How can the GOP be brought back to being a more moderate party?

[Wonkish1]

Look at the Democratic Party. Was once an utterly Liberal dominated party with the exception of the Conservative Democrats in the South--And now is a diverse tent dominated mostly by centrists or opportunists who lean left or right depending on political expediency--Really they're in the state the Republicans were in from the 1930s-1950s.


The Democratic Party has become the generally centrist party, usually center right, while the GOP has become the conservative party. There is no real Liberal party anymore.


The "left" are pretty much Truman Democrats nowadays. They're probably to the right of Truman actually.

How can anybody take you seriously with comments like these?

The ideological gap between the base of the Democratic party and the center of America has never been wider in American politics. Now you could also argue that is true for the GOP as well, but I'll give you one name...Goldwater.

[Wonkish1]

Yeah, the Republicans are not moving toward the center until a.) The Progressive Caucus loses power and the DLC regains dominance of the Democratic party or b.) self-described liberals are no longer outnumbered by self-described conservatives by a two-to-one margin.

Anybody else remember when the left-wing was always complaining about the non-ideological nature of our two-party system?  Careful what you wish for....



You think a party dominated by the Progressive Caucus and rapidly losing the Blue Dogs is more conservative than a party dominated by the Democratic Leadership Council?

Just spot on!!!

[Wonkish1]

AFAIK, Democrats were willing to compromise on entitlement cuts, whereas Republicans balked at tax increases. Whether or not the Democrats are liberal on fiscal issues, they are certainly more willing to compromise.

I personally don't believe that making a minor change to the calculation of COI growth for social security and laying out medicare and medicaid cuts already accounted for in Obamacare constitutes much of a compromise against $120-150 billion a year in tax increases($1.2-1.5 trillion+ over 10 years) that take affect immediately. But maybe I'm just weird.

The Democrats come kicking and screaming about even ANY cuts in spending in the budget or appropriations process. And when they do finally agree to cuts its a small amount in the 10s of billions that are mostly just some tinkering around some unspent money sitting in some agency account. I don't call that compromising either. But again maybe I'm just weird.

[Wonkish1]

In a generation or so the GOP will have to become more moderate on social issues and more open to minorities (especially Hispanics) or it will be doomed to permanent minority.

You have to be careful there. It depends on *which* social issues you are referring to. If you're talking about gays, well sure polling data is pretty one sided on that front. But if your talking about abortion, not so fast. For the last 30 years abortion polling has trended in 1 direction and only 1 direction and that is towards more people calling themselves pro life.

So if we were strictly to follow the polling trends the GOP would have to become more moderate on gays and the *Dems would have to become more Pro-Life.* I don't see any Dems on here or anywhere else that are advocating or rooting for that.

[Wonkish1]

AFAIK, Democrats were willing to compromise on entitlement cuts, whereas Republicans balked at tax increases. Whether or not the Democrats are liberal on fiscal issues, they are certainly more willing to compromise.

I personally don't believe that making a minor change to the calculation of COI growth for social security and laying out medicare and medicaid cuts already accounted for in Obamacare constitutes much of a compromise against $120-150 billion a year in tax increases($1.2-1.5 trillion+ over 10 years) that take affect immediately. But maybe I'm just weird.

The Democrats come kicking and screaming about even ANY cuts in spending in the budget or appropriations process. And when they do finally agree to cuts its a small amount in the 10s of billions that are mostly just some tinkering around some unspent money sitting in some agency account. I don't call that compromising either. But again maybe I'm just weird.

The spending cuts: taxes ratio in the $4 Trillion plan speaks for itself. And yes, cuts should be loaded towards the back since we are in a recession currently, but of course so should the tax hikes. Grover Norquist scares the sh**t out of me, due to his no tax pledge. He has pretty much ruined California, and now has his sights set on America.

Well again seeing as that I actually read what those supposed "cuts" are I will not let those ratio's speak for themselves. The vast majority of them are "cuts" already accounted for in previous legislation and budgetary assumptions. They are accounting gimmicks nothing more. Its also interesting that estimated "interest savings" gets added to spending cuts side of the equation. I mean its just a joke.

Seriously, Dems that can't seem to find any place to cut expenditure by any sizeable amount scare the sh*t out of me and those are the people that have ruined California not Grover Norquist.

