Will the GOP move leftwards on economics in the future?

[Bo]

I think many people stopped believing in trickle-down economics once the financial crisis and the Great Recession came, and I don't think they are going to start believing in it again. Will the GOP move leftward on economics in the future (essentially adopt the same economic policy they had before Reagan came to power) in an attempt to capture some economically liberal voters? Or will they remian extremely conservative on economics and continue to favor the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I suspect that the GOP would be better served by compromising on social issues to help connect with younger voters, though in reality I expect them to take an increasingly populist bent over the coming years.

[memphis]

Doubt it. They are tax cut true believers.

[Psychic Octopus]

No, they will move to the left socially due to more tolerant younger voters.

[Vepres]

They'll become a moderate libertarian party. They won't move ideologically, but I think they'll be less corporatist in the future (for they will lose elections otherwise).

[Bo]

Doubt it. They are tax cut true believers.

The GOP was economically moderate (a large segment was even economically liberal) until the late 1970s/early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan took over.

[Bo]

Most young people that I talk to (outside this forum) don't believe in trickle-down economics.

[President Mitt]

It would be stupid, but I could see it happening, and that's when I will leave the Republican Party.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It depends on what your definition of leftwards is. You might see them push for "some tough regulation on banks, stronger education system, and support things like the minimum wage which Republicans have at least complained to support, though not always followed through.

However in general they will still be for lower taxes, less regulations(exception for Financial) and controlling gov't spending.

     I suspect that the GOP would be better served by compromising on social issues to help connect with younger voters, though in reality I expect them to take an increasingly populist bent over the coming years.

I expect them to make changes on both at the same time.

If the GOP wants to have a chance in 2012, there candidate will openly support Civil Unions, the minimum wage, and tough financial regulations. Moderation will have to come on multiple fronts in order to appease both Libertarians and Social Conservatives yet anger neither.

I think many people stopped believing in trickle-down economics once the financial crisis and the Great Recession came, and I don't think they are going to start believing in it again. Will the GOP move leftward on economics in the future (essentially adopt the same economic policy they had before Reagan came to power) in an attempt to capture some economically liberal voters? Or will they remian extremely conservative on economics and continue to favor the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans?

Trickle down economics did not cause this recession alone. And there were several key components that were missing that most trickle down economists will tell you are essential. Which are a strong emphasis on technological advancement, R&D, education and these were not present. The education system is failing and we are falling behind.

This recession was bound to occur because of several macro-economic problems. The Tax cuts were just icing on the cake in either direction. Be sure before jumping on the bandwagon of scrap this, you should put aside your ideology and study the real economic causes.

[Vepres]

Most young people that I talk to (outside this forum) don't believe in trickle-down economics.

I think trickle-down has merit, but obviously the right blows that out of proportion. I think that many young people would feel as I do (at least in the US).

[Associate Justice PiT]

Most young people that I talk to (outside this forum) don't believe in trickle-down economics.

     Strictly speaking the GOP does not need to move leftwards to distance itself from Reaganomics, though in practice not doing so would alienate the party from its corporate sponsors without gaining a comparable money base elsewhere.

[President Mitt]

Most young people that I talk to (outside this forum) don't believe in trickle-down economics.

You can be against Government Intervention in the economy without supporting trickle down economics.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Most young people that I talk to (outside this forum) don't believe in trickle-down economics.

You can be against Government Intervention in the economy without supporting trickle down economics.

     Most definitely, though I doubt there is much money to be had doing that. The Republicans probably are not going to do something that substantially decreases their donor base.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't see the GOP moderating much on social issues besides gay related ones. Our generation is by some measures slightly more pro-life than previous ones, and support for gun control is dropping like a rock, those who support are likely to be older folks who remember huge murder waves of the 80s and things like the Watts riots, not younger people who often live in urban areas without much crime like myself. Other social issues are mostly just pointless lip service things, it's not like teaching creationism in public schools is getting anywhere for example. The GOP might moderate a bit on drug policy, but the Democrats will just as much.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Right now, I don't see the Republican Party moving left at all; if anything, I think it's more a question of how far RIGHT will the party move? The birthers, the teabaggers, the conspiracy theorists (death panels, kill Grandma, etc.), and the loons in the party led by the Sarah Palins and Michele Bachmanns along with the Glenn Becks, Sean Hannitys, Rush Limbaughs and Fox/Faux News have shown no indication whatsoever that they are willing to move left; in fact, they want to "get back to basics," so they say, but I think that's code for obstructionism and they just want to be the Party of No to break Obama (which, if you ask me, from the way he's been leading lately, he's already broken). It's getting scary out there, how far right the party is going. The purging of moderates (Deirde Scozzafava in NY-23, soon to be Charlie Crist in Florida) from the party just goes to show you how out of touch the party is with the country.

