Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

[Pyperkub]

Or dead of natural causes. Dead works for me.

Right now, R voters are jumping off the trump train. Ultimately only his most rabid fans will be left. Even though there are a lot of them, if the RNC doubles down on fascism they're going to regret it.

By my count, the Superspreader In Chief may only have 2-3 months of Immunity left, and w/o Gov't Health Care, he wouldn't have survived the last time:

People who have been infected with Covid-19 are likely to be protected against catching it again for at least five months, according to a new study led by Public Health England (PHE).
The study -- which has not yet been peer reviewed

[Grifman]

I don't think that's the best thing for the Democrats at all. The best thing for the Democrats - and our republic - would be to have two functional, sane political parties. Even if you disagree with core principles of the GOP platform (or, at least, what that platform used to be), it's vital that we have options and alternatives. We all benefit from hearing competing viewpoints and ideas. The Democratic party is a big tent, and there are certainly different voices within that tent, but it's not the same as having a competing viewpoint from another party. I fear for what the Democratic party will become if it's operating in a vacuum.

I don't want to see the GOP crippled or dead. I want to see it purged of the Trumpaloos and rebuilt from the ground up, returning to principles of limited government, free market capitalism, fiscal conservatism and strong national defense.

I'm not optimistic that's going to happen at this point, but I do believe that's what we need.

Oh, I strongly agree that we need a strong conservative party, even Biden came out last week and said so. I've voted for both parties in the past and would like to again. My point, perhaps not made very clearly, is that this is not going to happen any time soon. The Republicans are going to have to go away into the wilderness as a viable party for Trumpism to be purged. As long as they can win elections with that disease, it will never be purged from the body politic. And to do my part, I have taken a personal vow to never vote Republican until Trumpism is purged and not to vote for any Republican in the least supported Trump, until they publicly recant and admit they were wrong.

[hepcat]

By my count, the Superspreader In Chief may only have 2-3 months of Immunity left, and w/o Gov't Health Care, he wouldn't have survived the last time:

I think you're vastly underestimating the curative powers of the Colonel's 11 herbs and spices.

[Zaxxon]

I don't think that's the best thing for the Democrats at all. The best thing for the Democrats - and our republic - would be to have two functional, sane political parties. Even if you disagree with core principles of the GOP platform (or, at least, what that platform used to be), it's vital that we have options and alternatives. We all benefit from hearing competing viewpoints and ideas. The Democratic party is a big tent, and there are certainly different voices within that tent, but it's not the same as having a competing viewpoint from another party. I fear for what the Democratic party will become if it's operating in a vacuum.

I don't want to see the GOP crippled or dead. I want to see it purged of the Trumpaloos and rebuilt from the ground up, returning to principles of limited government, free market capitalism, fiscal conservatism and strong national defense.

I'm not optimistic that's going to happen at this point, but I do believe that's what we need.

Oh, I strongly agree that we need a strong conservative party, even Biden came out last week and said so. I've voted for both parties in the past and would like to again. My point, perhaps not made very clearly, is that this is not going to happen any time soon. The Republicans are going to have to go away into the wilderness as a viable party for Trumpism to be purged. As long as they can win elections with that disease, it will never be purged from the body politic. And to do my part, I have taken a personal vow to never vote Republican until Trumpism is purged and not to vote for any Republican in the least supported Trump, until they publicly recant and admit they were wrong.

Yep, this.

[Pyperkub]

I don't think that's the best thing for the Democrats at all. The best thing for the Democrats - and our republic - would be to have two functional, sane political parties. Even if you disagree with core principles of the GOP platform (or, at least, what that platform used to be), it's vital that we have options and alternatives. We all benefit from hearing competing viewpoints and ideas. The Democratic party is a big tent, and there are certainly different voices within that tent, but it's not the same as having a competing viewpoint from another party. I fear for what the Democratic party will become if it's operating in a vacuum.

I don't want to see the GOP crippled or dead. I want to see it purged of the Trumpaloos and rebuilt from the ground up, returning to principles of limited government, free market capitalism, fiscal conservatism and strong national defense.