Also cuts that are "loaded to the backend" are cuts that never actually materialize you do know that right? As long as baseline budgeting exists in the US congress "backloaded spending cuts" never actually happen.



Read my post on LBJ's thread. If this is the attitude the Dems and their supporters want to take fine, if we don't find a way to cut $1 trillion dollars a year($10 trillion over the next decade) in government spending then the majority of our social welfare state that many Americans count on will be gone in a decade. So you feel free to defend stupid gimmick deals like the one mentioned above, but when you look back on this 10 years from now you'll realize how stupid your were.

[Wonkish1]

Opinion of Abortion is static, I think. Young people aren't overwhelmingly pro-life or anything. They are about the same, perhaps a little more liberal than earlier generations. Which will likely get a bit more pro-life with age. So yeah, stasis.

Not flat. Last I checked was probably about 6 months ago. Polling on issues like that are very slow moving, but it isn't flat. If you compared polling on the issue in 1970 to today you wouldn't believe the change that has occurred its seismic, but if you compare it to 2 years ago its minor. And the pro life side stays at their best polling numbers for a long time and then retests new highs.

I do not defend the gimmicks. Not one bit. But will Republicans ever agree to tax hikes? That is just as troubling as these gimmicks. You cannot cut $1 trillion dollars a year. Revenue has to be added. And real cuts need to be made. Is that so hard to understand?

As for Grover Norquist, with his retarded little Prop 13 plan he has completely screwed over younger generations. On the other hand if you bought a property in the 1970's in California, you pay low as hell property taxes and can just rent it out without any worries and rake in the dough. A normal person can't even buy a house at current prices and people don't have an incentive to sell since they are paying property taxes on valuations based on when they bought it. So they just rent it out if they are not living in that property.

And yes, if Republicans do stick to their no new revenues pledge (even after tax reform) then yes they will ruin the country. You already described why that is, so thanks for that!

I think you'll see Republicans willing to agree to moderate tax increases when serious cuts and entitlement reform is laid out in front of them. They were willing to do that deal in 98 with Clinton when they started talking about real entitlement reform, but Lewinsky broke and killed the backroom negotiations.

Most conservatives would be more than okay with tax increases for structural entitlement reform. But barring that they aren't giving an inch. And they shouldn't.

Barring a plan like Paul Ryan's yeah you probably can't cut $1 trillion in spending or at least it isn't very politically viable. But you can't raise $1 trillion in revenues a year either.

California was screwed long ago by its profligate spending. On that note, do you know who Michael Lewis is? Like his writing?

[Wonkish1]

Michael Lewis is kind of a centrist Dem writer for Vanity Fair. He has written a few best sellers like Liar's Poker(which is what made him famous--detailing his days at Solomon Brothers), Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game(yes book the new movie is based on), The Big Short, etc. and a new book called Boomerang about the crisis in Europe(which I may just end up picking up).

The guys a pretty decent straight shooter, but what has made him famous is that his writing style is very good at getting to a very personal level of those involved.

Well I recently read an article by him in Vanity Fair that I think might be one of the best articles I've read in several years even though it does have one small weird tangent in it. The article is a whopping 7 pages long, but its very eye opening and almost the entire article is about California.

I realize its 7 pages, but do you think you would be up for taking maybe 10 minutes to read a strongly recommended article or would you rather pass?

I'll track it down and post it if your interested.

[Wonkish1]

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111


Starts off as talks about Meredith Whitney's prediction of municipal bankruptcies. He than joins the Arnold on a bike ride which is kind a little funny. It then moves to attending a city council meeting in San Jose where this wealthier city is dealing with a very rough mess on its hands. Interviews the mayor. Then heads off to Vallejo to see what life is like in a bankrupt city. Then goes off on this lizard brain tangent(which is a little weird) and then kind of summarizes and concludes.

You can tell throughout the article that Lewis is trying to keep people entertained who otherwise wouldn't sit through a 7 page article. But it also paints a very good and personalized picture of what is going on in a lot of municipalities in California. Not saying I agree with everything in the article nor do I expect you to, but it is still a very worthwhile read regardless of the side of the fence you sit on(which is quite rare these days).

[Wonkish1]

In a generation or so the GOP will have to become more moderate on social issues and more open to minorities (especially Hispanics) or it will be doomed to permanent minority.

