New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

What destroyed the GOP?

Arkady

President
I've been trying to understand what went wrong with the GOP's ability to function as a successful political party. They were once, by far, the more disciplined of the two major parties. Where Democrats were composed of a rabble of feuding factions, each marching to the beat of a different drummer, the Republicans moved in unison, like an army. So, even with most Americans identifying as Democrat, at the time, and even with Democratic ideas outpolling Republican ones, the Republican legions kept routing the Democratic hordes (holding the presidency for all but four years during the course of a quarter century). But, these days, the Republicans are the party that look like a disorganized rabble. They're giving three separate responses to the State of the Union, for example, thereby diluting their counter-spin. They have fractious primaries that leave their candidates with deep wounds, lousy positioning, and depleted coffers for the general election. Their incumbents live in fear of unknown extremists rising up and defeating them if they step even a little towards the center. How did the change happen?

The change can arguably be dated to the early 1990s. In the two decades prior to that, the GOP's leaders proudly took the conservative label, but were actually surprisingly liberal on a lot of issues. GHW Bush hiked taxes and signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reagan pushed through amnesty and disregarded the neoconservative orthodoxy by approaching Gorbachev as a partner for peace and avoiding any major foreign interventions. Nixon normalized relations with communist China and signed off on the endangered species act. They never seemed to worry about an insurrection from the right if they moved towards the center from time to time. But, by the mid-1990s, Republicans were expected to toe the line absolutely. No tax increases, no olive branches to traditional enemies, no meaningful immigration reform, etc. Step out of line at your peril!

You can see the impact of this on Romney and McCain. Both were from the leftward branch of the GOP, but both moved hard right to capture the nomination. In the end, they essentially became clones of GW Bush. Where once they'd had many differences from Bush (pro-choice, pro-healthcare reform, pro-campaign-finance limitations, anti-tax cut, etc.), when they ran, I challenged people to name a single policy area where they were criticizing Bush or where they'd staked out meaningfully different territory for themselves, and they couldn't. Each effectively ran as a third term for Bush -- which, given the fact he's widely regarded as one of the worst presidents in history, had predictably lousy results for each, despite facing off against an opponent who was under-experienced (in 2008) and under-successful (in 2012).

So why did this change come about? Why did the GOP dissolve into an in-fighting rabble? How did it become a party where the big names were afraid to deviate even a little from the established conservative liturgy? How did the know-nothing masses, to whom earlier Republicans merely gave lip service, become wielders of deadly authority within the party?
 
I've been trying to understand what went wrong with the GOP's ability to function as a successful political party. They were once, by far, the more disciplined of the two major parties. Where Democrats were composed of a rabble of feuding factions, each marching to the beat of a different drummer, the Republicans moved in unison, like an army. So, even with most Americans identifying as Democrat, at the time, and even with Democratic ideas outpolling Republican ones, the Republican legions kept routing the Democratic hordes (holding the presidency for all but four years during the course of a quarter century). But, these days, the Republicans are the party that look like a disorganized rabble. They're giving three separate responses to the State of the Union, for example, thereby diluting their counter-spin. They have fractious primaries that leave their candidates with deep wounds, lousy positioning, and depleted coffers for the general election. Their incumbents live in fear of unknown extremists rising up and defeating them if they step even a little towards the center. How did the change happen?

The change can arguably be dated to the early 1990s. In the two decades prior to that, the GOP's leaders proudly took the conservative label, but were actually surprisingly liberal on a lot of issues. GHW Bush hiked taxes and signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reagan pushed through amnesty and disregarded the neoconservative orthodoxy by approaching Gorbachev as a partner for peace and avoiding any major foreign interventions. Nixon normalized relations with communist China and signed off on the endangered species act. They never seemed to worry about an insurrection from the right if they moved towards the center from time to time. But, by the mid-1990s, Republicans were expected to toe the line absolutely. No tax increases, no olive branches to traditional enemies, no meaningful immigration reform, etc. Step out of line at your peril!

You can see the impact of this on Romney and McCain. Both were from the leftward branch of the GOP, but both moved hard right to capture the nomination. In the end, they essentially became clones of GW Bush. Where once they'd had many differences from Bush (pro-choice, pro-healthcare reform, pro-campaign-finance limitations, anti-tax cut, etc.), when they ran, I challenged people to name a single policy area where they were criticizing Bush or where they'd staked out meaningfully different territory for themselves, and they couldn't. Each effectively ran as a third term for Bush -- which, given the fact he's widely regarded as one of the worst presidents in history, had predictably lousy results for each, despite facing off against an opponent who was under-experienced (in 2008) and under-successful (in 2012).

So why did this change come about? Why did the GOP dissolve into an in-fighting rabble? How did it become a party where the big names were afraid to deviate even a little from the established conservative liturgy? How did the know-nothing masses, to whom earlier Republicans merely gave lip service, become wielders of deadly authority within the party?
You writing a book? File it under fantasy.
 