I'm not optimistic that's going to happen at this point, but I do believe that's what we need.

Oh, I strongly agree that we need a strong conservative party, even Biden came out last week and said so. I've voted for both parties in the past and would like to again. My point, perhaps not made very clearly, is that this is not going to happen any time soon. The Republicans are going to have to go away into the wilderness as a viable party for Trumpism to be purged. As long as they can win elections with that disease, it will never be purged from the body politic. And to do my part, I have taken a personal vow to never vote Republican until Trumpism is purged and not to vote for any Republican in the least supported Trump, until they publicly recant and admit they were wrong.

Yep, this.

We need the parties (both, but currently a far larger percentage of the GOP, to stop doing this for power):

[LordMortis]

Oh, I strongly agree that we need a strong conservative party, even Biden came out last week and said so. I've voted for both parties in the past and would like to again. My point, perhaps not made very clearly, is that this is not going to happen any time soon. The Republicans are going to have to go away into the wilderness as a viable party for Trumpism to be purged. As long as they can win elections with that disease, it will never be purged from the body politic. And to do my part, I have taken a personal vow to never vote Republican until Trumpism is purged and not to vote for any Republican in the least supported Trump, until they publicly recant and admit they were wrong.

Historically, you tend toward a bit more conservative than me, IIRC, but this is almost exactly where I am. I actually need a bit more than the Trumpism purge (I need the legal gamesmanship and doubletalk toned back many degrees from where it had led us) and I need a bit of sustained change in that bit more but I do long for being able to vote against democrats (or more preferably for their alternative) I don't want in good conscience.

[Little Raven]

Oh, I strongly agree that we need a strong conservative party, even Biden came out last week and said so. I've voted for both parties in the past and would like to again. My point, perhaps not made very clearly, is that this is not going to happen any time soon.

I think you might be surprised. Big business is abandoning Republicans wholesale. But it's not like capital power players are just going to exit politics entirely - that's money that is going to be rerouted into Democratic coffers instead. Republican voters are leaving the party wholesale. Most of these people aren't going to stop voting. They're going to start voting for Democrats instead...particularly in Democratic primaries.

There's a decent chance the Democrats become a "conservative" party in relatively short order. Not conservative in the sense that the Republicans have used it recently, which is downright reactionary - Democrats will remain committed to minority rights and social safety nets, but will shy away from some of the more progressive wish list items. (If there is a "Green New Deal," it will be written by lobbyists, no dropping of the filibuster, no packing the Courts, no adding new States) Basically, Democrats become the party of "let's keep things mostly the same as they are, with maybe minor tweaks here and there." Republicans, meanwhile, become the "We need radical action NOW!" party.

[noxiousdog]

the 95% of House Representatives voting against Impeachment doesn't tell me that (yet).

That's less than any other presidential impeachment vote.

[Holman]

I think you might be surprised. Big business is abandoning Republicans wholesale. But it's not like capital power players are just going to exit politics entirely - that's money that is going to be rerouted into Democratic coffers instead. Republican voters are leaving the party wholesale.

Correction: big business has promised to abandon Republicans wholesale, suddenly, in what is probably the worst week for the GOP brand since Watergate.

They'll be back as soon as Republicans provide a fig-leaf for it. Influence is a powerful thing, and the GOP can always promise looser regulation and oversight than the Dems.

[Little Raven]

They'll be back as soon as Republicans provide a fig-leaf for it. Influence is a powerful thing, and the GOP can always promise looser regulation and oversight than the Dems.

But that's not actually the most important thing for big business. Sure, they enjoy loose regulation and oversight, but by far the most important thing to big business is stability. And that's something the Republicans can no longer promise.

