Young Republicans Show the Way Forward for the GOP

[Frodo]

Pretty much confirms which Republicans here have been saying for years, but it's nice to have a mainstream paper substantiate it:

Young in G.O.P. Erase the Lines on Social Issues

By SUSAN SAULNY
Published: August 8, 2012

Polls show that Americans under 30 are the least likely to identify as Republican, and those in the millennial generation support President Obama by a wide margin. But in an effort to win votes by capitalizing on disenchantment with the recession and its slow recovery, Republicans are placing a renewed emphasis on fiscal issues, with hopes of energizing their young people — a group that had one of the lowest turnout levels in the history of presidential elections in 2008 and did not turn out in strong numbers in this year’s primaries.

In a break from generations past and with an eye toward the future, many of the youngest leaders of the Republican Party are embracing views on some social issues that are at odds with traditional conservative ideology — if they mention such issues at all, according to interviews, experts and some polling.

All of their characteristics taken together, young Republicans present a nuanced mix of political ideals that may well change the face of the party over time, experts say. “There has to be room for them or the Republican Party won’t exist, at the pace this generation is evolving,” said John Della Volpe, polling director at the Harvard Institute of Politics.

[memphis]

At least two members of her College Republican group, one of whom is a lifelong friend, recently revealed that they are gay, she said. And the open discussions that ensued greatly influenced the entire club, and solidified Ms. Kotzambasis’s own view.

[shua]

At least two members of her College Republican group, one of whom is a lifelong friend, recently revealed that they are gay, she said. And the open discussions that ensued greatly influenced the entire club, and solidified Ms. Kotzambasis’s own view.

Are you really that incapable of believing Republicans can be accepting of gay people, or are you just using eyerolls randomly now?

anyway, the article's a nice little anecdotal piece, but not particularly enlightening.

[Progressive Realist]

The way forward is to abandon their dogmatic ideology on all issues.

[Chareth Cutestory]

to the whole thing. They'll soon learn that they should either lose the Repubs or their values, cause those two things are mutually exclusive. You can't have a social conscience and vote Republican, it will never, ever work.

[shua]

to the whole thing. They'll soon learn that they should either lose the Repubs or their values, cause those two things are mutually exclusive. You can't have a social conscience and vote Republican, it will never, ever work.

it's not as though support for any political party can be squared with an authentically self-reflective social conscience.  politics involves compromising oneself, for the most part.

[Chareth Cutestory]

to the whole thing. They'll soon learn that they should either lose the Repubs or their values, cause those two things are mutually exclusive. You can't have a social conscience and vote Republican, it will never, ever work.

it's not as though support for any political party can coincide with an authentically self-reflective social conscience.  politics involves compromising oneself, for the most part.

Amen. Let them all become enlightened and un-politicized for the better of the world. If only...

[white trash heroes]

to the whole thing. They'll soon learn that they should either lose the Repubs or their values, cause those two things are mutually exclusive. You can't have a social conscience and vote Republican, it will never, ever work.

i remember watching joe rogan awhile back on youtube. someone brought up how they carried a 'bankers want to gay marry your illegal abortions' sign to an ows rally. naturally most people didn't get it then. this reminds me of that except you know, inverted. as if republicans adopting the 'liberal' line on these sort of things could ever compensate for the already rotten bi-partisanship on everything else (even if you saw that as an 'improvement').

[Keystone Phil]

Speaking for myself, I've always accepted but disagreed with socially moderate to even liberal Republicans as long as they're with us on other issues. I've also said the same for populist Republicans who aren't always with us on economic issues. Same with those that don't necessarily accept the modern conservative Republican views on foreign/military policy.

That being said, I've encountered plenty of "big tenters" that are socially liberal and want to be personally accepted but want to shut the door on populists.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Speaking for myself, I've always accepted but disagreed with socially moderate to even liberal Republicans as long as they're with us on other issues. I've also said the same for populist Republicans who aren't always with us on economic issues. Same with those that don't necessarily accept the modern conservative Republican views on foreign/military policy.

That being said, I've encountered plenty of "big tenters" that are socially liberal and want to be personally accepted but want to shut the door on populists.

Hypocrisy has always been a strong suit of supposed "big tent" Republicans who crow about being included, but then demand as a condition the removal of certain "undersirables" they find embarassing to be associated with in their social circles.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

Speaking for myself, I've always accepted but disagreed with socially moderate to even liberal Republicans as long as they're with us on other issues. I've also said the same for populist Republicans who aren't always with us on economic issues. Same with those that don't necessarily accept the modern conservative Republican views on foreign/military policy.

That being said, I've encountered plenty of "big tenters" that are socially liberal and want to be personally accepted but want to shut the door on populists.

Hypocrisy has always been a strong suit of supposed "big tent" Republicans who crow about being included, but then demand as a condition the removal of certain "undersirables" they find embarassing to be associated with in their social circles.

Ugh. It's like those homophobic black people who say things like "I fought for my right to fight against other peoples' rights!"

[retromike22]

I wonder if because of the increasing acceptance of gay Americans, and the mostly detente position on abortion, that social issues in general will not be associated with either party, but each politician. So that the Republican Party is conservative economically, and the Democratic party liberal economically, but each politician has their own views on a social issue.

