The Great Republican Revolt

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Very interesting read I did not post the whole thing because it's long, I think it hits home on what is happening in the Republican party.

Would like to get some feedback on what resident Republican/Conservatives think of the full article and the options posted below.

Entire article is here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/


Option 1: Double Down

The premise of the past few thousand words is that the Republican donor elite failed to impose its preferred candidate on an unwilling base in 2015 for big and important reasons. But maybe that premise is wrong. Maybe Jeb Bush has just been a bad candidate with a radioactive last name. Maybe the same message and platform would have worked fine if espoused by a fresher and livelier candidate. Such is the theory of Marco Rubio’s campaign. Or—even if the donor message and platform have troubles—maybe $100 million in negative ads can scorch any potential alternative, enabling the donor-backed candidate to win by default.


And if not Rubio, maybe the core donor message could still work if joined to a true outsider candidacy: Ben Carson’s, for example. Carson is often regarded as a protest candidate, but as The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes enthused back in January 2015: “One thing not in doubt is Carson’s conservatism. He’s the real deal, an economic, social, and foreign policy conservative.” Carson may say wacky things, but he does not say heterodox things.

Yet even if the Republican donor elite can keep control of the party while doubling down, it’s doubtful that the tactic can ultimately win presidential elections. The “change nothing but immigration” advice was a self-flattering fantasy from the start. Immigration is not the main reason Republican presidential candidates lose so badly among Latino and Asian American voters, and never was: Latino voters are more likely to list education and health care as issues that are extremely important to them. A majority of Asian Americans are non-Christian and susceptible to exclusion by sectarian religious themes.

So …

Option 2: Tactical Concession


Perhaps some concession to the disgruntled base is needed. That’s the theory of the Cruz campaign and—after a course correction—also of the Christie campaign. Instead of 2013’s “Conservatism Classic Plus Immigration Liberalization,” Cruz and Christie are urging “Conservatism Classic Plus Immigration Enforcement.” True, Cruz’s carefully selected words on immigration leave open the possibility of guest-worker programs or other pro-employer reforms after a burst of border enforcement. But Cruz and Christie have seen the reaction to Donald Trump’s message, and appear to appreciate the need to at least seem to do something to redress the grievances of the Republican base.


Much of the donor elite could likely be convinced that while Jeb Bush’s idea of immigration reform would be good to have, it isn’t a must-have. Just as the party elite reached a pact on abortion with social conservatives in the 1980s, it could concede the immigration issue to its Main Street base in the 2010s.

The party elites’ “change nothing but immigration” advice after Romney’s defeat was a self-flattering fantasy from the start.
Yet a narrow focus on immigration populism alone seems insufficient to raise Republican hopes. Trump shrewdly joins his immigration populism to trade populism. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders’s opposition to open borders is logically connected to his hopes for a Democratic Socialist future: His admired Denmark upholds high labor standards along with some of the world’s toughest immigration rules. Severed from a larger agenda, however—as Mitt Romney tried to sever the issue in 2012—immigration populism looks at best like pandering, and at worst like identity politics for white voters. In a society that is and always has been multiethnic and polyglot, any national party must compete more broadly than that.

Which brings us to …

Option 3: True Reform

Admittedly, this may be the most uncongenial thought of them all, but party elites could try to open more ideological space for the economic interests of the middle class. Make peace with universal health-insurance coverage: Mend Obamacare rather than end it. Cut taxes less at the top, and use the money to deliver more benefits to working families in the middle. Devise immigration policy to support wages, not undercut them. Worry more about regulations that artificially transfer wealth upward, and less about regulations that constrain financial speculation. Take seriously issues such as the length of commutes, nursing-home costs, and the anticompetitive practices that inflate college tuition. Remember that Republican voters care more about aligning government with their values of work and family than they care about cutting the size of government as an end in itself. Recognize that the gimmick of mobilizing the base with culture-war outrages stopped working at least a decade ago.



Such a party would cut health-care costs by squeezing providers, not young beneficiaries. It would boost productivity by investing in hard infrastructure—bridges, airports, water-treatment plants. It would restore Dwight Eisenhower to the Republican pantheon alongside Ronald Reagan and emphasize the center in center-right.


To imagine the change is to see how convulsive it would be—and how unlikely. True, center-right conservative parties backed by broad multiethnic coalitions of the middle class have gained and exercised power in other English-speaking countries, even as Republicans lost the presidency in 2008 and 2012. But the most-influential voices in American conservatism reject the experience of their foreign counterparts as weak, unprincipled, and unnecessary. In parliamentary democracy, winning or losing is starkly binary: A party either is in power or is the opposition. In the American system, that binary is much blurrier. Republicans can, of course, exert some control over government as long as they hold any one of the House, Senate, or presidency.