[Grifman]

I think Terry Kanefield has the best view of what lies ahead for the Republican Party in this twitter thread:

[malchior]

What she summarizes at a very high level is discussed at wider scale in this book: Let Them Eat Tweets. Well worth the deep dive. One of the upsides of their little insurrection last week is that the alignment between Plutocracy and far right extremism -- discussed in this book as a threat to our Democracy -- has been thwarted for the moment. Now we seemingly will have straight up insurgency. My guess is the show of force next week will work and we may very well see nothing happen. Though there is a chance this weekend is going to be a shit show. Let's hope not. In any case, we may not see anything happen until Biden is in office and some of the vigilance has waned a bit.

[Pyperkub]

I think Terry Kanefield has the best view of what lies ahead for the Republican Party in this twitter thread:

She ignores the religion extremism.

[Grifman]

Another problem for Republicans is the QANON caucus, which is likely to grow in the future:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/16/politics ... index.html

Unfortunately, with razor thin margins in a number of states, the Republicans can't easily repudiate this group, especially if it takes even more root among the party faithful.

[Holman]

Speaking of QAnon, in case you were wondering where the goalposts were now that Biden's Inauguration looks inevitable...

The new theory is that Trump will be inaugurated in March (the original Inauguration date), and that he will not be receiving a new term as the 45th president but will in fact be the 19th president.

This is because after Ulysses S. Grant, the original Republic ceased to be and the U.S. became a corporation. Trump's next inauguration will be a restoration of the actual Republic.

(Presumably this theory derives from the Electoral College difficulties involved in the election of Hayes after Grant, but I dunno.)

So January 20th doesn't matter at all, guys. Trust the Plan!!1!

[WYBaugh]

Speaking of QAnon, in case you were wondering where the goalposts were now that Biden's Inauguration looks inevitable...

The new theory is that Trump will be inaugurated in March (the original Inauguration date), and that he will not be receiving a new term as the 45th president but will in fact be the 19th president.

This is because after Ulysses S. Grant, the original Republic ceased to be and the U.S. became a corporation. Trump's next inauguration will be a restoration of the actual Republic.

(Presumably this theory derives from the Electoral College difficulties involved in the election of Hayes after Grant, but I dunno.)

So January 20th doesn't matter at all, guys. Trust the Plan!!1!

Could this be a start of an official 'Cult of Trump' in Mar-A-Lago? He could use religious freedom, Desantis would be all for it. Police, militia and his cultists would flock to him to set up their own pseudo-government in Florida. Be like Scientologists but more crazy.

[Daehawk]

Ha Florida. That place is full of elderly behind car steering wheels. They wont survive in Florida.

[malchior]

This is why some of us see protracted unrest ahead. It isn't just that we have angry #MAGA out there. Establishment GOP figures are actively stoking insurrection at various levels of our government. They are perpetuating a lie that the election was stolen and reinforcing QAnon and other conspiracy theories. Worse it is manifesting in actual action which will be spun as legitimacy. In effect, "We wouldn't have gotten rid of *that guy* unless this was real".

[LordMortis]

Said it before, Cox is in bed with Parscale from very heart Michigan MAGA suburbia. Michigan's GOP has so clogged the shitter I didn't think the GOP would certify at all and that this would have gone to the SOS wherein the GOP would have cried havoc. The other (pleasant) surprise to come from all of this is Peter Meijer came into this and then abruptly did an about face from everything I assumed he was going to be after the acts of sedition.

[malchior]

The greatest takedown of McConnell I have ever read. The quote below is just a warm up for a thrashing that rips back McConnell's endless hypocrisy. I learned things I didn't know. McConnell was pro-choice for Pete's sake way back when. He abandoned that position like so many for power at the cost of his legacy and his humanity.

So tell me, Mitch, in these, your final hours as Senate majority leader: Were the judges and the tax cuts worth it?

Were they worth the sacking of the Capitol? The annexation of the Republican Party by the paranoiacs and the delusional? The degradation, possibly irremediable, of democracy itself?

Those close to him say that Mitch McConnell has his eye on his legacy, now more than ever. But I wonder whether he already understands, in some back bay of his brain where the gears haven’t been ground to nubs, that history will not treat him well.

McConnell may think that the speech he gave on the Senate floor on Jan. 6, objecting to the election deniers, will spare him history’s judgment. It will not. It did not make him a hero. It simply made him a responsible citizen.

