Where does the GOP go from here?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by bombay

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone:

There's been a lot of hand-wringing among conservatives of the Rush/Hannity school in the last few days, a lot of concern about this outreach question, and honestly, the tone of the discussion is beginning to sound like the last days of a failed 1950s marriage. The husband who's gone all day at work comes home and throws his hands up in the air in mock frustration: what do you want from me, another Cadillac? Another fur coat? I just got you new shoes last week!

And the wife, who's loved this man for 20 years despite his abject stupidity, just sighs. All she wants her husband to do is listen to her, or take a day off work sometime and take her for a drive in the country, or make some spontaneous show of affection, maybe popping home for lunch like in the old days – just some evidence that he's even faintly aware of what's going on in her head. But when they try to talk it out, things just get worse, because in his very manner of asking her what's wrong, all hubby does is reveal that he thinks of his wife entirely as a nagging, financial parasite who's always on his ass about something.


Similarly, the fact that so many Republicans this week think that all Hispanics care about is amnesty, all women want is abortions (and lots of them) and all teenagers want is to sit on their couches and smoke tons of weed legally, that tells you everything you need to know about the hopeless, anachronistic cluelessness of the modern Republican Party. A lot of these people, believe it or not, would respond positively, or at least with genuine curiosity, to the traditional conservative message of self-reliance and fiscal responsibility.


But modern Republicans will never be able to spread that message effectively, because they have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they're surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab. Their whole belief system, which is really an endless effort at congratulating themselves for how hard they work compared to everyone else (by the way, the average "illegal," as Rush calls them, does more real work in 24 hours than people like Rush and me do in a year), is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can't win votes when you're calling people lazy, stoned moochers.


It's hard to say whether it's good or bad that the Rushes of the world are too clueless to realize that it's their attitude, not their policies, that is screwing them most with minority voters. If they were self-aware at all, Mitt Romney would probably be president right now. So I guess we should be grateful that the light doesn't look like it will ever go on. But wow, is their angst tough to listen to.

Has Matt met Lonestar?

[Rohirrim]

Meanwhile, back in the Right Wing Amusement Zone, the Tea Party faithful are notifying the Republican Party that the reason that they lost is because they didn't go "conservative" enough.

[TonyR]

^ Taibbi nails it as usual. Sullivan has a really good take as well. Here's part of it:

...These charlatans and money-grubbers have turned the broad tradition of Anglo-American conservatism into Southern Fried Fanaticism - and I wanted to see them crackle in their batter. They have replaced empirical doubt with unerring faith in an ideology that had its moment over thirty years ago and is barely relevant to the world we now live in. That faith has been cynically fused with fundamentalist religion to make it virtually impossible for the GOP to accept that women are the majority of voters in this country, that gay couples are equal to straight ones, that 11 million illegal immigrants simply cannot be expected to "self-deport" en masse by a regime of terrifying policing, that war is a last and not a first resort, that the debt we have is primarily a function of two things: George W. Bush's presidency and the economic collapse his term ended with.

This kind of total fanaticism about an ideology that bears no resemblance to Burkean conservatism is often called religious. But the truly religious person is not focused on the Electoral College math, but on living her own life the right way in accordance with the God she worships. She is not obsessed with policing society to keep the "other" at bay - the homosexual, the African-American, the Latino immigrant, the single mother, the young straight dude who is truly baffled by the anachronisms of homophobia and the belief that alcohol is less harmful than marijuana. She knows that living a good life is hard enough without controlling the lives and fates and dignity of others.

But the person who fuses Manichean political warfare with theological certitude cannot, will not, abandon that stance for pragmatic purposes - because there is no greater evil than pragmatism for the fanatic. A political party can adapt and change; a fundamentalist religious party loses its entire authority if it admits error, because its message is based on religious texts that are held to be inerrant. The biggest obstacle in front of today's GOP threfore remains theo-political fundamentalism, and how it can be overcome...

Give the whole thing a read here: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....eak-ctd-1.html

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Blart

Exactly.

Where was the libertarian-right during the great struggles for individual liberty? Civil rights for nonwhites, women, gays and lesbians? I see the left fighting with their bodies and wallets, but I don't see many right-libertarians.

I do, however, see right-Libertarians fighting for privatized highways and corporate rights.

What about voting rights, abuses by police and the military, and religion taking over politics? I see the left fighting, but am waiting on those socially liberal/fiscal conservative folks to join.


Libertarians are more likely to apologize for social abuses.

"It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."
- Ludwig Von Mises, after Mussolini seized Italy.

