Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

[El Guapo]

Here's a New Republic article making the rounds: How the GOP Destroyed its Moderates, a history of the conservative movement's struggle to purge the GOP.

Good read. I wish it had addressed Romney's nomination more directly, since that partially belies the contention that the lunatics are running the asylum. But that's outside the scope of a nominal book review.

It should address it, but it's not inconsistent with the basic thesis given that Mitt had to spend the last five years talking like a lunatic in order to get the nomination, and even then came close a few times to losing it to the latest lunatic du jour.

I haven't had a chance to read the article, but how does the article plus tgb's post explain that voting lines have not changes much overall?

It seems to me that despite the (apparent) move to the right of the republican party, they continue to achieve the same percentage (give or take) of votes that they always have.

If the republican party is alienating moderates and becoming more extreme, why is the party still viable at the national election level?

It's a good question. I haven't read the article myself, so I can't say whether it addresses it or not.

[GreenGoo]

It should address it, but it's not inconsistent with the basic thesis given that Mitt had to spend the last five years talking like a lunatic in order to get the nomination, and even then came close a few times to losing it to the latest lunatic du jour.

That doesn't explain John McCain's nomination though. I don't recall him moving significantly to the right (at least not the way Mitt did).

McCain absolutely started spouting stuff that wasn't part of his multi-decade historical stance on things. As far as I can tell those new stances never showed their faces again after his failed attempt at the white house.

The caveat is that I don't follow him too closely.

[Combustible Lemur]

It should address it, but it's not inconsistent with the basic thesis given that Mitt had to spend the last five years talking like a lunatic in order to get the nomination, and even then came close a few times to losing it to the latest lunatic du jour.

That doesn't explain John McCain's nomination though. I don't recall him moving significantly to the right (at least not the way Mitt did).

He did move some to the right, but he was an older socially socially and fiscally conservative veteran war hero elder master statesman. He in theory was kinda ideal Republican. He didn't need to tack as hard right, as he had less to prove.

Sent from mah Incredible'

[RunningMn9]

That doesn't explain John McCain's nomination though. I don't recall him moving significantly to the right (at least not the way Mitt did).

Not during the primary, no. But he had to have it dragged out because of his perceived lack of religious conservatism. And of course in the end, he had to nominate Palin to get them on board.

That decision (more than anything else I'm guessing) sent you and I packing to vote for Obama. Or at least me. I'm not sure I would have strayed if it wasn't for that.

[Defiant]

It should address it, but it's not inconsistent with the basic thesis given that Mitt had to spend the last five years talking like a lunatic in order to get the nomination, and even then came close a few times to losing it to the latest lunatic du jour.

That doesn't explain John McCain's nomination though. I don't recall him moving significantly to the right (at least not the way Mitt did).

Outside of a handful of issues, MCCain is, and has been, a solid conservative - Abortion, gay rights, foreign policy, economic issues, etc. He also shifted his stance on immigration.

[Holman]

It should address it, but it's not inconsistent with the basic thesis given that Mitt had to spend the last five years talking like a lunatic in order to get the nomination, and even then came close a few times to losing it to the latest lunatic du jour.

That doesn't explain John McCain's nomination though. I don't recall him moving significantly to the right (at least not the way Mitt did).

The McCain and Romney choices have both been about the Right reluctantly accepting that the country at large was not ready for an unabashed hardcore conservative. They're conservatives, but they're not fire-breathers.

Remember the context of the McCain pick: Bush/Cheney were widely despised, the economy was terrifying (much more than now), and it looked to be an easy year for the Dems. McCain was picked as a bipartisan because it seemed the GOP's only chance. (Remember when his campaign even tried to co-opt "Change" as a slogan?) Even so, McCain went with Palin because it was thought she would shore up his appeal to the base.

[Pyperkub]

I saw this article linked over at qt3 http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... le/264855/

Which touches on the effects of the echo chamber that many conservatives have walled themselves into, and probably plays a huge role in this. I'm kind of living it right now, as I'm visiting relatives in Oklahoma and Fox News seems to be on 24-7 wherever you go - at the gym, restaurants, etc.

tapatalkin'

[McBa1n]

I saw this article linked over at qt3 http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... le/264855/

Which touches on the effects of the echo chamber that many conservatives have walled themselves into, and probably plays a huge role in this. I'm kind of living it right now, as I'm visiting relatives in Oklahoma and Fox News seems to be on 24-7 wherever you go - at the gym, restaurants, etc.

tapatalkin'