If McConnell ultimately votes to convict Donald Trump in his second Senate impeachment trial — he has suggested he’s open to the idea — that won’t make him a hero, either. He will simply have done the right thing and likely not for the right reasons: As Alec MacGillis makes plain in his excellent book “The Cynic,” Mitch McConnell never does anything unless it serves the interests of Mitch McConnell.

[Zaxxon]

Not a bad summary...

[Paingod]

Prior to the GOP’s currrent demonization of the sciences, environmentalism was actually a cause many Republicans supported.

Not in my neck of the woods. One GOP member up for re-election in Maine was touting his involvement with cleaning up an essential waterway earlier in his career as a selling point. Curious, I went to dig up some info. Apparently, thanks to zero regulation on corporations, the river had become so polluted that it was toxic - like the surface was almost flammable. There was a big movement from Democrats to fix this, and I found a lot of GOP opposition to it originally because it was going to be expensive and force businesses out. This guy only signed on when it was going to pass one way or another without him. Yet here he was, 30+ years later, claiming to be part of the cleanup effort.

Today, this river is seen as a pristine wilderness and draws a lot of tourism dollars from people looking for clean outdoors fun. It's become a valuable resource in itself, without mills dumping chemicals into it.

My view on GOP 'environmentalism' is that it only extends until it butts up against corporate profit. For as long as I can remember, if an environmental control or regulation has a chance of dipping a small percentage out of the till, they oppose it.

[The Meal]

Bad attribution to that quote.

[malchior]

Bad attribution to that quote.

Yeah - though it is almost fair - it was a long-time ago now.

[LordMortis]

Prior to the GOP’s currrent demonization of the sciences, environmentalism was actually a cause many Republicans supported.

Not in my neck of the woods. One GOP member up for re-election in Maine was touting his involvement with cleaning up an essential waterway earlier in his career as a selling point. Curious, I went to dig up some info. Apparently, thanks to zero regulation on corporations, the river had become so polluted that it was toxic - like the surface was almost flammable. There was a big movement from Democrats to fix this, and I found a lot of GOP opposition to it originally because it was going to be expensive and force businesses out. This guy only signed on when it was going to pass one way or another without him. Yet here he was, 30+ years later, claiming to be part of the cleanup effort.

Today, this river is seen as a pristine wilderness and draws a lot of tourism dollars from people looking for clean outdoors fun. It's become a valuable resource in itself, without mills dumping chemicals into it.

My view on GOP 'environmentalism' is that it only extends until it butts up against corporate profit. For as long as I can remember, if an environmental control or regulation has a chance of dipping a small percentage out of the till, they oppose it.

Didn't used to be that way in Michigan. Once upon a time into the 80s and the early 90s there were was a huge "protect our natural resources" faction of the GOP here. Now it's all 2a lip service to keep the hunter vote. The rest of it is completely gone. They attack the carp problem as pork spending, support fracking, strip logging, deny waterway problems until it affects their districts, deny climate change as our biomes shift, etc... This is only a dominant GOP juggernaut since Koch became a household recognized name, since keystone became a recognized name, since DeVos and Engler started attacking the education system from within. It's been a 20 year journey of watching the drain circle.

Edit: Nesting changed per the Meal comment.

[malchior]

The whole drift from the point of actual conservation in Conservatism is the one that aligns the most with them holding onto influence and power. Alignment with polluter industries has been one of the main source of incomes, legislative support in the form of ALEC backed by the Kochs, and other lobbying groups for 30 years. It isn't some mystery to be solved tbh but the point stands that Conservatives generally used to vote in bipartisan ways on public lands issues as recently as H.W. Bush and now they just don't.

[The Meal]

[no longer relevant]

[Kurth]

Prior to the GOP’s current demonization of the sciences, environmentalism was actually a cause many Republicans supported.

