Long Term Viability of the Republican Party

[DC Al Fine]

The Republicans had a golden opportunity to win the presidency last night and blew it. This raises  questions about the long term viability of the Republican Party. The Republicans have a solid base of married White Protestants who are increasingly becoming less white, less married , and less Protestant.

The one piece of good news for the Republicans is that the Democrats coalition is very large and diverse. It is easy to see the Republicans stealing part of the Democratic coalition. I see two routes for the Republicans to follow.

1) The Conservative Party of Canada option: De-emphasize social conservatism, assume that Evangelicals will never vote for a Democratic party that is hostile to their religious views and focus on winning the votes of wealthier Hispanics and Asians.

2) The Christian Democratic Union option: Adopt a social market economy stance and combine compassionate conservatism with "tough on crime" stances and maintaining most of the social conservative platform (obviously this will be a bit different from social conservatism in Germany). Focus on winning over religious Catholic Hispanics.

Given how the Republicans got burned on social conservatism this year, I'd say option 1 is most likely.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I actually don't think the changes we need to make are as radical as the politicos are suggesting. Compassionate conservatism can appeal to many of the people in the Democrat coalition if it is branded properly.

The one tack we need to make is on illegal immigration. Provide a path to some sort of legal status. Emphasize the fact that amnesty will save money and that it will benefit the economy to make official some of the illegal immigrants' informal markets. Talk about life, love, and family.

I was very pleased to see how much the pundits talked about the failures of the party. The number of times "Hispanics" and "women" came up was remarkable... it couldn't be clearer what the GOP needs to do, and I hope they take it seriously.

Honestly, last night made me very optimistic for Susana Martinez's chances, because I honestly believe she is exactly what the GOP needs. She'll keep them in touch with their roots, but she'll make the party a lot more accessible to a lot more people.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Even if you change on illegal immigration, that is only the foot in the door. Nominating a Hispanic candidate merely a foot in the door. The core message is what determines whether or not you win Latinos or any other group, not what your specific plan on a subset of an issue that only about 10% of the country lists as a top priority. It may be a piece, but those thinking it is a whole affair, are fooling themselves.

Before we start arguing between whether the long term direction is Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee (It is neither, people ), the Republicans need to look at their core values and principles and ask themselves, 1) Is this still a conservative country? and 2) Can we sell a conservative message of economic freedom and traditional values to anyone not currently in the mix?

One thing that most certainly has to change is the language. Frank Luntz has some great feedback on how to adapt the conservative message to a modern political arena language wise. It should be looked at pretty closely, for sure. One of the big ones he mentioned is to stop talking about preserving capitalism, which has become a code word for Maddoff and no one can connect with that, and instead talk about economic freedom and individual empowerment.

Next, if the values and principles can remain the same, 1) What policies actually advance those? and 2) What are just a legacy policy of days gone by? Ex. 1) Simpler, less burdensom tax code, 2) Bush tax cuts. Should we really sacrifice the movement's goals to continue a failed Bush stimulus program?

The GOP should bring Libertarians in and give them a seat at the table, but that doesn't mean you kick out the Social Conservatives or abandon them entirely. Coalitions require sacrifice to achieve shared goals. What the GOP needs to learn to do is stop playing the Sg0508/Ben Kenobi approach of demanding the other be kicked out and instead learn how to build and maintain a broad coalition of people.  The party doesn't have to abandon the cause of life, it needs to change the strategy and rhetoric. MO and IN Are Pro-Life states. They didn't reject Republicans because they were pro-life, they rejected them because they were insensitive idiots. Gets back to the language issue. Perhaps also not pushing this "no exceptions" stuff, might be a good idea as well, especially at the national level.

[BM]

I'm not foolish enough to proclaim the Republican party dead, but immigration and gay marriage are the only issues I think they really need to temper their rhetoric on. Those issues are slipping away from them fast.

Oh and don't talk about rape anymore.

[Marokai Backbeat]