Nice link.
I'm glad someone brought this up. I know no one wants to admit they're ever wrong politically - but sheesh, the right wing echo chamber is highly destructive in a lot of ways and the people keeping it in business need to grow up if they want to be relevant, IMO. It'd be nice to see right-wing media enthusiasts see that there are other places to get just facts and you can make your own judgement with that information. Right wing media is delivering incredible amounts of disinformation daily and COMPLETELY missing the boat on, per example, why latinos or women mostly aren't voting Republican (i.e. immigration and birth control aren't necessarily the only issues that matter to each, respectively). Consumers of this mess are just doing a disservice to themselves. Further - that 'bubble' of disinformation taints other media outlets and impacts our perception negatively of 'reality'. To me, that's terrifying. I like these forums because it's not all garbage and crazy talk. But even reading all of you on here doesn't insulate me from that bias. I won't even read email from my family or log onto facebook anymore. Just can't take the bombast and lies so many Americans are a slave to. It's depressing.

[coopasonic]

there are other places to get just facts and you can make your own judgement with that information

Where would I go to find these facts, without reading the bills and the votes themselves, because I am not a lawyer and don't have a devious mind so I can't always see why something is bad without it being pointed out to be? Where is this spin-free zone?

[RunningMn9]

Where would I go to find these facts, without reading the bills and the votes themselves, because I am not a lawyer and don't have a devious mind so I can't always see why something is bad without it being pointed out to be? Where is this spin-free zone?

There is no spin-free zone.

But imagine the view of the world that someone had if they *only* exposed themselves to MSNBC 24/7, assuming that everything they said was true, fair and balanced.

Since no spin-free zone exists, you acquire information from multiple sources and use them to screen out each other's bias.

[Defiant]

Where is this spin-free zone?

Isn't that on the equator, where the toilet flushes straight down, rather than spins around?

[Pyperkub]

Where is this spin-free zone?

Isn't that on the equator, where the toilet flushes straight down, rather than spins around?

Nope, it's at the poles

[Rip]

Where is this spin-free zone?

Isn't that on the equator, where the toilet flushes straight down, rather than spins around?

Nope, it's at the poles

Yea, at the equator they blow out of the bowl into your face.

[McBa1n]

there are other places to get just facts and you can make your own judgement with that information

Where would I go to find these facts, without reading the bills and the votes themselves, because I am not a lawyer and don't have a devious mind so I can't always see why something is bad without it being pointed out to be? Where is this spin-free zone?

Hehe, I figure I oversimplified that and it was a weak statement - but c'mon, you don't know when you're reading a super-partisan NEWS story?

[Kraken]

After the spanking they got last Tuesday, MA Republicans grapple with what it all means.

Massachusetts Republicans are already agonizing over the party’s future, having watched the gains of recent years slip away last Tuesday, when presidential nominee Mitt Romney, prized US Senator Scott Brown, and a promising candidate for Congress, Richard R. Tisei, all went down to defeat. Four of the seats Republicans had claimed in the Legislature in 2010 were reclaimed by Democrats.

“I feel humbled,” said Jared Valanzola, chairman of the Republican Town Committee in Rockland. “What we had figured was, we did very well two years ago, we can build on it.”

Instead, their losses triggered anger and frustration and deepened the longstanding divide between the party’s moderate establishment and its more conservative faction. Conservatives have tried unsuccessfully to nudge the party to the right to present a more distinct alternative to the state’s dominant Democratic Party. Moderates however, say that approach doesn’t appeal in progressive Massachusetts and that the voters made their voices heard loud and clear last week.

...

“Trying to out-Democrat the Democrats is no way to define and strengthen Massachusetts Republicanism,” wrote Dave Kopacz, president of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly, which calls itself the Republican wing of the Republican Party.

The Assembly and other Republican activists are calling for the resignation of Robert A. Maginn Jr., state party chairman, and other party leaders and for a retrenchment on conservative issues. And they have an opportunity before them on Tuesday night, when state committee members are scheduled to consider adopting the national party’s platform — a vote the party had postponed from September until after the election. The platform, which calls for a ban on abortion with no exceptions in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother, was viewed as so extreme that it caused controversy nationally and both Brown and Tisei separately spoke out against it. Maginn did not return a call for comment.

The pending vote by the 80-member state committee has socially moderate Republicans worried that their party could move further away from voters turned off by a social agenda.

