Friday, November 21, 2008

How the GOP Views the Future of the GOP

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

The Republicans lost in November. Big time. Not just the Presidential race, nor the Senate and House numbers, but they lost their way. And now, as we've posted about before, they are discussing which direction they should take to "return."

Gallup polled, and found that 61% of Americans (of all parties) have a poor opinion of the Republican Party. That number is the lowest (or highest, depending on how you view it) since Gallup began asking the question.

Look at the little bump. That matches up with the height of Spunky's popularity.

In case you were wondering, only 78% of the Republican party members have a positive opinion of their own party. Maybe it's just me, but perhaps those 22% percent should consider belonging to, hhhmmmnnn, a different party?

So where do Republicans want their party to go? 59% think it should become MORE conservative. There is no telling how that 59% correlates to those who approve/disapprove of their party.

The House Republican leadership, just elected this week, are from the conservative branch of the party. Boehner (re-elected Minority Leader) said that his caucus will be pushing for small government and "conservative root" issues. And this is going to play well with the Republican base. Maybe. "Small government" "Fewer government programs" "Less government intervention in everything except religious issues" may not sell so well to an electorate which is legitimately hungry.

While the incoming Obama administration is selecting moderates, in yesterday's selection of Waxman over Dingell for Commerce and Energy, the House took a decided step left. If the GOP moves decidedly right, and lacks the votes to overcome the majority, and the ideas of the majority work, it will be a bad 2010 and 2012 for the Republicans. They won't just lose AGAIN, but their base will shrink to wingnuts only.

Take something like environmental protection. The Democratic position is that air pollution is bad, water pollution is bad, protecting endangered species is good, and doing something about Global Warming is critical. A far-right GOP will have to sell TO THEIR PEOPLE the idea that it really is better to pollute more, it doesn't matter if species die, and Global Warming is just part of a long term pattern.

Seems if they want to remain any sort of organized party, the GOP should move to the center, jump on the bandwagon, and help to save America. But they won't. Nor will they even cling to actual Republican ideals, rather they've decided to adhere to the co-opted ones from the last 30 years that have led us to this sandy precipice on which we stand.

For those few of you who like to send me nasty personal notes questioning my dedication to, and sometimes membership in, the Democratic Party, I say this: these times we live in are uncertain and dangerous. I would rather work with moderate Republicans to find solutions than have to waste time arguing with right wing idiots ideologues elected officials.

Comments (21)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Login or signup now to comment.
I think I have posted this before, but I am a Republican. A socially liberal, fiscally conservative Republican.

You wrote: "Maybe it's just me, but perhaps those 22% percent should consider belonging to, hhhmmmnnn, a different party?" Well, that is why I vollunteered and voted for Obama and Jim Esch. And I wish that the party had had a viable Senate candidate in Nebraska.

As a fiscal conservative, I want to see taxes go up. I was very proud of the Clinton-Gingrich budget surplus in the late 90's. I am 32 years old, and I would rather that the baby boomers help pay for the things that they have done to this country so that I don't have to pay for all of it. I also wish the Republican party wold drop ALL of the hate regarding social issues. I am pro-choice, pro GLBT rights, and anti-Bush civil liberties abuses.
Reply
7 replies · active 853 weeks ago
Peter, i am not of the same mindset as you, but i have the perfect party for you!

Pre 1964 Republican Party. Wonder that we no longer have a home in this country for that fiscal conservative/social liberal citizen. we have the social conservative/fiscally hateful, (GOP), social liberal/ fiscal liberal, (Dems), and the social conservative/ fiscal liberal (independents who usually vote for the winning candidate/party in any given election), but you old fashioned new England republicans are pretty much ignored...
Reply
Agreed. Chamber of Commerce Republicans. My employer provides health care benefits to same sex partners - it is a good business decision. Divisive religious issues, are not productive for business. Destroying the enviornment is expensive for business in the long-term, so government regulation should protect business from its own excesses. A regulatory environment should provide a level playing field for true economic competion. Government regulations that pick winners and losers are not a good idea. I think government should provide basic healthcare for everyone. Of course those with money will always have better care, but everyone should have their basics covered. Look at the two-level National Health Service / Private Insurance model in the UK. Uninsured consuming resouces at emergency rooms are a source of inefficiency that makes the heath care system more expensive than it needs to be.
Reply
There is a socially responsible, fiscally reasonable (conservative) solution to all of these problems. Unfortunately, I am a minority voice