All I will say at this point is this: It's not Republican "packaging" that will give them much broader minority appeal. It is Republican policies. If Republicans want to gain minority votes and gain women votes they need to fundamentally change their approach to public policy. Redesigning your look is not a long term strategy to fix this problem. Fix the way you absorb information and substantively alter your policy approach.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The overall viability of the GOP is not at all good until we educate people about how our policies are really better for blacks, Latinos, etc. than those of Democrats.  And before my fellow conservatives say that Romney lost because he was a moderate: Romney lost because he articulated his message poorly and let President Obama turn the election into a popularity contest.  The Republican Party has been destroying itself since 2010 by nominating unelectable candidates in statewide elections for the sake of ideology.  And that made it easy for Romney to be caricatured as a right-wing extremist.  We likely would have won many more races if the more moderate candidates had been nominated, and if it was like that at the state level, then to suggest that Romney lost a national because he was too moderate seems to me to be, at best, bordering on ludicrous.  To paraphrase what Kirsten Powers said on Fox News last night, you can't win if all of your catchers are out in right field (or left field, for that matter).  Remember that half a loaf is better than no bread.  I wouldn't mind taking either the Christian Democrat or Canadian Conservative route.  The religious conservative vote (at least among whites) is pretty much locked up for the GOP in every election, so while we should address social issues, we need to put them on the back burner.  I say this as someone whose ideology in many ways closely identifies with Christian democrats (though I'm conservative on most economic issues, like taxes).

[Paleobrazilian]

First of all, GOPers have to keep their trunks up. The party is not over. While sad and bad, this was no electoral disaster, no huge tragedy. Both parties have faced much bigger crisis in their histories, and survived.

There's no denying, of course, that the current situation, the current demographics, the current society puts the Republicans in a delicate spot. And you have to understand the times to find your solution.

Once the problem is realized, you have a few options.

The first of them is staying together, united, loyal to your guns, even if that threatens to kill you on the long run. Just embrace all conservatives in, no matter what they want to say. Of course this would be the slow death of the Republican party, giving a chance to a smart, opportunistic right wing party to take their place.

The second option is a sudden split of the Republican party, probably caused by a controversial choice in a presidential primary. While unlikely, this would wreak havoc in American politics.

Far more intelligent, though, would be realizing moving just a few party positions from the extreme right to the right or the center right would suddenly make the party run super strongly around the USA, probably forcing Ds further to the left, gaining a lot for the next decades. Way better for the GOP, huh?

So, how to do that?

First, Rs MUST choose their candidates more carefully. The GOP has embarrassed conservatives, not only in America, but throughout the world with those Todd Akins and Richard Mourdocks. Those nutters are making conservatives look dumb, absurdly ignorant, and may completely destroy conservatism in the long run. Republican candidates for public office must be interviewed carefully by local leaders, state leaders, national leaders, specially on social issues. And if they don't show a minimum level of intelligence and common sense, they should get no money AT ALL from the GOP. Nutters should be forced to run their campaigns on their on. It's better for the GOP to lose a seat to Ds than the embarrassment of a Todd Akin every 2 years.

On social issues, be rational. Just admit Roe v. Wade is settled law, and just say it's up to the states to decide how abortions should go through. If someone asks what you think about abortion, be sincere, but with intelligence. Just say you're against it because even science fails to say precisely when life begins. Plus, give up the war on same sex couples. Forget those stupid marriage amendments and leave marriage up to the states, while respecting civil unions as an exercise of liberty.

On the economy, there's not much on substance to change, actually. As someone said before, what must change is the message. Stress the advantages of a free society where individuals are empowered to create solutions. Try to communicate better, explain why increasing taxes, even if by a lot and only on rich people, will hardly help to resolve the fiscal cliff. Adopt some creative , bold ideas, like David Cameron's Big Society (while the program seems to have failed in the UK, empowering local leaders would be a strong plank in the US). Plus, take a serious look at Ron Paul when he talks about a FED audit. While the bailouts seem to have been approved by the electorate, I do feel many dislike the idea of undervaluing the dollar too much, thus, proposing more transparency to the FED could be a plus.

One bigger change the Rs have to take, as some already mentioned, is on immigration reform. They'll have to accept some common sense here. I feel they eventually will.

One change I think Rs should consider is the way they see Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. The USA were never very fond of second generation human rights, and it would be smart to the Rs to campaign saying they see those rights as human rights, and that the reforms they propose are just to make sure today's and tomorrow seniors will have access to their human rights. They should also emphasize that while the public sector has the responsibility to fulfil those rights up to the point it can, the private sector can lend a helpful hand here as well. Policies like No Child Left Behind, while not perfect, show Rs care about second generation human rights and trying to improve them. That matters.

Finally, on foreign policy, Bush doctrine is gone, so it's all about sticking to a humble foreign policy that will only intervene in humanitarian missions under very special and tense situations. Kick nutters that say the USA should leave the UN out of the conversation, but campaign for a UN reform that makes the UN (specially the Security Council) more efficient, and that diminishes the amount of money the USA has to pay the UN annually.

[Frodo]

As far as health care is concerned, Obamacare is here to stay -and it's time for Republicans to make their peace with it.  It will be to the benefit of Republicans, however, to advocate tweaking it in such a way as to build a lasting health care system on the Bismarck model closely resembling that of Germany and Switzerland. 