“What does this debate on Tuesday get us? We’re going to look like even more of a whack-job party, adopting a platform that was dismissed by the voters — rejected soundly,” said Jason Kauppi, a former communications consultant for the Massachusetts Republican Party. “It says that it has yet to learn any lessons from this last election cycle — what the party is and what we stand for.”

[Pyperkub]

Bobby Jindal appears to have reversed course from 2009:

In his first interview since his party’s electoral thumping last week, Jindal urged Republicans to both reject anti-intellectualism and embrace a populist-tinged reform approach that he said would mitigate what exit polls show was one of President Barack Obama’s most effective lines of attack against Mitt Romney....

...He was just as blunt on how the GOP should speak to voters, criticizing his party for offending and speaking down to much of the electorate.

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party...

...Calling on the GOP to be “the party of ideas, details and intelligent solutions,” the Louisianan urged the party to “stop reducing everything to mindless slogans, tag lines, 30-second ads that all begin to sound the same. “

He added: “Simply being the anti-Obama party didn’t work. You can’t beat something with nothing. The reality is we have to be a party of solutions and not just bumper-sticker slogans but real detailed policy solutions.”...

...In terms of being more imaginative on policy, he gently rebuked his own party on energy by hinting that he had little use for the “Drill, Baby, Drill” sloganeering on oil production.

“When we talk about energy policy, it cannot simply just be ‘drill more,’ it has to be more than that — it has to be comprehensive,” he said

A couple of thoughts.

1) About freaking time a major GOP figure came out and said this (or something similar). Actions speak louder than words though. What are you going to do Mr. Governor?
2) I think part of this is definitely Jindal eyeing 2016 - will other potential candidates follow suit, and will they be able to hold to that through the primaries?
3) There is a huge element of biting the hand that feeds him here, in that a lot of those memes are born out of, or at least incessantly hammered by Fox News/Rush Limbaugh etc. (the unaccountable wing of the Party).

[Arcanis]

I'll believe it after I see it and we've made sure there are no tricks. Jindal is pretty bad about making claims that are technically true, but for all practicality they are not. Listen to a little Moon Griffon and you will know how much Jindal talks the talk but never follows through.

[Kraken]

He speaks truth. That pretty much guarantees that nobody will listen.

[RunningMn9]

He speaks truth. That pretty much guarantees that nobody will listen.

Forget voting for a Republican that actually believed that - I'd donate and campaign for a Republican that actually believed that.

[Kraken]

He speaks truth. That pretty much guarantees that nobody will listen.

Forget voting for a Republican that actually believed that - I'd donate and campaign for a Republican that actually believed that.

What he really means is jettisoning the tea party -- that's who eats up the slogans and anti-intellectualism. While I would love to see the Republican Party cut loose that anchor, I seriously doubt their resolve or ability to do it.

[$iljanus]

It's refreshing to hear but come campaign season and the $$$ that comes with it I wonder if Jindal and like minded Republicans will feel the same. Someone is contributing to those extreme right super PACS and even if they weren't effective you do need donors.

[Zarathud]

Too much big money to toss them out completely, but there's no power in a group where nobody shows up on election day.

The Republican Party could double down behind whoever brought the largest part of Romney's 47% voters and is the most acceptable to the swing vote in the states they need to get to 270 EC votes. They could also double down on crackpots instead. But I don't see conservatives getting back behind an updated compassionate conservatism.

[Rip]

Too much big money to toss them out completely, but there's no power in a group where nobody shows up on election day.

The Republican Party could double down behind whoever brought the largest part of Romney's 47% voters and is the most acceptable to the swing vote in the states they need to get to 270 EC votes. They could also double down on crackpots instead. But I don't see conservatives getting back behind an updated compassionate conservatism.

There would be no point. People don't want conservatism, they want a nanny state. The only way that will change is when everything goes to shit. Once the economy tanks and there is no one to pay for all the social programs they will be back.

[RunningMn9]

Again, what nanny state? We spend money on old people, health care for old people and bombs. And the goddamn old people (the primary beneficiary of all that federal spending) is the only large and reliable Republican voting block left - but only so long as they are the only ones that get to suckle at the teet. They want SS and Medicare reform - but only if it doesn't apply to them.

I saw someone bitching about food stamps the other day. Friggin' food stamps. It's a drop in the bucket compared to keeping old people alive and defense. And that's what they think is causing our fiscal difficulties? It's goddamn ponderous.

[Holman]

There would be no point. People don't want conservatism, they want a nanny state. The only way that will change is when everything goes to shit. Once the economy tanks and there is no one to pay for all the social programs they will be back.