Not in my neck of the woods. One GOP member up for re-election in Maine was touting his involvement with cleaning up an essential waterway earlier in his career as a selling point. Curious, I went to dig up some info. Apparently, thanks to zero regulation on corporations, the river had become so polluted that it was toxic - like the surface was almost flammable. There was a big movement from Democrats to fix this, and I found a lot of GOP opposition to it originally because it was going to be expensive and force businesses out. This guy only signed on when it was going to pass one way or another without him. Yet here he was, 30+ years later, claiming to be part of the cleanup effort.

Today, this river is seen as a pristine wilderness and draws a lot of tourism dollars from people looking for clean outdoors fun. It's become a valuable resource in itself, without mills dumping chemicals into it.

My view on GOP 'environmentalism' is that it only extends until it butts up against corporate profit. For as long as I can remember, if an environmental control or regulation has a chance of dipping a small percentage out of the till, they oppose it.

Didn't used to be that way in Michigan. Once upon a time into the 80s and the early 90s there were was a huge "protect our natural resources" faction of the GOP here. Now it's all 2a lip service to keep the hunter vote. The rest of it is completely gone. They attack the carp problem as pork spending, support fracking, strip logging, deny waterway problems until it affects their districts, deny climate change as our biomes shift, etc... This is only a dominant GOP juggernaut since Koch became a household recognized name, since keystone became a recognized name, since DeVos and Engler started attacking the education system from within. It's been a 20 year journey of watching the drain circle.

Still a bad attribution to the original quote.

I agree with The Meal. [edited to fix original bad attribution of quote]

The point is that environmentalism used to be much more of a bi-partisan issue. Sure, there were shitty Republicans who voted against good environmental causes as a matter of course, but there were also principled Republicans who believed in science and cared about the environment but still voted against regulation in some instances because they were concerned about the risks to business.

We need those types of disagreements to get to the right solutions to the problems we face, but it's impossible now that we're in a situation where one of the two parties is made up of science deniers who won't even agree on the facts that frame the problem.

I'll repeat again, we need a viable Republican party (or other, but that's hard to fathom) to make this democracy work.

[stessier]

We need those types of disagreements to get to the right solutions to the problems we face

I disagree with this. There are no "right solutions." There are only compromises and a second political party is no guarantee of achieving an effective solution.

[Kurth]

We need those types of disagreements to get to the right solutions to the problems we face

I disagree with this. There are no "right solutions." There are only compromises and a second political party is no guarantee of achieving an effective solution.

"good/better" solutions? Does that work?

[The Meal]

[no longer relevant — Thank you!]

[Carpet_pissr]

Malchior:

The greatest takedown of McConnell I have ever read. The quote below is just a warm up for a thrashing that rips back McConnell's endless hypocrisy. I learned things I didn't know. McConnell was pro-choice for Pete's sake way back when. He abandoned that position like so many for power at the cost of his legacy and his humanity.

So tell me, Mitch, in these, your final hours as Senate majority leader: Were the judges and the tax cuts worth it?

———————————————//——//
Damn I hate working with quotes on forums. HATE!!

Great op-Ed, thanks. I got lost reading the mostly insightful comments.

I would also say that yes, he probably DOES think the judges and massive tax cut for the rich (himself) were worth it.

One of the better comments:

“It took barbarians to bring down Rome, but now we've created our own home-grown variety, as we saw on January 6th. Keep wages low, decimate education, healthcare, infrastructure, and the taxes to fund them, and you get the troglodytes we saw rampaging through the Capitol. McConnell will be hurled to them as a human sacrifice by those who seek to supplant him.”

[stessier]

We need those types of disagreements to get to the right solutions to the problems we face

I disagree with this. There are no "right solutions." There are only compromises and a second political party is no guarantee of achieving an effective solution.

"good/better" solutions? Does that work?

Not really. It depends on your metric. If the "good" solution means more people agree with it, then yes, a second party can help. If a metric was "fix the problem as fast as possible", then perhaps not. Given that the Democratic party is not at all monolithic, I would think it could go it alone just fine.

[Zaxxon]

We need those types of disagreements to get to the right solutions to the problems we face

I disagree with this. There are no "right solutions." There are only compromises and a second political party is no guarantee of achieving an effective solution.