I like that system better.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

I wonder if because of the increasing acceptance of gay Americans, and the mostly detente position on abortion, that social issues in general will not be associated with either party, but each politician. So that the Republican Party is conservative economically, and the Democratic party liberal economically, but each politician has their own views on a social issue.

I like that system better.

Like it is in Canada or the UK?

[Former Moderate]

Young Republicans are usually pretty decent at not being assholes to your face. About being gay, anyway. They'll save the asshole part for when they find out you're a Democrat.

[realisticidealist]

People have been talking about this for years. I'll believe that it has some effect when it does. But even if it did, the social conservatives have to go somewhere...

[opebo]

Young in G.O.P. Erase the Lines on Social Issues

Yeah they just keep the economic oppression aspect - lovely.

[Foucaulf]

This says a lot more about the composition of college students than Republicans (the article points out College Republican groups aren't affiliated with the party). Gender parity is the norm, and thanks to the last decade of openness about sexuality LGBT kids are on the rise. It's hard to maintain those prejudices when the targeted groups pass you by every day on the way to class.

The caveat is that nothing inspires openness about race and class. Social conservatives are also bunkering down and using amendment rights as a defense, (i.e. Chick-Fil-A) meaning I don't see their disproportionate influence fading any time soon.

[Vosem]

Well, yeah. I myself am probably a pretty good example of this trend.

Young in G.O.P. Erase the Lines on Social Issues

Yeah they just keep the economic oppression aspect - lovely.

Lovely!

[Torie]

to the whole thing. They'll soon learn that they should either lose the Repubs or their values, cause those two things are mutually exclusive. You can't have a social conscience and vote Republican, it will never, ever work.

Really?

[Chareth Cutestory]

to the whole thing. They'll soon learn that they should either lose the Repubs or their values, cause those two things are mutually exclusive. You can't have a social conscience and vote Republican, it will never, ever work.

Really?

Can you honestly tell me that you feel completely morally at peace voting for Republicans? Keep in mind that this is coming from an ex-Republican point of view, not just some loony lefty with a vendetta.

[Torie]

to the whole thing. They'll soon learn that they should either lose the Repubs or their values, cause those two things are mutually exclusive. You can't have a social conscience and vote Republican, it will never, ever work.

Really?

Can you honestly tell me that you feel completely morally at peace voting for Republicans? Keep in mind that this is coming from an ex-Republican point of view, not just some loony lefty with a vendetta.

Oh I understand where you are coming from; that is why I commented. If it had been a standard issue liberal Dem I would not have.

Yes, I am morally at peace.  It is a matter of how you weight issues. I do vote for Dems from time to time however, because I find the Pub unfit. There are some aspects of the Dem party, with which I would think more folks than they do would find raises issues of conscience - such as secondary schools and the public employee thing.

To the extent you want to, you might tell me just what aspects freak you out, and why you give them considerable weight. I'm kind of curious.

[Chareth Cutestory]

Well, at this point it's come to more of a place where I'm approaching the party from a negative perspective, so a lot of things really bother me. But what fundamentally irks me is the unabashed emphasis on protecting the wealthy at all costs. It's clear at this point that supply side economics isn't realistic and yet they ride that to a terrible means as though it's a universal benefit. We've already cut taxes for the wealthy and encouraged excessive spending in the name of corporate profits enough to know that it doesn't help the people, it only helps the bottom line. While I certainly have a predisposition towards the bottom line, government is much, much more than that. The fact that Republicans toss that to the wayside in the name of global monetary positioning is extremely disappointing. The aspect of Republican budgetary plans that cut waste, streamline services, and instill accountability are compromised by favoritism towards the very most fortunate. Massive subsidies to the most profitable corporations, willful ignorance towards the abuses of the financial and pharmaceutical companies, and an attitude of bending over backwards for the ultra-wealthy at the expense of the most vulnerable (who are in that position because of Republican policies) are my ultimate gripes. And they are so unacceptable to me that I can't reconcile those negatives with the positions of my Republican comrades that choose their party from a principled outlook.

[Torie]

Do you think that much public policy chips ride on whether or not the top bracket goes up 4.5%, and increasing taxes on dividends and capital gains (the tax rate increasing on gains probably being unwise and not the best place to get more revenue from the rich but I digress)?  I mean that is the only difference out there at the moment between Obama and and the Pubs really.

In reality a lot more folks than just the rich are going to have to pay more taxes to make this all work at the level of a social safety net that the vast majority of Americans will be demanding. There is no escape from that - not with medical technology and our demographics going where they are going. And a lot of the goodies are going to have to be means tested more (so the rich will be getting less). The Dems are hostile to means testing for complex reasons, which I can get into if you wish. One aspect is that the Dems fear the largess/cross subsidies might be subject to being undermined if the means testing enters the picture. Yes, it's paranoid, but they do tend to be quite hostile to it. Go figure.

Speaking of the rich and connected, how much does crony capitalism bother you? The Dems seem to be making that something of an art form at the moment.