Why not quit the party? Then I couldn't vote in the primaries to try to reclaim the party for the future. I do not support fire-breathers in the primary and will not vote for them in the general.
Reply
I'm glad that I was able to still find some "Republicans for Obama" signs on the Obama website so I could update my graphic.
Reply
What happened to those pre-1964 type Republicans, that's what I want to know? I would really like a two party system where the election of the opposing candidate didn't seem like Armageddon.
Reply
Peter, i agree with you, when i first got involved with the dems, the dlc was running the show and we were trying to be GOP lite, as a far left liberal, i was sorely tempted to work for the greens, but i (and many others) stayed in the party and while we havent pulled to dennis kucinich/michael moore leftism, we are a bit further away from the trying to be as much like the GOP as possible. one person can be part of a larger movement and swing a party. i have found that both national parties are run by a relatively few number of people, and even a smaller number of really active volunteers. if one is willing to get involved within the local party, one can, over time, make a big difference.

good luck at running the wingnuts out of your party (of course i am what yuo would call a wingnut, trying, to take ove my party:)...)
Reply
We all have issues for which we have passions. I do not begrudge that to you. It is impossible to seek a compromise if you start with the same position as your opposition. The nice thing about our constitutional system of government is that it forces moderation. The House was designed to feel the popular sentiment with elections every two years with the Senate as a place to cool things down. I will post a longer quote in a minute.

I understand that you would prefer to see strong leftward movement in Legislation. Let me again share my list of the "sensible seven." When drafting legislation consider if all seven of these Senators will support it. If not, it could be a victim of a fillibuster in the Senate.

Baucus, Max, D-Mont.
Conrad, Kent, D-N.D.
Dorgan, Byron, D-N.D.
Johnson, Tim, D-S.D.
Landrieu, Mary, D-La.
Nelson, Ben, D-Neb.
Pryor, Mark, D-Ark.
Reply
I'm 42, and am pretty similar to you in my politics, but have always been a Democrat, although I have voted Republican at times in state and local races. As far as I'm concerned, all else being equal, private (both profit, non-profit, and grass-roots) solutions are better than government ones, and local government is better than federal. But all else is not always equal, and then I'm a pragmatist--so I sometimes end up supporting federal solutions.
Reply
Pragmatic solutions are what we really need. It is a cliche, but there is not a Democratic or Republican way to fill a pot hole in a city.

Regarding registration, I would imagine it also has a lot to do with where you live. "Moderates" in the midwest are slightly more likely to be registerd as Republicans. I suppose on the coasts or in urban centers, "moderates" may register as Democrats. Again, I see a great strategic benefit to voting in primaries for the moderating force. If I lived in NYC, I could see myself being a conservative Democrat, but willing to vote for someone like Giuliani for "tough on crime" reasons.

It could also be our difference in age. At age 32, I grew up on an Air Force base during the Reagan years. Your political consciousness may have been forged during the Nixon years.
Reply
The country hasn't changed ideology, this is still a center-right country. The change was the people in charge of the GOP, that is the change in the mood of the country. That and Obama is a really great candidate. Congress going far left or far left is the worst thing possible long term for the democrats. The country is still center right as evidenced by things like the pure blue state California voting for prop 8. A left agenda will just cause everyone to move back to the GOP.
Reply
3 replies · active 853 weeks ago
Center-right only when compared to the rest of the world.

The problem with the Republican Party can be described by the simple fact that today's "base" Republican is more conservative than Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, Richard Nixon, or Barry Goildwater. I sometimes tell a joke here in Missouri that compared to George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, former Attorney General John Ashcroft looks like a liberal.

Growing up in the late 70s, both parties had a significant group of moderates who essentially shared the same philosophy (with the difference being one of degrees -- the Democrats favoring slightly more government involvement and slightly higher taxes and the Republicans favoring slightly smaller government) -- basically the Chamber of Commerce philosophy noted above. That centrist group isn't there any more, especially on the Republican side.
Reply
I don't really buy the "center right country" schtick as it uses flawed means of measurement. Very few people will say that they are liberal even though they support many progressive initiavies. Likewise many people may answer "conservative" to mean moderate, as in not radical.