Because most "Libertarians" do not fit the description of Libertarians, as defined politically. They are not "fiscally conservative, socially liberal", they are "fiscally conservative, socially ambivalent".

It is not enough to just "be okay with" people getting the same rights as you. "I just don't care whether gays can marry, or whether minorities are treated equally, but stop taxing me" doesn't make you a Libertarian, it makes you a Republican who is too weak to take a stand on half (or more) of the issues the people in our country face.

[Obushma]

Politic doesnt fall on a horizontal line like most people on here are trying to paint, both parties lean Authoritarian. The way the GOP gains votes is to move towards individual liberty, no more Nation Building (the idea of Mccarthyism is dead to younger generations), and to move away from the idea of a central planning debit based economy.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Obushma

Politic doesnt fall on a horizontal line like most people on here are trying to paint, both parties lean Authoritarian. The way the GOP gains votes is to move towards individual liberty, no more Nation Building (the idea of Mccarthyism is dead to younger generations), and to move away from the idea of a central planning debit based economy.

Yeah. We should go back to 18th century economic principles. That'll work.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Yeah. We should go back to 18th century economic principles. That'll work.

Hey, low CO2 emissions, no GM crops or industrial farming... Free Roaming Buffalo and infrequent showering.

I always thought the 1700s was where you guys were trying to take us.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by TonyR

^ Taibbi nails it as usual. Sullivan has a really good take as well. Here's part of it:

Give the whole thing a read here: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....eak-ctd-1.html

But the person who fuses Manichean political warfare with theological certitude cannot, will not, abandon that stance for pragmatic purposes - because there is no greater evil than pragmatism for the fanatic. A political party can adapt and change; a fundamentalist religious party loses its entire authority if it admits error, because its message is based on religious texts that are held to be inerrant. The biggest obstacle in front of today's GOP therefore remains theo-political fundamentalism, and how it can be overcome.

Libertarians suffer from the same addiction to "purity." We just live in a fundamentalist age. It's all over the world, obviously a human disease. I still hold to my theory that 9/11 drove half the country mad with terror. The response is a kind of psycho ghost dance accompanied by the music of apocalyptica. How many of these nutjobs (like Palin, Hannity and Beck, for example) think Obama's reelection is the end of America? The simply pragmatic are the revolutionaries.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Hey, low CO2 emissions, no GM crops or industrial farming... Free Roaming Buffalo and infrequent showering.

I always thought the 1700s was where you guys were trying to take us.

Are you kidding? All that methane?

[bronc_fan23]

Originally Posted by Obushma

Politic doesnt fall on a horizontal line like most people on here are trying to paint, both parties lean Authoritarian. The way the GOP gains votes is to move towards individual liberty, no more Nation Building (the idea of Mccarthyism is dead to younger generations), and to move away from the idea of a central planning debit based economy.

Exactly, we shouldn't pay attention to what liberals say about what way the GOP should go. They would have us move to the left and so that we can become a nation of one party rule. (which is why they like Huntsmann)

There will always be Americans who will listen to a message of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom. The GOP lost its way because they like big government when it suits their needs, but rail against it when the other guys in power. Consistency earns you the respect of independents and excites the Republican base. Consistency means Republicans need to realize that big government includes the military industrial complex, and foreign wars abroad.

This also means the Republicans need to stop fitting everyone in their little box, there is common ground to be found with everyone. These litmus and purity tests that Republicans tend to have are a losing formula. Obama will run this country into the ground the next four years, there will be opportunity for the GOP, but only if they do it correctly.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by bronc_fan23

Exactly, we shouldn't pay attention to what liberals say about what way the GOP should go.

Yes, by all means, I urge you not to listen to us.

Just keep doing what you've been doing and "stay the course."

[bronc_fan23]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Yes, by all means, I urge you not to listen to us.

Just keep doing what you've been doing and "stay the course."

I say the exact opposite in my post, but thanks for playing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by bronc_fan23

I say the exact opposite in my post, but thanks for playing.

This is the nugget I was responding to:

Exactly, we shouldn't pay attention to what liberals say about what way the GOP should go. They would have us move to the left and so that we can become a nation of one party rule. (which is why they like Huntsmann)

Apparently, you believe you won't have to move toward the left on any issue, or make any sort of concessions to the opposition moving forward.

Good luck with that.

[bronc_fan23]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Apparently, you believe you won't have to move toward the left on any issue, or make any sort of concessions to the opposition moving forward.

Good luck with that.