You have to be careful there. It depends on *which* social issues you are referring to. If you're talking about gays, well sure polling data is pretty one sided on that front. But if your talking about abortion, not so fast. For the last 30 years abortion polling has trended in 1 direction and only 1 direction and that is towards more people calling themselves pro life.

So if we were strictly to follow the polling trends the GOP would have to become more moderate on gays and the *Dems would have to become more Pro-Life.* I don't see any Dems on here or anywhere else that are advocating or rooting for that.

The majority of Americans agree that Abortion should be legal but restricted, and the younger generation agree even more on that. If Roe v Wade were overturned if the GOP got the Human Life Ammendment to the constitution (called for in the 2008 party platform) then the GOP would end up with an even worse gender gap.

The moderate position on abortion is the consensus today. Legal but limited. This is the position the GOP has to migrate towards if it wants to be majority party in the future

I read a lot of polls. You are right that legal, but limited is what a decent number of people prefer these days, but the polling is showing increasingly more people supporting banning abortion altogether. Until polling plateaus and starts going back the other way in the future it isn't going to be the GOP changing on that issue it will be the Dems.

[Wonkish1]

Abortion rights won't be overturned for the next 50 years or so in my lifetime. We still have many Democrats that believe abortion should be legal at all trimester. That group is the base of the Democrats and will be sticking to the party unless the party turns 180 Zell Miller style party and the GOP becomes the Rockefeller/Dewey party again, then abortion rights activists will switch to the Republican party. I think the public opinion on abortion will stay the same for my lifetime with both parties having the same position as they've been since I've been alive. For issues that the Grand Old Party has to have concerns about switching in the future, look at no other then gay marriage and environmental issues. The younger generations are becoming more liberal with LGBT having the right to marry and the right to have a child. Republicans can't act like the world is still have stuck with the mentally of  Leave it to Beaver age of the 1950's/early 1960's values. The party continues to act with that mentally of some of it's primarily names such as Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann, the party will be shooting itself in the foot with no grains from voters that are uncomfortable with bigots being the leaders of the GOP and continuing that permanent view point. Environmental issues are becoming more aware in politics and many people who have concerns for the environment don't want a party that thinks the planet isn't going to have many climate changes in the future. That why they need more Jon Huntsman's and less Rick Perry's. Huntsman can continue many of the party platform where still believing in climate change. Richard Nixon wanted to help the environment with the creation of the EPA and George Bush Sr was also believe in environmental protection policy's. One advice for the GOP on climate change and other environmental issues: Don't start god this and god that. Don't bring anti-intellectualism into your policy regarding the environment.

So lets count the errors you've made in your post.

1) "Public opinion on abortion will stay the same for my lifetime". Well it isn't staying the same. It has never stayed the same. The public is continuously more pro life after each couple of years. So what I think you mean to say is that you believe the Pro Life vote has hits its peak. We'll see about that.

2) Younger generations are not becoming more liberal. Relative to the past younger generations are more conservative. Now that may still be a swing from very far to the left in the 70s to just left today, but that is still very much a swing to the right.

3) Environmental issue polling is crashing like a rock. The numbers of people that say they believe in man made global warming are falling fast and continue to retest new lows. Furthermore public dislike for agencies like the EPA is at an all time high. Now I would actually be defined as an environmental moderate, but the polling is pretty one sided and its going away from the Dems on this front not towards them.

[Wonkish1]

When I mean the abortion opinion will stay the same I mean that the Democrats will be the pro choice party and Republicans will be the pro life party. The public opinion will be the same for awhile until some change appears at the Supreme Court ruling that abortion should be left to the states.Women will be piss nationwide when they hear that and a new feminist movement will start.


I meant the youth opinions on gay marriage and environmental issues are becoming more liberal but I have to admit that I haven't seen any polls yet on if people believe in climate change has drop increase compare to 2007 when the environmental movement was back in action.

Fair answer!

I agree that Dems will remain pro choice. I do believe you may see them more willing to agree to parental notification laws, potentially even agreeing to restrictions in the 2nd trimester, etc. down the road *if* public opinion continues to move like it has been.