Which brings us finally to …

Option 4: Change the Rules of the Game

“The filibuster used to be bad. Now it’s good.” So Fred Thompson, the late actor and former Republican senator, jokingly told an audience on a National Review cruise shortly after Barack Obama won the presidency for the first time. How partisans feel about process issues is notoriously related to what process would benefit them at any given moment. Liberals loved the interventionist Supreme Court in the 1960s and ’70s, hated it in the 1990s and 2000s—and may rotate their opinion again if a President Hillary Clinton can tilt a majority of the Supreme Court their way. It’s an old story that may find a new twist if and when Republicans acknowledge that the presidency may be attainable only after they make policy changes that are unacceptable to the party elite.


There are metrics, after all, by which the post-2009 GOP appears to be a supremely successful political party. Recently, Rory Cooper, of the communications firm Purple Strategies, tallied a net gain to the Republicans of 69 seats in the House of Representatives, 13 seats in the Senate, 900-plus seats in state legislatures, and 12 governorships since Obama took office. With that kind of grip on state government, in particular, Republicans are well positioned to write election and voting rules that sustain their hold on the national legislature. The president may be able to grant formerly illegal immigrants the right to work, but he cannot grant them the right to vote. In this light, instead of revising Republican policies to stop future Barack Obamas and Hillary Clintons, maybe it’s necessary to revise only the party rules to stop future Donald Trumps from confronting party elites with their own unpopularity.

The inaugural issue of The Weekly Standard, the conservative magazine launched in 1995, depicted then–Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich swinging into action, a submachine gun blazing in his left hand, under the headline “Permanent Offense.” But that was then. Maybe the more natural condition of conservative parties is permanent defense—and where better to wage a long, grinding defensive campaign than in Congress and the statehouses? Maybe the presidency itself should be regarded as one of those things that is good to have but not a must-have, especially if obtaining it requires uncomfortable change.

What happens to an elite whose followers withdraw their assent? Does it self-examine? Or does it take refuge in denial? Does it change? Or does it try to prevent change? Does it challenge itself to build a new political majority? Or does it seize the opportunities the American political system offers to compact and purposeful minorities? When its old answers fail, will it think anew? Or will it simply repeat louder the dogmas that enthralled supporters in the past? Americans love the crush of competition, the hard-fought struggle, the long-slogging race. But much more than the pundit’s “Who will win?,” it is these deeper questions from the election of 2016 that will shape the future of American politics.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Another interesting article here.

Why America Is Moving Left

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-america-is-moving-left/419112/

Excerpt from the article.

Understanding why requires understanding why the Democratic Party—and more important, the country at large—is becoming more liberal.

The story of the Democratic Party’s journey leftward has two chapters. The first is about the presidency of George W. Bush. Before Bush, unapologetic liberalism was not the Democratic Party’s dominant creed. The party had a strong centrist wing, anchored in Congress by white southerners such as Tennessee Senator Al Gore, who had supported much of Ronald Reagan’s defense buildup, and Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, who had stymied Bill Clinton’s push for gays in the military. For intellectual guidance, centrist Democrats looked to the Democratic Leadership Council, which opposed raising the minimum wage; to The New Republic (a magazine I edited in the early 2000s), which attacked affirmative action and Roe v. Wade; and to the Washington Monthly, which proposed means-testing Social Security.

Centrist Democrats believed that Reagan, for all his faults, had gotten some big things right. The Soviet Union had been evil. Taxes had been too high. Excessive regulation had squelched economic growth. The courts had been too permissive of crime. Until Democrats acknowledged these things, the centrists believed, they would neither win the presidency nor deserve to. In the late 1980s and the 1990s, an influential community of Democratic-aligned politicians, strategists, journalists, and wonks believed that critiquing liberalism from the right was morally and politically necessary.


George W. Bush wiped this community out. Partly, he did so by rooting the GOP more firmly in the South—Reagan’s political base had been in the West—aiding the slow-motion extinction of white southern Democrats that had begun when the party embraced civil rights. But Bush also destroyed centrist Democrats intellectually, by making it impossible for them to credibly critique liberalism from the right.