Can you do it? 

[DC Al Fine]

First of all, GOPers have to keep their trunks up. The party is not over. While sad and bad, this was no electoral disaster, no huge tragedy. Both parties have faced much bigger crisis in their histories, and survived.

I realise that, but take a look at the exit polls and compare them to 2008. Single women, and Jews both swung Republican somewhat, while Hispanics swung slightly towards Obama. If the Republicans are stuck at 30% of one of the fastest growing voter groups in the country, they are in major trouble.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The 23% number with Hispanic voters really needs to set alarms off within the party.

The GOP will adapt and will be back just like the Democrats in 1988, but it will take time. The party will not die off. I think our best days are ahead of us. I am hopeful sanity may return to my party, but they must change the way they are approaching governing and policy making. This is a changing country and the voters are changing. What worked in the past no longer works now. 

[BM]

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have been saying that they're finally outnumbered and it's time to throw in the towel and enjoy life as much as they can.

Talk about demoralizing. Maybe Republicans are a dead party after all.

[afleitch]

My opening salvo is probably what you expected. Having the same platform on gay rights in 2012 or in 2016 as you did a decade ago is as politically helpful as having an anti-civil rights platform in the 1970's. The GOP doesn't even allow it's front runners to even position themselves in favour of civil unions never mind gay marriage. LGBT voters made up 5% of all voters in this election. In some urban areas from what we know about the LGBT community, this number is probably considerably greater (Denver, parts of Florida) that in close elections is going to cost you not just votes, but states. If you are anti-LGBT it used to be thought 'oh well the gays won't vote for me, who cares.' The same was true of other minorities in the past, but issues of equality matter not just to those they effect directly but to their families and friends. A mother is not going to vote for a party that treats her son like sh-t.

Now I'm a long term member of the Conservative Party here. I know exactly what it's like to loose an election, then think you lost it because you were not conservative enough, then tack to the right and lose again. People don't follow parties; they really don't. They don't tell you that you've lost them, For every person who turns up at a rally there are a dozen who haven't told you they've stopped supporting you or don't want to vote for you.  Parties need to follow people and adapt to survive. We had to go from the party that tried to stop children even learning about gay people to supporting gay marriage in ten years. We had to do it because that's they way the public went. Make your peace with public healthcare. Most conservatives in the western world did this nearly two generations ago.

Get to know minorities and stop making assumptions about them. There's been talk of why the GOP can't sell itself to Catholics because 'aren't Catholics supposed to be conservative' so you know, maybe ramp up the whole gays and abortion thing.

The Religious Right might help galvanise your core, but they won't win you elections. There is an increasing number of Americans who don't consider themselves religious or are unaffiliated with any one faith. It is expanding; they make up nearly a third of Americans under 30.  They currently vote heavily Democratic. 'Rape baby', anti-science bullsh-t doesn't cut it.

[© tweed]

until we educate people about how our policies are really better for blacks, Latinos, etc. than those of Democrats.

lolz

[All Along The Watchtower]

until we educate people about how our policies are really better for blacks, Latinos, etc. than those of Democrats.

lolz

Indeed.

[Chartist]

To be fair to Oldies, that's exactly the same argument made by Democrats in What's the Matter With Kansas?: "Evil Republicans used cultural issues to wedge the white working class away from the Democrats despite our policies being better for them". It's a matter of ideology more than fact whether either are true.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

All I will say at this point is this: It's not Republican "packaging" that will give them much broader minority appeal. It is Republican policies. If Republicans want to gain minority votes and gain women votes they need to fundamentally change their approach to public policy. Redesigning your look is not a long term strategy to fix this problem. Fix the way you absorb information and substantively alter your policy approach.

It was packaging in IN and MO. It was campaign quality in VA, WI, ND and MT. It was campaign quality and packaging in the Presidential race. That gives you a Romney presidency and a Senate majority. Whatever you do, it matters short-term, medium-term, and long-term. Whatever policies you advocate for and principles you offer and continue to adhere to, if you can't sell it, no one will care how good what your offering is. Republicans need to listen more and ask more questions, rather than giving answers and assume people will automatically know those are the right ones.

We are never going to agree on what the "offered items" should be. We have fundamentally different views of what this country is and where it is heading. And somehow I am fairly certain that your vote will never be on the table.

The GOP will remain a conservative party. There will be a some policy changes because different times call for new ideas. For years I  have said that I would love to see them drop this FMA bullcrap and pursue Civil Unions, go back to humbler foreign policy, find a happy medium on regulation (a big mistake on Romney's part was calling for the repeal of Dodd-Frank and not offering an alternative that addressed the root problems, with far less negatives on the economy).