On gays I would agree with you. But on the environment I don't know if I agree with the idea that younger folks are more concerned about environmental issues than in the past. Worries of acid rain, polluted air, Nuclear meltdown(thank you China Syndrome) have been replaced by a dislike of CO2. And the "solutions" have switched from a 100% government solution to environmental issues to more of business oriented green tech focus. So I'm not sure I can agree that younger folks are more liberal on the environment than they young folks were in the 70s and 80s. Besides there were actually real environmental issues in the 70s. At one point a whole damn river was on fire. Today you see this focus on Carbon because they are running out of real pollutants to be worried about.

[Wonkish1]

To me, "moderates" = people like Chafee, Specter, Castle, Scozzafava; I suppose we're using the term differently.

I wouldn't define any of those people as actual moderates. I think those are "liberal Republicans". I would define Moderate Republican/Moderate Conservative as Brown, Collins, Snowe, Lugar, Hagel, Murkowski, etc.

[Wonkish1]

Don't. We don't need a Democrat Lite^TM party.

I've studied people who said things like that over the years mostly conservatives. Nice use of code words there. So it should just continue going hard-right until they can't even win any of the country? Like that worked so well in 2008....

Democrat Lite basically means "Moderate to Liberal Republicans need not apply or GET LOST!"

RINO means "(Insert group slur)-Lover"

The GOP is going to have to move to the center if it wants to win, some are just in plain denial.

Since self-described "conservatives" are about 40% of the electorate, they only need to gain about a quarter of the self-described "moderates" to win an election.

Also that depends on whether or not you use "slightly conservative" in your polling. If you just use very conservative and conservative before going to moderate than you get 40%. If you add slightly conservative to the other 2 the number jumps to 60%.

[Wonkish1]

That makes right-of-center the power position in American politics. The Republican party simply doesn't have to become the Democratic Lite party to win elections.

To a large extent that is true. Polling has showed that the American people are overwhelmingly conservative ideologically, but that many vote Dem based of assumptions and platitudes.

What I mean by that is that while people agree with conservative ideology they also think that "Republicans will try to benefit the rich at the expense of the middle class." They also believe that "Democrats will try to benefit the poor at the expense of the middle class." They also believe that "Republicans don't have their interests at heart."

These platitudes that are very ingrained in the American psyche and they are what play a larger factor in party id then most would think. So that is where the disparity in ideology and party id come from.

[Wonkish1]

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2011/11/michael-lewis-201111


Starts off as talks about Meredith Whitney's prediction of municipal bankruptcies. He than joins the Arnold on a bike ride which is kind a little funny. It then moves to attending a city council meeting in San Jose where this wealthier city is dealing with a very rough mess on its hands. Interviews the mayor. Then heads off to Vallejo to see what life is like in a bankrupt city. Then goes off on this lizard brain tangent(which is a little weird) and then kind of summarizes and concludes.

You can tell throughout the article that Lewis is trying to keep people entertained who otherwise wouldn't sit through a 7 page article. But it also paints a very good and personalized picture of what is going on in a lot of municipalities in California. Not saying I agree with everything in the article nor do I expect you to, but it is still a very worthwhile read regardless of the side of the fence you sit on(which is quite rare these days).

Excellent article. Thanks. Sorry I didn't have time to read it earlier, I have been pretty busy the last few days. I actually just saw Michael Lewis's interview with Jon Stewart as well, where he gave a more global view of how f'ed we are.

I already knew about the problems of these unions but this article opened my eyes a little bit more. There is almost nothing to be done, especially at the local level. These people just run the show. And people just don't pay attention. They can just be like "the big bad politicians are trying to beat up on the poor police and firefighters", or at the state level those lovely teachers and "peace" officers. It's just too ridiculous. The peace officers btw control the Republicans here. Meg Whitman tried to cut some deals for them while going after the Teachers. No one takes it seriously, it's all just a political game of how to hurt the other side more. And just look at the kind of people your Republican electorate elects here. Why wasn't Campbell nominated, huh? He's as fiscally conservative as any of the other candidates but I guess he wasn't socially crazy enough for the Republican electorate. I would voted for him in a heartbeat. I actually did vote for him in the primary, as DTS voters can, but to no avail. The Megasaur was too strong. Maybe things will be better with the top two, but who the hell knows. Absolutely ridiculous!

[/rant]

Well your more than welcome!Glad you enjoyed it.