In the late 1980s and the 1990s, centrist Democrats had argued that Reagan’s decisions to cut the top income-tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent and to loosen government regulation had spurred economic growth. When Bush cut the top rate to 35 percent in 2001 and further weakened regulation, however, inequality and the deficit grew, but the economy barely did—and then the financial system crashed. In the late ’80s and the ’90s, centrist Democrats had also argued that Reagan’s decision to boost defense spending and aid the Afghan mujahideen had helped topple the Soviet empire. But in 2003, when Bush invaded Iraq, he sparked the greatest foreign-policy catastrophe since Vietnam.
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
did not read but the republican party sucks. I wish it would implode.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,698
did not read but the republican party sucks. I wish it would implode.
Same. It's a conservative's only chance at having someone in office they agree with.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Same. It's a conservative's only chance at having someone in office they agree with.
I would hope the same thing but the party leaders will not relinquish to someone they do not sanction. There will be a struggle and fight but in the end the party chiefs will have their way. I hope it doesn't happen that way.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
America moving left? Gee, wonder why? Maybe because they kicked God out of schools in the '60's, media and Hollywood keep pushing the envelope and their liberal social agenda, main stream news organization are just arms of the DNC, and then the liberal gov't run education system.

First it was teaching ideology, then social agenda like gay rights in 1st grade, socialism in elementary and high school. Now these kids are so messed up that by the time they get to college they have to have designated 'safe spaces' because they can't deal with anyone who has opposing views. It's basically now at the point of no return. Don't think we can put the Genie back in the bottle. This country is screwed big time.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
So nobody wants to actually read the articles and discuss what they are actually talking about.:shrug
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
America moving left? Gee, wonder why? Maybe because they kicked God out of schools in the '60's, media and Hollywood keep pushing the envelope and their liberal social agenda, main stream news organization are just arms of the DNC, and then the liberal gov't run education system.

First it was teaching ideology, then social agenda like gay rights in 1st grade, socialism in elementary and high school. Now these kids are so messed up that by the time they get to college they have to have designated 'safe spaces' because they can't deal with anyone who has opposing views. It's basically now at the point of no return. Don't think we can put the Genie back in the bottle. This country is screwed big time.
One of the most depressing posts ever.

My hope isn't in the world system thankfully.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I read it. As far as I can tell the thesis is that Republicans might become content to affect national policy without dictating it, almost acting as the backseat driver of national politics. This would be my preference. I'd be lying if I said I want to paint congress and the whitehouse blue.

Landslides lead to perceived mandates, which lead to shitty legislation. Also Paul Ryan seems to be hitting a good stride as the house speaker, I'd prefer to keep him over Pelosi or whoever.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
America moving left? Gee, wonder why? Maybe because they kicked God out of schools in the '60's, media and Hollywood keep pushing the envelope and their liberal social agenda, main stream news organization are just arms of the DNC, and then the liberal gov't run education system.

First it was teaching ideology, then social agenda like gay rights in 1st grade, socialism in elementary and high school. Now these kids are so messed up that by the time they get to college they have to have designated 'safe spaces' because they can't deal with anyone who has opposing views. It's basically now at the point of no return. Don't think we can put the Genie back in the bottle. This country is screwed big time.
This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Just the biggest wank off for every bygone generation.

How much is the Christian God needed in schools? This is why boomers are the most entitled fucking generation. They think their personal dogma should be taught alongside arithmetic. What the fuck kind of broken ass ideology would even want their personal private beliefs taught in schools? If it's that integral a part of your morality, then kids should probably learn it from their parents.

(By the way, I was homeschooled to keep me away from that big bad Godless school, of the other homeschoolers I know about half skew liberal and the other half reblog Matt Walsh.)

It's true the media skews liberal, but I don't think that's what's killing conservatism. It's that right wing media is junk food. Liberal media has it's junk too (MSNBC) but it also has NPR (which would be some kind of kale in this analogy). Fox News, Drudge Report, and all of that shit is meant to be digested easily and reinforce your own biases. Now Republican, right wing ideology is epitomized by dumb old men who won't stop worrying about Muslims invading their suburban home in Iowa. (Which is why Trump is your front runner)

As far as the "safe spaces" thing goes. I think that's one of those things that happen when really really privileged college kids decide that they're actually oppressed. They're a very whiny, vocal minority of young people. I'm not too worried about those kinds of people because they'll just end up doing nothing of value with their "women's dance history studies" degree and complain about the wage gap.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I read it. As far as I can tell the thesis is that Republicans might become content to affect national policy without dictating it, almost acting as the backseat driver of national politics. This would be my preference. I'd be lying if I said I want to paint congress and the whitehouse blue.

Landslides lead to perceived mandates, which lead to shitty legislation. Also Paul Ryan seems to be hitting a good stride as the house speaker, I'd prefer to keep him over Pelosi or whoever.
I can get on board with this but I think these things should be cyclical and each party should counterbalance any overreach by the other.