Anti-war and pro-civil liberties was to the "left" during the Bush years, but are traditional conservative principles, so I wouldn't call that moving to the "left". (Plus liberals are all for allowing Obama to be Bush 2.0 in this regard)
Allowing states to make their own choices on drugs, abortion, and gay marriage is a part of State's right's and also a traditional conservative principle.(10th Amendment)

So no, I wouldn't call it moving to the left, as these positions are all part of a limited government.

[bronc_fan23]

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-conservatism/

Back to Constitutional Conservatism




Now that Mitt Romney has lost, virtually everyone agrees that the Republican Party needs to change. Liberals say the GOP needs to become more moderate. Conservatives say it has become too moderate. In a way, both sides are right — and wrong.
The moderate Republican ticket that liberals and GOP establishment types covet has been tried recently: Mitt Romney and John McCain. Conservatives are right that a more moderate Republican Party is not the answer.
What many of them are wrong about is conservatism. To turn on talk radio or watch Fox News is not to experience the philosophy of Bill Buckley, the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan, or even something like the free market proposals of Jack Kemp. Aside from Paul Ryan’s proposals for entitlement reform—one of the few tangibly conservative and positive differences that separated the Romney and Obama tickets—the populist Right remained stuck on stupid: The President “apologizes” for America; the U.S is threatened by Sharia Law; “Where’s the birth certificate?” Obama eats dog. Donald Trump. Dinesh D’Souza.
Demagoguery, partisanship, and conspiracy theories do not represent ideas. They represent a lack of them. Throw in some clumsy language about “legitimate rape” and couple it with Romney’s Dubya impression on foreign policy, and Americans saw a “conservatism” they didn’t want. Who can blame them?
But they don’t necessarily want Barack Obama’s America either. Voters weren’t in love with George Bush when they rejected John Kerry. They just liked Kerry less. On paper, Democrats should have lost, if sour economies and high unemployment still have anything to do with how people vote. That Romney couldn’t beat Obama says far more about the Republican Party than it says about the Democrats.
The formula for victory is not being more Democrat-lite or neocon-heavy. It also does not lie in embracing socialism or abandoning social issues. The GOP can become a national party again by offering new ideas rooted in old ones.
Since the 2010 elections, “constitutional conservative” has become a popular term for some Republicans, who actually set out to distinguish themselves from the Bush-era. But what does it mean?
The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government. The core definition of being a conservative in the United States, traditionally, is a belief in small government. At its inception, the Tea Party was perceived primarily as a movement against government spending and debt, and majorities of Americans were on board. A 2009 Rasmussen poll showed that 51 percent of Americans viewed the massive Tax Day protests that year favorably. As late as January 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported: “A new Gallup Poll out this morning finds that 71 percent of Americans, even many who do not think highly of the ‘tea party,’ say it’s important that Republicans should take its positions into account.”
Those who now blame Republican losses in this election on the Tea Party are not blaming the philosophy of limited government. They are blaming a movement that has become associated with too many issues besides limited government, including the social issues on which the early movement remained neutral.
But how should a constitutional conservative approach social issues? In this election, voters approved gay marriage in four states. Two states voted to make recreational marijuana legal. A true constitutionalist recognizes that the regulation of marriage and drugs is not found in the Constitution; therefore the 10^th Amendment renders these the jurisdiction of the individual states. Conservatives have made such cases against federal healthcare and gun regulation for some time. They should now be consistent and comprehensive in their constitutional arguments — even when they might disagree with the outcomes.
While polls show that Americans are more accepting of same-sex marriage and relaxed drug laws than ever before, the Washington Post reported in May that a Gallup poll showed: “The 41 percent of Americans who now identify themselves as ‘pro-choice’ is down from 47 percent last July… Fifty percent now call themselves ‘pro-life…” The Post continued:

The polling shows that rather than embracing abortion with increasing gusto, Americans—especially young Americans—are rejecting it with increasing disgust, and not just for religious reasons.