"good/better" solutions? Does that work?

Not really. It depends on your metric. If the "good" solution means more people agree with it, then yes, a second party can help. If a metric was "fix the problem as fast as possible", then perhaps not. Given that the Democratic party is not at all monolithic, I would think it could go it alone just fine.

And just to toss the obvious in--the existance of a second party doesn't necessarily imply that their competing solutions will be working toward an objective improvement, made in good faith, or, indeed, even that a competing solution will be brought forth (see eg GOP governing platforms in the past years). Further, in a 2-party system competing solutions often tend toward 'the opposition's ideas (or the opposition itself) are bad' moreso than 'our solutions are better.'

For a party-based system to be truly helpful in determining 'right solution,' more than two viable parties are needed, IMO.

[malchior]

For a party-based system to be truly helpful in determining 'right solution,' more than two viable parties are needed, IMO.

I agree. The rub is it is likely that'd require reform on a scale outside our capability to deliver. Especially since we seemingly have two groups with widely different values now. How would we get them to agree on the changes required?

[Kurth]

For a party-based system to be truly helpful in determining 'right solution,' more than two viable parties are needed, IMO.

I agree. The rub is it is likely that'd require reform on a scale outside our capability to deliver. Especially since we seemingly have two groups with widely different values now. How would we get them to agree on the changes required?

Exactly. In pining for a more functional two party system with two non-crazy parties, I'm not offering my version of the ideal.

I don't disagree that having more than two viable parties would be beneficial. I just don't see that as a likely near-term possibility.

[Zaxxon]

Unfortunately, I agree with you both on that.

[malchior]

Unfortunately, I agree with you both on that.

The scary part I can't think of one example of an illiberal authoritarian movement at this scale moderating itself. I won't say it has never happened or impossible to accomplish but it seems far more likely it'll get worse than get better. The conditions that satisfy them are essentially achieving total control over the government. This is fundamentally antithetical to the requirement in a democracy for power sharing. Even if McConnell /McCarthy et. al. surrender a bit to Joe and accept some power sharing in the upcoming Congress, I think the base will be just rip them limb from limb metaphorically. We're now well past the tipping point where they are pretending to believe in traditional American "big d" Democratic values.

[Grifman]

It has been noted in another thread (thought it really belongs here) that Trump is considering starting his own political party, the "Patriot Party". I think it's all bluster. He's got a ton of money from his election "fraud" fundraising but he's just too lazy to do this. Starting a new party would be an enormous amount of work, which he won't do. In addition, I doubt that he could find really good savvy professionals to do the work for him, letting him be the figurehead. He really can't attract good talent, as taking a job from Trump would be burning your bridges back to the Republican Party.

That said, I'd love to see him try. I'd love to see Trumpublicans such as Gomer, Gaetz, Hawley, Brooks, Turbeville, etc being put in the tough position of deciding whether they are truly Republicans or Trumpers. The infighting would be marvelous.

[Pyperkub]

For a party-based system to be truly helpful in determining 'right solution,' more than two viable parties are needed, IMO.

I agree. The rub is it is likely that'd require reform on a scale outside our capability to deliver. Especially since we seemingly have two groups with widely different values now. How would we get them to agree on the changes required?

I disagree to a degree. The issue is that while elections are zero-sum games, governing does not have to be one. However, the GOP has gone all in on Governing as a Zero Sum game so that they can win elections.

In a 2 party system, Governing can still craft win-win scenarios, the issue has been that the GOP has decided that winning elections is more important than actually governing.

Examples being

DACA for Wall Funding (deal was on the table, Trump nixed it). Mandatory e-Verify. There are a lot of immigration issues where win win is there, including the wall.
Infrastructure week
Cybersecurity/National Security
Pandemic relief and work
Tax Cuts/Restructuring
Coal power emissions

All of the above, Trump and the GOP pursued zero sum, we'll just do the opposite of what Dems want so we can pwn teh libs, solutions to, rather than working on win-win.