If one party is always backseat driving they will tend to be increasingly marginalized and have a lesser effect on policy.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Just the biggest wank off for every bygone generation.

How much is the Christian God needed in schools? This is why boomers are the most entitled fucking generation. They think their personal dogma should be taught alongside arithmetic. What the fuck kind of broken ass ideology would even want their personal private beliefs taught in schools? If it's that integral a part of your morality, then kids should probably learn it from their parents.

(By the way, I was homeschooled to keep me away from that big bad Godless school, of the other homeschoolers I know about half skew liberal and the other half reblog Matt Walsh.)

It's true the media skews liberal, but I don't think that's what's killing conservatism. It's that right wing media is junk food. Liberal media has it's junk too (MSNBC) but it also has NPR (which would be some kind of kale in this analogy). Fox News, Drudge Report, and all of that shit is meant to be digested easily and reinforce your own biases. Now Republican, right wing ideology is epitomized by dumb old men who won't stop worrying about Muslims invading their suburban home in Iowa. (Which is why Trump is your front runner)

As far as the "safe spaces" thing goes. I think that's one of those things that happen when really really privileged college kids decide that they're actually oppressed. They're a very whiny, vocal minority of young people. I'm not too worried about those kinds of people because they'll just end up doing nothing of value with their "women's dance history studies" degree and complain about the wage gap.
Could not have said it better.

The real funny part in all of this is how "victimized" conservatives now feel after railing about minorities doing this type of complaining for years.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
I read it. As far as I can tell the thesis is that Republicans might become content to affect national policy without dictating it, almost acting as the backseat driver of national politics. This would be my preference. I'd be lying if I said I want to paint congress and the whitehouse blue.

Landslides lead to perceived mandates, which lead to shitty legislation. Also Paul Ryan seems to be hitting a good stride as the house speaker, I'd prefer to keep him over Pelosi or whoever.
Or in other terms, the Republican party should say "we don't want the presidency" we just want to dominate everywhere else. Didn't really find the article interesting at all.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I can get on board with this but I think these things should be cyclical and each party should counterbalance any overreach by the other.

If one party is always backseat driving they will tend to be increasingly marginalized and have a lesser effect on policy.
I think we have hit a point where the Republican party has become so radioactive it has to cool down for a few years until the tea party/outsiders lose their leverage in the party. I think their overreach was so significant that they've lost a few turns. I wish it wasn't like that, but now they have to reap the consequences of shoddy governance.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I think we have hit a point where the Republican party has become so radioactive it has to cool down for a few years until the tea party/outsiders lose their leverage in the party. I think their overreach was so significant that they've lost a few turns. I wish it wasn't like that, but now they have to reap the consequences of shoddy governance.
They have an opportunity to turn things around by effectively governing with majorities in the Congress and Senate, they need to actually come up with policies and implement them.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
This is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Just the biggest wank off for every bygone generation.
And yet all the reasons I mentioned are causes to why the country has moved to the left.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Or in other terms, the Republican party should say "we don't want the presidency" we just want to dominate everywhere else. Didn't really find the article interesting at all.
It kind of makes sense though. Republicans can't unify enough behind a single platform to endorse a good presidential candidate. Libertarians, are not Hawks, who aren't tea partiers, who aren't fascists. Rand, Rubio, Cruz, and Trump are all faces of the republican party, 3 of them are going to be affecting national policy after the inevitable loss. Right now the Republicans are a confederacy of mutually exclusive, competing ideologies, so the best they can hope for is to slow down a more popular, more unified democratic party.

Think about how much more catastrophic it would be for the party if Ted Cruz was elected president. Even if he did a good job (he wouldn't). The media would skewer him for being an unlikable conservative from Texas, with less charisma than Richard Nixon has at this very moment. So they'd have to weather another 2008 backlash.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
And yet all the reasons I mentioned are causes to why the country has moved to the left.
Except its not. The country is moving left, because the right wing is broken. Because the non-liberal political wing is so toxic, a lifelong Democrat has been firmly in control of the presidential primary, just because he's willing to say the most ignorant shit imaginable.

Because when the Democrats chose Carter over Wallace, his odious constituents were welcomed to the Republican party with open arms, and have ruined the party from within.

The reason why the nation is moving left, is because much like 19 year old college girls, Republicans have been hiding within a "safe space". Because at some point republicans receded to the comfort of an echo chamber, and have become content to sooth themselves rather than change philosophies. Somehow they think their religion, their God, their way of life is under attack all the time, whenever it's questioned.

Shielding your beliefs from new eyes and new interpretations is the surest way to kill them within a generation. Republicans may have just accomplished that.
 
Top Bottom