But I do think that if the Republican Party wants to be a viable party in upcoming elections, they are going to have to moderate but if they do, it'll be on the social issues. They are clearly out of touch with younger voters on issues like gay rights and abortion, and the party does need to nominate someone a little more moderate on social issues (not an "evangelical" like Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee or else they will just alienate more younger voters and not to mention suburban voters).

But I just don't see the party moving leftwards on economics. They claim to be the party of smaller/limited/no government so issues like raising the minimum wage and more regulations/protectionism/fair trade probably won't settle well with their pro-business economic conservative base, although right now I think their base consists of the crazies/radicals/loons. To be fair, we have them in the Democratic Party too but I don't think they are nearly as scary or as cuckoo as the fringe right.

Like I said, I think the GOP is in a cleansing process right now (get out moderates and anyone who disagrees with them on one single issue is ostracized or labeled as a RINO). I think it's pretty telling when you have to label someone like Bob Bennett of Utah as a moderate. A moderate on what planet?!?! There really are no more moderate Republicans (save for the Sisters of Maine) in the Senate; if I had to pick, I'd say maybe George Voinovich of Ohio and he's retiring. All of the moderate GOP senators were wiped out in the Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008: Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith, John Sununu, etc. John McCain used to be a maverick but he moved so far to the right in the presidential campaign that it's hard to tell what he stands for anymore. Being the "bitter" Hillary supporter that I was/still am, I would have voted for the old John McCain, the REAL Maverick if you will (ha), but when he nominated Bimbo from Alaska he lost all credibility with me so I swallowed my pride and voted for Obama.

There are more moderate GOPs in the House, mainly in suburban/swing districts that Obama carried in 2008. I think the best strategy for Democrats is to equalize our losses in 2008. We're going to lose seats, probably a lot of the conservative/Blue Dogs in districts in the South that McCain won, but at the same time we should really go after these moderate GOPers in districts that Obama won.

[Husker]

But I do think that if the Republican Party wants to be a viable party in upcoming elections, they are going to have to moderate but if they do, it'll be on the social issues. They are clearly out of touch with younger voters on issues like gay rights and abortion, and the party does need to nominate someone a little more moderate on social issues (not an "evangelical" like Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee or else they will just alienate more younger voters and not to mention suburban voters).

But I just don't see the party moving leftwards on economics. They claim to be the party of smaller/limited/no government so issues like raising the minimum wage and more regulations/protectionism/fair trade probably won't settle well with their pro-business economic conservative base, although right now I think their base consists of the crazies/radicals/loons. To be fair, we have them in the Democratic Party too but I don't think they are nearly as scary or as cuckoo as the fringe right.

Like I said, I think the GOP is in a cleansing process right now (get out moderates and anyone who disagrees with them on one single issue is ostracized or labeled as a RINO). I think it's pretty telling when you have to label someone like Bob Bennett of Utah as a moderate. A moderate on what planet?!?! There really are no more moderate Republicans (save for the Sisters of Maine) in the Senate; if I had to pick, I'd say maybe George Voinovich of Ohio and he's retiring. All of the moderate GOP senators were wiped out in the Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008: Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith, John Sununu, etc. John McCain used to be a maverick but he moved so far to the right in the presidential campaign that it's hard to tell what he stands for anymore. Being the "bitter" Hillary supporter that I was/still am, I would have voted for the old John McCain, the REAL Maverick if you will (ha), but when he nominated Bimbo from Alaska he lost all credibility with me so I swallowed my pride and voted for Obama.

There are more moderate GOPs in the House, mainly in suburban/swing districts that Obama carried in 2008. I think the best strategy for Democrats is to equalize our losses in 2008. We're going to lose seats, probably a lot of the conservative/Blue Dogs in districts in the South that McCain won, but at the same time we should really go after these moderate GOPers in districts that Obama won.

I'd have to agree with you on most of this. I don't mind my representative and will probably vote for him again this November. He's a conservative on most issues, but avoids the idiocy like death panels, etc... and has relatively progressive ideas on energy and food- two things I think are very important for our future. At this point, if your district has a sane republican, I'd try to keep them, because it seems like the party will accept nothing more than a hardline social and economic conservative that doesn't nothing but berate the other side. I'd give anything to have Hagel back in the Senate because he was a sane conservative that looked at bigger issues.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Yes I agree husker. My district is blessed to have a very sane Republican representative in Jo Ann Emerson who doesn't give in to the loons and tea partiers and who has shown her bipartisanship on a range of issues. She is the only Republican I have ever voted for and she wants to work with Democrats as opposed to labeling them as socialists and other demonizing names. MO-08 is truly blessed to have a fine congresswoman in Ms. Emerson.

[Bo]

Yes I agree husker. My district is blessed to have a very sane Republican representative in Jo Ann Emerson who doesn't give in to the loons and tea partiers and who has shown her bipartisanship on a range of issues. She is the only Republican I have ever voted for and she wants to work with Democrats as opposed to labeling them as socialists and other demonizing names. MO-08 is truly blessed to have a fine congresswoman in Ms. Emerson.