Maybe the GOP needs to go in for some negging.

"We might want your vote if it were worth shit. Why don't you come back in four years?"

[Rip]

Again, what nanny state? We spend money on old people, health care for old people and bombs. And the goddamn old people (the primary beneficiary of all that federal spending) is the only large and reliable Republican voting block left - but only so long as they are the only ones that get to suckle at the teet. They want SS and Medicare reform - but only if it doesn't apply to them.

I saw someone bitching about food stamps the other day. Friggin' food stamps. It's a drop in the bucket compared to keeping old people alive and defense. And that's what they think is causing our fiscal difficulties? It's goddamn ponderous.

I am more worried about the nanny state that regulates and restricts your life decisions away. Someday we will all be forced to drink V8 and eat tofu burgers.

They will come after guns, violent games, and pretty much everything that makes life enjoyable. Public healthcare is just one of the excuses that will be used to justify it, just like national security has become the excuse for monitoring and prying on every facet of your life.

[Pyperkub]

Again, what nanny state? We spend money on old people, health care for old people and bombs. And the goddamn old people (the primary beneficiary of all that federal spending) is the only large and reliable Republican voting block left - but only so long as they are the only ones that get to suckle at the teet. They want SS and Medicare reform - but only if it doesn't apply to them.

I saw someone bitching about food stamps the other day. Friggin' food stamps. It's a drop in the bucket compared to keeping old people alive and defense. And that's what they think is causing our fiscal difficulties? It's goddamn ponderous.

I am more worried about the nanny state that regulates and restricts your life decisions away. Someday we will all be forced to drink V8 and eat tofu burgers.

They will come after guns, violent games, and pretty much everything that makes life enjoyable. Public healthcare is just one of the excuses that will be used to justify it, just like national security has become the excuse for monitoring and prying on every facet of your life.

There is a fine line between nanny state and establishing guidelines for living with one another without killing one another when populations get large enough to where one person's cold is another persons H1N1, or one person's target range pollutes another person's well with lead. So many of these oppressive 'rules and regulations' are simply facets of dealing with the fact that there are more and more people living in many places. Do some go overboard - damn right - but don't discount all of them, just fix the ones that are well and trully f*cked.

Additionally, in a society where more and more couples are having fewer kids (mostly because parenting well is expensive and tough) and it's possible to be more protective than ever, there will be some understandable over-reactions (such as video game violence) - but getting rid of all rules/regulations because of a few bad apples is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Now, arming everyone and allowing them to walk around armed everywhere would eventually solve this problem, but it would be painful and a lot of people would likely die getting to a solution. There are better ways.

[Isgrimnur]

They will come after guns, violent games, and pretty much everything that makes life enjoyable. Public healthcare is just one of the excuses that will be used to justify it, just like national security has become the excuse for monitoring and prying on every facet of your life.

Just like they came after your comic books and your "rock and roll".

[El Guapo]

Bobby Jindal appears to have reversed course from 2009:

In his first interview since his party’s electoral thumping last week, Jindal urged Republicans to both reject anti-intellectualism and embrace a populist-tinged reform approach that he said would mitigate what exit polls show was one of President Barack Obama’s most effective lines of attack against Mitt Romney....

...He was just as blunt on how the GOP should speak to voters, criticizing his party for offending and speaking down to much of the electorate.

“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments — enough of that,” Jindal said. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party...

...Calling on the GOP to be “the party of ideas, details and intelligent solutions,” the Louisianan urged the party to “stop reducing everything to mindless slogans, tag lines, 30-second ads that all begin to sound the same. “

He added: “Simply being the anti-Obama party didn’t work. You can’t beat something with nothing. The reality is we have to be a party of solutions and not just bumper-sticker slogans but real detailed policy solutions.”...

...In terms of being more imaginative on policy, he gently rebuked his own party on energy by hinting that he had little use for the “Drill, Baby, Drill” sloganeering on oil production.

“When we talk about energy policy, it cannot simply just be ‘drill more,’ it has to be more than that — it has to be comprehensive,” he said

A couple of thoughts.

1) About freaking time a major GOP figure came out and said this (or something similar). Actions speak louder than words though. What are you going to do Mr. Governor?
2) I think part of this is definitely Jindal eyeing 2016 - will other potential candidates follow suit, and will they be able to hold to that through the primaries?
3) There is a huge element of biting the hand that feeds him here, in that a lot of those memes are born out of, or at least incessantly hammered by Fox News/Rush Limbaugh etc. (the unaccountable wing of the Party).