Roe v. Wade has long been the heart of the pro-life movement, which if overturned would allow the states to decide the abortion issue. States are now deciding on the issue of gay marriage and drugs in ways that wouldn’t have been politically possible a decade ago. As public attitudes shift on abortion, so may the politics—and constitutional conservatives could stand ready to make the most effective pro-life arguments in the history of the movement.
If youth attitudes could shift the abortion debate, the same could be true concerning our greatest financial drain: entitlements. Unlike their parents, younger Americans do the math and do not expect Social Security and Medicare to survive. The same could be true concerning youth attitudes toward the second greatest drain on resources: A counterproductive and costly foreign policy. Unlike their parents, young people can comprehend an America that does not play policeman or provider to the world while the next generation foots the bill.
A platform of constitutionally limited government, individual freedom, and personal responsibility could provide fresh answers to the old questions that now impede the GOP’s electoral success. This is not a departure from conservatism but a return to it.
Or the Republican Party can keep recycling Bush-isms—promising more government, war, and less freedom. Constitutional conservatism is the way forward. Conservatism defined as simply hating Democrats will remain a ticket to nowhere.
The lesson of 2012 is that the Republican Party must truly become the limited government party it has always pretended to be—or it will die.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by bronc_fan23

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-conservatism/

“The 41 percent of Americans who now identify themselves as ‘pro-choice’ is down from 47 percent last July… Fifty percent now call themselves ‘pro-life…”

And this is where labels will get you in trouble.

Exit polling from this past Tuesday shows that nearly 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by houghtam

“The 41 percent of Americans who now identify themselves as ‘pro-choice’ is down from 47 percent last July… Fifty percent now call themselves ‘pro-life…”

And this is where labels will get you in trouble.

Exit polling from this past Tuesday shows that nearly 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal.

Legal means different things to different people. And the fix is easy, if the hardest-core social cons can get their heads out of their asses.



Join together the "Illegal in All Circumstances" and the "Legal only in a few circumstances" groups, and you have a solid majority. Very few people in reality support the "anytime, anywhere, and for any reason" abortion platform of the Democratic party.

The social cons just need to shut up about the rape and incest stuff and realize that a compromise is more likely to get them 80% of what they want instead of none of it.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Blart

Where was the libertarian-right during the great struggles for individual liberty? Civil rights for nonwhites, women, gays and lesbians? I see the left fighting with their bodies and wallets, but I don't see many right-libertarians.

Quite simply put, you're not looking - and don't care to see it. Libertarians have been fighting for civil rights since the beginning of time. It's central to what makes them libertarians.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Libertarians have been fighting for civil rights since the beginning of time. It's what makes them libertarians.

Yep - the civil right for business owners to tell out-groups to **** off.

Libertarians aren't the vanguards of civil liberties - they're little more than useful tools for plutocrats.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Yep - the civil right for business owners to tell out-groups to **** off.

Libertarians aren't the vanguards of civil liberties - they're little more than useful tools for plutocrats.

Individual liberty is individual liberty. The community does the rest of the work. The Klu Klux Klan wore hoods for a reason - to protect their identities because they knew that if outsiders saw who they were, they'd be ostracized. Same goes with businesses. I'd just as soon know openly who is racist so that I can keep my dollars out of their pockets.

[Taco John]

It took a coalition of the left and the libertarians who identify on the right to make gay marriage possible in Washington State.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Individual liberty is individual liberty. The community does the rest of the work. The Klu Klux Klan wore hoods for a reason - to protect their identities because they knew that if outsiders saw who they were, they'd be ostracized. Same goes with businesses. I'd just as soon know openly who is racist so that I can keep my dollars out of their pockets.

Does the same apply for anti-gay, or do you draw the line there?

Not picking a fight, I'm just curious what your thoughts on the whole Chik-fil-A thing was, and I'm too lazy to go look up to see if you ever weighed in.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Individual liberty is individual liberty. The community does the rest of the work. The Klu Klux Klan wore hoods for a reason - to protect their identities because they knew that if outsiders saw who they were, they'd be ostracized. Same goes with businesses. I'd just as soon know openly who is racist so that I can keep my dollars out of their pockets.

Obviously that didn't work in the South. Plenty of businesses run by bigots thrived for many years.

What is it with libertarians and their attachment to rationalist ideals that are completely unsupported by history, facts, and evidence?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Not picking a fight, I'm just curious what your thoughts on the whole Chik-fil-A thing was, and I'm too lazy to go look up to see if you ever weighed in.

Libertarians never have a problem with a business being bigoted. They assume that the business will suffer for its prejudice. As we saw with Chik-Fil-A, that's not true.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by bronc_fan23

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-conservatism/

Good points made here. Too bad the screamers on the Right will drown out this kind of approach. The Republicans big mistake was catering to the extremists, racists, and evengelical nutjobs in order to take the South away from the Dems. Now, they're stuck with them. It's that age old question: Once you've jumped on a tiger's back, how do you dismount?

How strange that we seem to be still carrying on the same debate over what kind of government we have that Jefferson and Hamilton were conducting more than two hundred years ago.