. A bailout wouldn't do that; it just creates a distortion that makes it more difficult for the economy to recover.

The Keynesian thing would be, for example, to start a massive, nationwide public transportation project -- say, based on minivans called by SMS or WWW and routed by computer --, and buy the vehicles from these automakers. It wouldn't just employ automakers but also drivers, it would create an efficient transportation network just when people need it most (money spent on gas mostly goes out of the country; money spent on bus tickets mostly stays in it), and it would have beneficial long-term effects -- less congestion, less pollution, and so on. If it's priced right, it might even pay for itself in the long run.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u-2q-YAkxw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=related
Wanna do a battle of the idiots?

Sorry. dte, I just updated my adobe flash and I need some plug in or other which I'm too lazy to hunt for right now to see those you tubes. I'll assume they are nutcases who have some wild leftie bias and agree there are idiots on both sides, many of whom are nothing more than terrified and under-informed normal people--some are of course whackjobs but that's the major side effect of identity politics.

Re: the Big 3 car guys and a stimulus package in general--the automakers have about 2.5 million jobs they'll turn lose of if/when they go down and that scares people--nonetheless, I agree that bailing them out is a big mistake. They've partied while Rome was burning, and if they can't do their jobs without billions of taxpayer dollars now, they're no different from any other business that fails to deal with reality, and considerably worse than many that have failed with far less fault. The CEO's are busy trying to blame it all on the Unions and "legacy debt" but the fact remains that everybody got greedy and incredibly complacent, and now everybody involved ought to pay for the over-reach, imo. I look to the Republicans to do their job here and stop the circular firing squad long enough to get this little socialist fantasy under control.

I wasn't in favor of the last two stimulus checks and I'm not in favor of another one now--even though it would help re-gravel our driveway or pay off a credit card. Free money is never free, and there have to be better ways to stimulate the economy.

On-topic: Interesting editorial over at the Washington Post on how Fox News has not served the right well.
You Report, We Marginalize

The real hazard to letting the Big 3 go under isn't to the people working there today (although it sucks to be them, too). Based on the ruling for/against United Airlines a couple years ago, a bankrupt company can default on all pensions. Soooo..

Health-care costs are straining all three firms but are particularly onerous at GM, which has 81,000 active UAW workers and 332,000 retirees whose health care is covered by generous benefits negotiated since the end of World War II. GM spent $4.8 billion on health care last year, $3.3 billion of that on retirees.

Click to expand...

In your rush to punish, you've just taken away the promised income and health benefits for somewhere on the order of 3/4 a million senior citizens (the above numbers are strictly GM) plus their families. I thought we elected Saint Barack just to prevent this sort of thing, hmmm?

edit- @magerette: The first link is Howard Stern which isn't what I'd call a quality source, but the funny part was that they asked several Obama supporters of a certain ethnicity (among other issues where they assigned McCain policies to Obama) if they supported Obama's selection of Sarah Palin for VP and if they felt that Obama's choice made her qualified for the job. The second shows an Obama supporter that says she will not have to worry about paying for gas or paying for her mortgage if Obama is elected. "If we take care of him, he's going to take care of us." Let the free beer flow, eh?

dteowner said:

The second shows an Obama supporter that says she will not have to worry about paying for gas or paying for her mortgage if Obama is elected. "If we take care of him, he's going to take care of us." Let the free beer flow, eh?

Click to expand...

The left wing equivalent of the guy who thought if McCains was elected that the US would "finally" nuke Irak and Afghanistan to get rid of the terrorist problem. No side has a monopoly over stupidity and I can certainly agree that a lot of black people voted for Obama for the only reason that he is black or to get "free beer " as you say just like a lot of people voted for McCain for the only reason they believed Obama was a muslim terrorist with close ties with Al-Quaida.

Not to mention that in some part, the KKK is still alive and I certainly don't think they voted democrate.

dteowner said:

The real hazard to letting the Big 3 go under isn't to the people working there today (although it sucks to be them, too). Based on the ruling for/against United Airlines a couple years ago, a bankrupt company can default on all pensions. Soooo..