Barry Goldwater warned them...decades ago-

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem."

Throw in Rightwing Radio and Fox News...which make their ratings on "firing up" the Base, attacking any compromises, and putting forth THE most extreme agenda and demanding that Republicans live up to it or face the wrath of the host and his/her audience.

And speaking of Al and "fantasies"....everybody BUT Al, could see that an idiot like Sharron Angle (like many of the rest of the Tea Paarty candidates) was going to be a loser.

But locked in his Echo Chamber of Talk Radio, Drudge, Fox, Wash Times.....Al never imagined it to be true.
 
Barry Goldwater warned them...decades ago-

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem."

Throw in Rightwing Radio and Fox News...which make their ratings on "firing up" the Base, attacking any compromises, and putting forth THE most extreme agenda and demanding that Republicans live up to it or face the wrath of the host and his/her audience.

And speaking of Al and "fantasies"....everybody BUT Al, could see that an idiot like Sharron Angle (like many of the rest of the Tea Paarty candidates) was going to be a loser.

But locked in his Echo Chamber of Talk Radio, Drudge, Fox, Wash Times.....Al never imagined it to be true.
So, do you thing anyone that was running in the rep party could have beat Harry Reid?
 
I've been trying to understand what went wrong with the GOP's ability to function as a successful political party. They were once, by far, the more disciplined of the two major parties. Where Democrats were composed of a rabble of feuding factions, each marching to the beat of a different drummer, the Republicans moved in unison, like an army. So, even with most Americans identifying as Democrat, at the time, and even with Democratic ideas outpolling Republican ones, the Republican legions kept routing the Democratic hordes (holding the presidency for all but four years during the course of a quarter century). But, these days, the Republicans are the party that look like a disorganized rabble. They're giving three separate responses to the State of the Union, for example, thereby diluting their counter-spin. They have fractious primaries that leave their candidates with deep wounds, lousy positioning, and depleted coffers for the general election. Their incumbents live in fear of unknown extremists rising up and defeating them if they step even a little towards the center. How did the change happen?

The change can arguably be dated to the early 1990s. In the two decades prior to that, the GOP's leaders proudly took the conservative label, but were actually surprisingly liberal on a lot of issues. GHW Bush hiked taxes and signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reagan pushed through amnesty and disregarded the neoconservative orthodoxy by approaching Gorbachev as a partner for peace and avoiding any major foreign interventions. Nixon normalized relations with communist China and signed off on the endangered species act. They never seemed to worry about an insurrection from the right if they moved towards the center from time to time. But, by the mid-1990s, Republicans were expected to toe the line absolutely. No tax increases, no olive branches to traditional enemies, no meaningful immigration reform, etc. Step out of line at your peril!

You can see the impact of this on Romney and McCain. Both were from the leftward branch of the GOP, but both moved hard right to capture the nomination. In the end, they essentially became clones of GW Bush. Where once they'd had many differences from Bush (pro-choice, pro-healthcare reform, pro-campaign-finance limitations, anti-tax cut, etc.), when they ran, I challenged people to name a single policy area where they were criticizing Bush or where they'd staked out meaningfully different territory for themselves, and they couldn't. Each effectively ran as a third term for Bush -- which, given the fact he's widely regarded as one of the worst presidents in history, had predictably lousy results for each, despite facing off against an opponent who was under-experienced (in 2008) and under-successful (in 2012).

So why did this change come about? Why did the GOP dissolve into an in-fighting rabble? How did it become a party where the big names were afraid to deviate even a little from the established conservative liturgy? How did the know-nothing masses, to whom earlier Republicans merely gave lip service, become wielders of deadly authority within the party?
There's less than a handful of ROC posters here who might be able to give you a plausible explanation. The rest are part of the rabble. I would think you just have to follow the money. The older white Republican base and "Reagan Democrats" don't have the resources to fund the GOP the way campaigns are run now and the base's economic interest isn't the same as the cash cows. But the GOP can't win without them. The GOP now has to do the balancing act that Dems have always had to do. The GOP is just not very good at it yet.
 
So, do you thing anyone that was running in the rep party could have beat Harry Reid?

Yes....a sane candidate, who didn't talk about "2nd Amendment solutions" or even the one who talked about trading chickens for health care.

But apparently, such SANE Republicans don't exist in Nevada or weren't supported by its INSANE Primary voters.
 
Just like the slogan goes.. the repubs are viewed as regressive and the dems as progressive.

Repubs logo maybe should be changed to the dinosaur. :p
Borrowed paragraph below from a blogger, named Booman.
__________________________________________
The GOP has had plenty of opportunities to reform itself. It either cannot, or will not, take those opportunities. All that's left to do is to remove the GOP life-support system put in place over decades by billionaires and corporate media....and compassionately allow the political party "patient" to die from it's self-inflicted, anti-democratic wounds.
 