I don't get the big deal with this speech. Saying "don't be stupid" is not a dramatic policy revision in my book - presumably the Glenn Beck's and Rush Limbaugh's of the world don't think they're being stupid.

Wake me when he makes a policy proposal that goes against party orthodoxy.

[Holman]

The, er, money quote from Jindal's comments actually does suggest a radical shift:

“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal said. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

Not that there's any content here, but it does propose a move away from the Establishment GOP that supported Romney. It's possible that he has in mind something more populist, but it's hard to see how that wouldn't involve some suspiciously Democratic-looking stances.

It's also hard not to see any move away from the business wing of the party as a tilt towards the social conservative wing. He proposes that they should be less dumb, but that could always mean just a slicker, better-packaged social conservatism.

Begun, this GOP Civil War has...

[El Guapo]

Yeah, but no one in the GOP is arguing "yes, I'm for the rich getting to keep their toys." I may think that's the practical effect of standard GOP policy, but they would argue that their policies are about empowering individuals to achieve wealth and opening up an economic meritocracy.

At best it presages possible changes in GOP orthodoxy to come.

[LordMortis]

Yeah, but no one in the GOP is arguing "yes, I'm for the rich getting to keep their toys." I may think that's the practical effect of standard GOP policy, but they would argue that their policies are about empowering individuals to achieve wealth and opening up an economic meritocracy.

At best it presages possible changes in GOP orthodoxy to come.

I don't know if it's coincidence, coordinated media reaction, or conspiracy but I swear I've been seeing more and more (Republican) Teddy Roosevelt (aristocratic blue collar service man, establisher of public land, monopoly buster, etc...) this and Teddy Roosevelt that in the media lately.

[Pyperkub]

Yeah, but no one in the GOP is arguing "yes, I'm for the rich getting to keep their toys." I may think that's the practical effect of standard GOP policy, but they would argue that their policies are about empowering individuals to achieve wealth and opening up an economic meritocracy.

At best it presages possible changes in GOP orthodoxy to come.

I don't know if it's coincidence, coordinated media reaction, or conspiracy but I swear I've been seeing more and more (Republican) Teddy Roosevelt (aristocratic blue collar service man, establisher of public land, monopoly buster, etc...) this and Teddy Roosevelt that in the media lately.

He of the Progressive Party

[Pyperkub]

The, er, money quote from Jindal's comments actually does suggest a radical shift:

“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything,” Jindal said. “We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

Not that there's any content here, but it does propose a move away from the Establishment GOP that supported Romney. It's possible that he has in mind something more populist, but it's hard to see how that wouldn't involve some suspiciously Democratic-looking stances.

It's also hard not to see any move away from the business wing of the party as a tilt towards the social conservative wing. He proposes that they should be less dumb, but that could always mean just a slicker, better-packaged social conservatism.

Begun, this GOP Civil War has...

I don't think it has begun. It's more like unarmed protests in Tahrir Square, or Berkeley. Let's see if it can build some momentum to 2014, and more importantly through the 2016 Primaries... maybe get some GOP $/NATO air support, etc.

[Holman]

I was looking forward to a new Republican generation willing to be a part of the 21st century. Maybe they're still out there.

Unfortunately, it looks like Mark Rubio is not one of them:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

I love that pseudo-hip attempt to disarm the question, "I'm not a scientist, man."

Unfortunately, the age of the earth is not "one of the great mysteries," Senator Rubio. You are either an actual idiot or pandering to them.

[GreenGoo]

He seems to be claiming there is some sort of controversy around parents being able to teach their kids faith/science, which is a weird thing to imply.

Is there an epidemic of parents being made/forbidden to teach their kids faith/science? Who is enforcing this?

[Malachite]

He seems to be claiming there is some sort of controversy around parents being able to teach their kids faith/science, which is a weird thing to imply.

Is there an epidemic of parents being made/forbidden to teach their kids faith/science? Who is enforcing this?

The same evil bastards who are running the war on Christmas!

[YellowKing]

Unfortunately, the age of the earth is not "one of the great mysteries," Senator Rubio. You are either an actual idiot or pandering to them.

I take it you would say the same of Obama?

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?
A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.

[Holman]

Pandering is pandering.

I'm not happy with Obama's answer either, although at least he seems to lean metaphorical instead of literal, and there's no rejection of science as the enemy of faith. That's what's so awful about the GOP version.

[Kraken]

Obama's Christian bona fides are so weak that he needs to pretend to believe it more than most politicians do.