In your rush to punish, you've just taken away the promised income and health benefits for somewhere on the order of 3/4 a million senior citizens (the above numbers are strictly GM) plus their families. I thought we elected Saint Barack just to prevent this sort of thing, hmmm?

Click to expand...

I don't want to punish anyone, but actions come with consequences. Lots of people have lost their pensions and health care when companies failed--Enron seems to ring a bell. I do understand about the so-called 'legacy costs' for retirees, and actually the Sainted One has mentioned that factor as being a central motivator in his support for some kind of (as yet unclarified) assistance.

So, are you and Barack actually agreeing on something or is it once again all in my mind?

Also, please note(always assuming I'm understanding it correctly) if our health care system worked along the lines my Messiah proposes, GM & Co wouldn't have had to be on the hook all these years for the totality of those costs--they would have been paying a non-Union-negotiated flat insurance rate comparable to rates paid across the board in non-Union businesses, which I hypothesize would be much lower than the sheckels they're pitching into the UAW benny package atm, and both active employees and retirees would still have access to some form of health care that was affordable even if the company were to fail.

BTW, I don't have a problem with doing something for the Big 3 and their employees at all as long as it 's productive--a tax break to offset more stringent government mandates for fuel efficiency, retooling and innovating, or even limited government assistance that comes with enough strings to insure some practical return on the taxpayers investment. I just don't think throwing a bunch of money at the problem will work any better there than it has on Wall Street. Handing out blank checks to people who've run their outfits into the ground is like letting a wino run a liquor store.

edit- @magerette: The first link is Howard Stern which isn't what I'd call a quality source, but the funny part was that they asked several Obama supporters of a certain ethnicity (among other issues where they assigned McCain policies to Obama) if they supported Obama's selection of Sarah Palin for VP and if they felt that Obama's choice made her qualified for the job. The second shows an Obama supporter that says she will not have to worry about paying for gas or paying for her mortgage if Obama is elected. "If we take care of him, he's going to take care of us." Let the free beer flow, eh?

Click to expand...

And the pie in the sky. Barack will cut her a personal check, no doubt. (Did you watch the South Park thing where the dude flips off his boss because change has come to America and who needs a job?--very similar) We really could get some decently entertaining material going in a theoretical war of the idiots, and I will do my best to dredge up some muck as the slow crawl toward Jan 20 progresses--there is some tasty stuff out there on both sides.

No matter what, I promise not to hold all Republicans accountable for the rightwingnuts/low-information values voters in return for the same favor regarding the less-informed and or mentally unbalanced on the left of the spectrum.

Prime Junta said:

Re the automakers: I'm against bailing them out. Financial institutions like AIG had to be bailed out because letting them go down would have blown up the entire system; letting GM, Ford, and Chrysler go down won't do that. If they go bust, auto manufacturing in the US won't stop: instead, someone else will show up and buy the assets of those companies and continue their work. .

Click to expand...

Definitely preferable, especially since most of the issues are supposed to be the result of some pretty flawed management cultures. Something like the AIG approach could work well for that too though, take a controlling share, bring in some ruthless outsiders to slash all of the non conforming management and return it to profit for the taxpayer.

I see Paulson's decided that capital stakes are the way to go anyway and has abandoned plans to buy up assets directly.

magerette said:

Also, please note(always assuming I'm understanding it correctly) if our health care system worked along the lines my Messiah proposes, GM & Co wouldn't have had to be on the hook all these years for the totality of those costs--they would have been paying a non-Union-negotiated flat insurance rate comparable to rates paid across the board in non-Union businesses, which I hypothesize would be much lower than the sheckels they're pitching into the UAW benny package atm, and both active employees and retirees would still have access to some form of health care that was affordable even if the company were to fail.

Click to expand...

I remember reading somewhere about how the car industry prefer having their factory just north in Ontario instead of Michigan because they didnt have to bother about health care insurances. It's a reason why they put so many of their newest factory this side of the border instead of your.

The CAW is also better to deal with than the UAW, on the whole. I wouldn't overlook the rate of exchange advantage, either.