I do think progressives in the House should be careful of how far they attempt to push things to the left. First, only legislation with bipartisan support will clear the Senate. Second, keep in mind that conservatives like me (Obama Republicans) were part of his winning coaltion. Without this moderate appeal, he could have lost 264-274 [CO (9), FL (27), IN (11), NC (15), NE-2 (1), NM (5), OH (20) & VA (13)]
Reply
agreed, and i think he is smart enough to couch even his most "liberal" plans in pragmatic terms.
Reply
Lowell Palmer Weicker, Jr.considered runnign against TLB in 2006, that would have been a tough call...
Henry Martin "Scoop" Jackson, on the other side and Daniel Patrick Moynihan and even TLB, himself, Olympia Snow, Lincoln Chafee, Shays, and many others, part of the problem moderates are good targets for the other party, look at Gordon Smith and Norm Coleman, best i can gather, both of them are more democratic in their votes than blue dog dems like my Nelson, FL, but yet we pick them off whenever we can, and the GOP does the same to our guys, so eventually you get harder and harder divided parties and then the indies stay home and wait for a reasonable alternative. i hav eoften thought a Reasonable Party that took the real middle way could win by not having to run to the base in the primaries and then try to run to the middle after the nomination and risk alienating the base that got them the nomination. think about it, if america is 38 dem, 31 gop and 31 indie, this party could get say 25 from the indies, and 10 each from the parties wins 45 with dems getting 28 and the gop getting 21. i think obama saw this and that is why he has run to the middle in philosophy the whole campaign, even as he promoted a pretty progressive agenda.

i am sure most americans support SOME abortion rights and SOME gun rights. they support the DEATH penalty in heinous cases, but would rather see low cost programs that helped prevent at risk kids from going into a life of crime, they want a strong defense, but want us to be fair in our foreign affairs, and so on.
Reply
1 reply · active 853 weeks ago
Well, it was only eight years ago that a lot of people were saying there wasn't much difference between the two major parties, and that it didn't matter whether Bush or Gore got elected.

Oops.

And in the elections before that one, Perot was a big factor.

So the dominance of this whole red-state/blue-state polarization is actually a recent thing.

The most difficult vote I ever made was for was Chris van Hollen over Connie Morella. Morella was the kind of moderate Republican who I might have voted for under ordinary circumstances...heck, she kept winning her solidly Democratic district in the suburbs of DC. But that was the one and only time at that level that I voted for the party and not the person. I felt GWB was a real threat to the country, and he needed to be stopped any way that we could, and putting more Democrats in Congress was part of that. So I not only voted for van Hollen, I also contributed to him. Don't get me wrong--van Hollen has been a very good member of Congress, and he was my choice in the primary. But I did feel a twinge voting against Morella, knowing that there was nothing she could have done short of changing parties that could have won my vote.
Reply
there have been lots of folks on the right and the left, since at least george wallace in 1964 who said there wasnt a dimes worth of difference between the parties. ki have agood friend here in florida and he worked hard for the green party and nader in 2000. i tried to convince him of the horrors of a GWB admin, he said, so what, the worse it gets, the more likely people would vote green, because he felt the dems under clinton were too much like republicans. i am hearing that this year from far right gopers, mccain and bush were "just as bad as the dems." i do not understand how one could look at clinton, with all his flaws and think W wouldnt have been a step in the wrong direction and to allow america to suffer the blight of the last 8 yrs to "teach them a lesson" is not my idea of loving your country. i hope someday to be able to either work hard for a green party or see the dems co opt the greens, but until then, i will fight within the dems to move us towards a progressive green party, i think with obama we are closer than we have been and i thinkwe will get there within the party framework. this whole concept of burning down your party to save it befuddles me.
Reply
We moved a step closer toward going green this week with the selection of Henry Waxman to chair Energy & Commerce. Henry is tenacious, principaled, and smart. Mother Nature is likely smiling at this turn of events.

Something I have not checked into yet -- Are the Udall cousins as strong on the environment as were their fathers? If so then they should be able to help the cause in the Senate.
Reply

Comments by