On immigration, the Republicans should have moved quicker to fomulate an alternative Dream Act that satisfied the concerns expressed (even extreme NumbersUSA founder Roy Beck was willing to embrace a Dream Act, provided it met certain standards). They also should have spent more emphasis on reforming and improving the legal process, establishing a guest worker program in conjunction with E-verify and so forth. Obama was vulnerable on all sides of this issue and Romney didn't effectively take advantage of that below the surface of the overall campaign focused on the economy. Romney also got much too close to SB1070 for comfort and got butched in the AZ hispanic vote (Romney could have won that state by 16-20% had that gone differently and gotten into the 40's in that group, which is a more natural number for Republicans since AZ Hispanics are historically more Republican then the nationwide numbers).   

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Republican Party has no long term viability problems. Both institutional parties are always fine over the long term. It does have some fairly serious medium term issues though.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

until we educate people about how our policies are really better for blacks, Latinos, etc. than those of Democrats.

Educate us now.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

until we educate people about how our policies are really better for blacks, Latinos, etc. than those of Democrats.

Educate us now.

I don't think the GOP needs to move to the center on any issues, but we need to do a better job of communicating our beliefs.  Since 1992, the Republicans have been in greater trouble going forward than at any time in their history except possibly for the Great Depression.  Here's how I think they need to tool their message:

1. On immigration, we need to explain to the Latino community that were are not anti-immigration, but rather anti-illegal immigration.  (I don't see how opposing illegal immigration is offensive anyway.)  Explain how illegal immigration sets people up for a lifetime of exploitation.  We need to focus our efforts on more Spanish advertising and address social issues (like abortion and gay marriage) to Latinos, since most of them are very socially conservative.  
2. On social issues themselves, we shouldn't become more centrist, but we should downplay them relative to economic issues.  Most people are motivated more by issues like that anyway.  And we should convince those who are socially liberal/moderate to rethink their positions.  
3. For blacks, we should tell people the true story of civil rights and how Republicans were the party that fought to end slavery and segregation, as well as how Democrats resisted us at every turn.  Tell them how opposition to school choice and creating dependency on welfare programs (which should be reformed rather than repealed) is a modern-day form of slavery and the antithesis of civil rights.
4. For Jews, tell them how our support for Israel and the Jewish community has been much stronger than that of Democrats over the past few years and prioritize economic issues (becaus of Jewish fiscal conservatism) and, if necessary, emphasize social issues in our message as well.

These are four important steps the GOP can take to shatter the myth that they are a party of right-wing extremists and remain viable in tbe long term.  Essentially, we need to be, to paraphrase George H. W. Bush, a kinder, gentler
party than we appear to be now.

[Mehmentum]

The Republican Party has no long term viability problems. Both institutional parties are always fine over the long term. It does have some fairly serious medium term issues though.

[opebo]

The Republican Party has no long term viability problems. Both institutional parties are always fine over the long term. It does have some fairly serious medium term issues though.

Certainly, but two questions arise - how long is the 'medium term', and what strategies will get them through it and on to the longer term viability you prophesy?

[bedstuy]

I think the party needs to become more "moderate."  Obviously, many of the party's current positions are taken out of political expediency.  Republicans have become spending extremists, not because they believe it (see Medicare part D, military waste), but because it's useful in frustrating President Obama. 

The bigger issue though is the epistemic dysfunction of the party.  The Republican party has ceased to listen to experts, science and data.  If we look at the past few years, we've seen elements of the party largely believe:

-Obama's birth certificate is a fake
-Democrats engage in widespread voter fraud curable by voter ID
-Benghazi-gate controversy is a major scandal
-Climate science is a hoax
-The financial crisis was caused by Democrats in Congress
-The stimulus didn't affect unemployment positively (general denial of macroeconomics)
-Ron Paul/gold-bug anti-Fed nonsense

If you say you believe dumb things like that, you look dumb.  If you think Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate, how can you have any credibility in the media or among moderates/reasonable people?  It may be good politics in a primary or good for talk radio, but Republicans are losing credibility among moderate people who would listen to a small government message if they were repulsed by Rush Limbaugh.  Most people don't have the knowledge to evaluate policies based on history or data, but they do take notice when you seem nuts.  If your messengers include Bachmann, Santorum and Akin, you lose credibility and people assume your party is nuts.  If you seem fair-minded and sane, moderates will trust you.  This was why Republicans saw a surge when Romney moved to the middle.