There's less than a handful of ROC posters here who might be able to give you a plausible explanation. The rest are part of the rabble. I would think you just have to follow the money. The older white Republican base and "Reagan Democrats" don't have the resources to fund the GOP the way campaigns are run now and the base's economic interest isn't the same as the cash cows. But the GOP can't win without them. The GOP now has to do the balancing act that Dems have always had to do. The GOP is just not very good at it yet.

Funding is another paradox for the GOP.

Guys like the Chamber of Commerce want agenda items like immigration reform. Other Big Donors want the Party to stop talking about abortion...or opposing gay rights. They want the GOP to focus solely on fiscal and "pro-business" policies.

Problem is the Base won't allow that. They want the Party attacking immigrants, gays, abortion rights, etc.

One side has all the money....the other side has the vitriole and "energy". GOP needs both....but can't appease both.
 
:)They destroyed themselves, Arkady. One thing that really hurts them is the fact that thier base is dying off. Older rightwingers aren't being replaced by young people. Whereas young people are attracted to the Democrat's message. This is my opinion.

that's why so many young are enrolling in ObamaCare wait........they are not enrolling and success of ObamaCare depends on those youth.
 
Republicans have not figured out how to incorporate liberalism into their platform.

Where liberalism means... changing social mores.

They are adrift without a compass.

One faction screams into the wind...hold course... hold course.

Another screams...which way... that way.. no this way...

Yet another exploits. (think talk radio....) and sells dreams of what once was..

Like eastern european politics...where each tries to retain a hold on a fractious constituency.


How 'm I doing?
 
Republicans have not figured out how to incorporate liberalism into their platform.

Where liberalism means... changing social mores.

They are adrift without a compass.

More like adrift without a chronometer.

Still believing it's 1959 or that they can sell a political agenda built oon rolling back the clock to 1959 (or for some 1899).
 
More like adrift without a chronometer.

Still believing it's 1959 or that they can sell a political agenda built oon rolling back the clock to 1959 (or for some 1899).


Is it rolling back the clock... or not wanting to abandon their positions (on morality and the like)

Is there something wrong with their holding certain positions as for as that is concerned...
 
Funding is another paradox for the GOP.

Guys like the Chamber of Commerce want agenda items like immigration reform. Other Big Donors want the Party to stop talking about abortion...or opposing gay rights. They want the GOP to focus solely on fiscal and "pro-business" policies.

Problem is the Base won't allow that. They want the Party attacking immigrants, gays, abortion rights, etc.

One side has all the money....the other side has the vitriole and "energy". GOP needs both....but can't appease both.

One endgame I can picture is for the GOP to basically give up on the evangelicals and bigots, and rely strictly on the Chamber of Commerce types. The problem for them is that for that to be a workable strategy, they need to become far more moderate. There just aren't enough people interested in ultra-low taxes, radical deregulation, government decentralization, and social austerity to win a national vote on that basis, which is why they needed the bigots and evangelicals in the first place. But, in theory, they could stake out more moderate versions of those positions, coupled with civil-liberties positions on protecting privacy and ending the drug war, and become a "libertarianism-lite"party, while the Democrats could get more and more sucked down into identity politics and niche issues like transgender rights, etc. Gradually, if things went that way, the Dems could become the "media scolds" that the Republicans used to be (only, instead of chiding the media about their liberal values, sex, and violence, they'd chide them about gender and ethnic transgressions). Essentially, the Republicans would move towards the center and the Dems would move further out to the left, making the GOP competitive again for less ideological people.

That's the best-case scenario I can see. Another possibility would be an era like 1933-1952, where for twenty years the GOP simply couldn't compete. If the GOP decides to continue to shed moderates, in the interest of holding onto the bigots and evangelicals, that's demographic extinction for a generation.

Yet another possibility would be the GOP turning towards fascism, with the help of a weak economy and more external threats (e.g., terrorist attacks). That's what won Bush the election in 2004 -- we were still close enough to 9/11 for fear to drive a lot of sheeple into the Republican camp. In theory, we could get into a self-sustaining cycles where aggressive uses of force abroad fuel terrorism, which creates fear, which maintains a majority coalition in favor of those kinds of hard-line tactics, and so on. That's what happened in Israel.
 
Is it rolling back the clock... or not wanting to abandon their positions (on morality and the like)

Is there something wrong with their holding certain positions as for as that is concerned...


I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is inherently "wrong" for them to maintain their beliefs, so long as they no longer care about winning elections.
 
Is it rolling back the clock... or not wanting to abandon their positions (on morality and the like)

Is there something wrong with their holding certain positions as for as that is concerned...

Phil, I WANT them to hold the positions against gay rights, women's choice, and the "Southern Strategy" that wooed the Dixiecrats under Nixon and Reagan....for as long as they like or can.

It's just....they can't survive as a Party doing that into the 21st Century.
 
Back
Top