I wouldn't consider Jo Ann Emerson to be really moderate. She would probably be a strong conservative (in my opinion)--after all, she did receive a lifetime rating of 83 from the Ameircan Conservative Union (out of 100 possible). The only things she agrees with Democrats on are stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. She still believes in trickle-down economics and supports the other social policies of the Republicans. That's not moderate to me.

[Frodo]

Yes I agree husker. My district is blessed to have a very sane Republican representative in Jo Ann Emerson who doesn't give in to the loons and tea partiers and who has shown her bipartisanship on a range of issues. She is the only Republican I have ever voted for and she wants to work with Democrats as opposed to labeling them as socialists and other demonizing names. MO-08 is truly blessed to have a fine congresswoman in Ms. Emerson.

I wouldn't consider Jo Ann Emerson to be really moderate. She would probably be a strong conservative (in my opinion)--after all, she did receive a lifetime rating of 83 from the Ameircan Conservative Union (out of 100 possible). The only things she agrees with Democrats on are stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. She still believes in trickle-down economics and supports the other social policies of the Republicans. That's not moderate to me.

You missed the point -the very fact that he considers her a 'moderate' in relation to her party shows you how far to the right the GOP has moved recently (and will continue to in the future at least through the 2012 presidential election). 

[Bo]

Yes I agree husker. My district is blessed to have a very sane Republican representative in Jo Ann Emerson who doesn't give in to the loons and tea partiers and who has shown her bipartisanship on a range of issues. She is the only Republican I have ever voted for and she wants to work with Democrats as opposed to labeling them as socialists and other demonizing names. MO-08 is truly blessed to have a fine congresswoman in Ms. Emerson.

I wouldn't consider Jo Ann Emerson to be really moderate. She would probably be a strong conservative (in my opinion)--after all, she did receive a lifetime rating of 83 from the Ameircan Conservative Union (out of 100 possible). The only things she agrees with Democrats on are stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. She still believes in trickle-down economics and supports the other social policies of the Republicans. That's not moderate to me.

You missed the point -the very fact that he considers her a 'moderate' in relation to her party shows you how far to the right the GOP has moved recently (and will continue to in the future at least through the 2012 presidential election). 

Republicans were extremely far right on economics ever since Reagan.

[k-onmmunist]

As has been said already, I see the Republicans gradually moving left on social issues to keep up with the zeitgeist. As for economic, they will probably move right, although not to the extent where they could be called 'libertarian'.

[Zarn]

Leftwards on economics is suicide.

The only way to move is away from acting like primitives.

[CARLHAYDEN]

As has been said already, I see the Republicans gradually moving left on social issues to keep up with the zeitgeist. As for economic, they will probably move right, although not to the extent where they could be called 'libertarian'.

Is this the "zeitgeist" to which you are referring:

USA Today/Gallup Poll. July 17-19, 2009. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
  "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"
                      LegalUnder Any      Legal Only Under Certain      Illegal In All      
                                     %                                          %                                        %
7/17-19/09                21                                         57                                       18
4/90                           31                                         53                                       12
Change                   - 10                                         + 4                                     + 6
 
Gallup Poll. Oct. 1-4, 2009. N=1,013 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.
"Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?"
.
                              Should           Should Not           Unsure
                                  %                     %                     %
10/1-4/09                 28                    71                       1
1959                         60                   36                        4
Change                  - 32                 + 35                     - 3

[HAnnA MArin County]

Yes I agree husker. My district is blessed to have a very sane Republican representative in Jo Ann Emerson who doesn't give in to the loons and tea partiers and who has shown her bipartisanship on a range of issues. She is the only Republican I have ever voted for and she wants to work with Democrats as opposed to labeling them as socialists and other demonizing names. MO-08 is truly blessed to have a fine congresswoman in Ms. Emerson.

I wouldn't consider Jo Ann Emerson to be really moderate. She would probably be a strong conservative (in my opinion)--after all, she did receive a lifetime rating of 83 from the Ameircan Conservative Union (out of 100 possible). The only things she agrees with Democrats on are stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, and withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. She still believes in trickle-down economics and supports the other social policies of the Republicans. That's not moderate to me.

You missed the point -the very fact that he considers her a 'moderate' in relation to her party shows you how far to the right the GOP has moved recently (and will continue to in the future at least through the 2012 presidential election). 

correct, Frodo.

[Magic 8ball]

I think many people stopped believing in trickle-down economics once the financial crisis and the Great Recession came, and I don't think they are going to start believing in it again. Will the GOP move leftward on economics in the future (essentially adopt the same economic policy they had before Reagan came to power) in an attempt to capture some economically liberal voters? Or will they remian extremely conservative on economics and continue to favor the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans?

Nah, I think Free-Market economics are as alive as ever.  I think once the New Right movement dies down (whenever that'll be) we'll see the party shift left socially. But laissez-faire policies (or at least laissez-faire rhetoric) have been a the binding factor of the party for at least the last 30 years.