The Republican party should try to embrace data and rational analysis. We don't like in a black and white world.  Sometimes Democrats are right.  The way to handle politics is to sometimes be humble, realize you don't know the answer to everything.  Rigid adherence to any set of ideologies doesn't work in business or science, it doesn't work in government.  The party should be willing to study the issues and evolve.  The base may want easy answers and slogans, but leaders on the right need to lead.  If the GOP just seemed less partisan, more fair and more sane, moderates would give them a chance.

[Marokai Backbeat]

All I will say at this point is this: It's not Republican "packaging" that will give them much broader minority appeal. It is Republican policies. If Republicans want to gain minority votes and gain women votes they need to fundamentally change their approach to public policy. Redesigning your look is not a long term strategy to fix this problem. Fix the way you absorb information and substantively alter your policy approach.

It was packaging in IN and MO. It was campaign quality in VA, WI, ND and MT. It was campaign quality and packaging in the Presidential race. That gives you a Romney presidency and a Senate majority. Whatever you do, it matters short-term, medium-term, and long-term. Whatever policies you advocate for and principles you offer and continue to adhere to, if you can't sell it, no one will care how good what your offering is. Republicans need to listen more and ask more questions, rather than giving answers and assume people will automatically know those are the right ones.

We are never going to agree on what the "offered items" should be. We have fundamentally different views of what this country is and where it is heading. And somehow I am fairly certain that your vote will never be on the table.

The GOP will remain a conservative party. There will be a some policy changes because different times call for new ideas. For years I  have said that I would love to see them drop this FMA bullcrap and pursue Civil Unions, go back to humbler foreign policy, find a happy medium on regulation (a big mistake on Romney's part was calling for the repeal of Dodd-Frank and not offering an alternative that addressed the root problems, with far less negatives on the economy).

I have one small idea. How about starting with supporting your own ideas when they are brought up by your opposition? The DREAM Act was once supported by many Republicans. Obamacare was built on the back of conservative proposals from the 90s. The deficit commission went from being supported by a dozen or so Republican Senators and then when voted on, that number dropped to zero. The party once supported a robust guest worker program. Many Republicans used to support an energy bill that had bipartisan support. Olympia Snowe used to support an infrastructure credit bank, right up until the point that Obama proposed it. McCain and other Republicans were once gung-ho about reforming election financing. Sarah Palin used to support cap and trade!

You say my vote is certainly never up for grabs by the Republicans. You're right. But that doesn't mean I don't want two competent political parties. The conservative movement used to propose their own version of ideas to solve specific problems; now, they prevent discussion from happening in the first place or outright deny there are any problems to solve. For instance, on global warming, there's the Democratic approach, and then denial that it exists on the other side. I want our political system to have two parties that have a substantive vision, instead, our problem solving is cramped where one side is just refusing to participate.

And by the way, that's not a stylistic problem, that's a philosophical problem. The new philosophy en vogue on the Right is a firm belief that they shouldn't be governing. You belong to a party who's only actual proposal in the last couple of years has been vaginal probes. Everything else is all subtractive. Cutting union rights, cutting social programs, cutting taxes. The Republican Party doesn't propose actively doing anything about anything, not only because they're incompetent, but because the new phase of the Conservative movement has been about not actually wanting to do anything.

It's no wonder they've struggled to get elected; they're not out of ideas, they're opposed to having ideas. That, and simply accepting facts as facts, are the two crucial things that must change or our political system will be indefinitely broken. Nothing about that is informed by my ideology, it's just about wanting a functioning government. But wanting a functioning government itself is now a point of disagreement on the Right.

[opebo]

Actually for the first time I see a model in Thai politics for American politics - not a solution, but rather evidence for the lack of any solution.

Here the Democrats (the moderately-right neoliberal party) tried to 'out Thaksin' the Thaksinite center-left populist socially conservative Peu Thai during their couple of years of post-coup power, with really very generous economic redistribution programs.  It fell completely flat and made only a few points difference in the vote, simply because the working class Northeastern and Northerners didn't trust it, as to them it seemed an obvious ploy.  In other words why vote for the imitation when you can have the real thing.

In the end the Democrats were confined to their base as always - the South and the middle-to-upper class throughout the country.

So, I'm skeptical that moderation will truly make the Republicans viable.. I mean, it may be a survival strategy, but I doubt it will put them on an equal footing in terms of winning office to the Democrats.

[DC Al Fine]

So, I'm skeptical that moderation will truly make the Republicans viable.. I mean, it may be a survival strategy, but I doubt it will put them on an equal footing in terms of winning office to the Democrats.

What do you suggest the Republicans do to maintain an equal footing?