Democrats Only

[Frodo]

This is just my little prophetic vision of where the political scene in America is headed. I don't really have a time frame for this since it is hard to actually characterize how long it will take for a shift in party ideology but here's my crack at it.

I believe that over the next 50 years or so the Republican party will continue to push to the left on economic issues in order to win more of the vote. GOP advisors and leaders will, correctly, assume that by taking a more economically centrist/centre-left economic platform they can gain more minority and inner-city votes while, if they maintain their social conservatism, they will be able to keep values voters and the American heartland.

This leads to GOP libertarians, social moderates, and pro-business types into the Democratic party. I do not see this happening very quickly though I would suspect that many of these disaffected Republicans would not join the Democrats so what I see happening is a rather large third party would probably be born, and would probably cease to exist, some time within the period between the major defection of GOPers and their inclusion into the Democratic party. This party may have some electoral success but will ultimately crumble under the pressure of the two-party system, much like the American Party in the 1850's.

These former GOPers will then move into the Democratic party. As a result of this the Democrats would probably move to the centre/centre-right economically. I seriously suspect though that this would not be all that important since the major issues will continue to be social ones for, in my mind, at least the next 30-40 years, since they are winning issues for the Republicans and would be the easiest sell in a Populist platform.

As the Democrats move towards the right economically they fear alienating their base. What could happen here is that the economic socialist and economic leftist would either consider social issues more important and stay within the Democratic party, join some sort of third party, possibly the Greens but this would probably be a sort of intermediary step, or go over to the Republicans because of economic issues.

if Colin's prediction comes true, would any of you consider switching parties? 

for my part, i would.  speaking for myself, ideological considerations take precedence over partisan loyalties -and once the Democratic Party no longer stands up for ordinary people who live paycheck-to-paycheck, i would have no further reason to remain in it.  i stay now for i believe there is still hope that it can be steered in a more populist direction.   

[Rob]

*Shudder*

That would be the worst of both worlds- fundamentalism mixed with "populism" (i.e. economic authoritarianism). Thanks, but no thanks.

[Alcon]

No.

I agree with Bob - the Christian right part of the party is not my favourite part.

[Sam Spade]

Nope.

[Cubby]

No

I don't care about economic policy. The Dems today are almost as pro-business as the GOP.

Its all about the Social Issues!

[Gabu]

No.  Given that I'm already libertarian in leaning, I probably would be just fine with the Democratic Party if that happened.

[Emsworth]

Absolutely not.

[jokerman]

I am a populist, so you could see it could become natural for me to switch. 

But, wow, I don't see how I ever could become Republican and trade out on the party of Jackson.  I guess times have changed, but it's hard to ajust.

[Akno21]

Depends how much so we go. If we become Libertarians, I'm out, but I can live with a 0, -5 party.

[Nation]

Yes.

[Beet]

No, but I would consider switching if the Republicans became more libertarian. Unfortunately that's become a more and more distant possibility with each passing day, thus strengthening my partisanship.

[Alcon]

Depends how much so we go. If we become Libertarians, I'm out, but I can live with a 0, -5 party.

What if the GOP became -3, 3 and the Dems 3, -3?

[Colin]

Depends how much so we go. If we become Libertarians, I'm out, but I can live with a 0, -5 party.

What if the GOP became -3, 3 and the Dems 3, -3?

Yes that's closer to what I was thinking. The GOP basically becomes a -3 to -4 economic, 4 to 5 social, while the Democrats become something close to what Alcon says, maybe +2 economic or -4 social.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

What do you mean by "continue to push to the left" on economic issues?  The Republicans under GWB have just continued to move even further right.  Look at the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and the repeal of the estate tax.  And Bush want to privatize social security, cut funding to most non-defense government programs, and give huge windfalls to business through things like his energy bill and tort reform.  How has there been any movement to the left by the GOP on economic issues?

If the GOP actually did inexplicable move left economically, I would probably vote for whichever party supported higher taxes on the wealthy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What do you mean by "continue to push to the left" on economic issues?  The Republicans under GWB have just continued to move even further right.  Look at the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and the repeal of the estate tax.  And Bush want to privatize social security, cut funding to most non-defense government programs, and give huge windfalls to business through things like his energy bill and tort reform.  How has there been any movement to the left by the GOP on economic issues?

If the GOP actually did inexplicable move left economically, I would probably vote for whichever party supported higher taxes on the wealthy.

No kidding, the GOP is clearly trying to bankrupt the federal government. You can't have any social programs if the federal government is broke.

[Colin]

What do you mean by "continue to push to the left" on economic issues?  The Republicans under GWB have just continued to move even further right.  Look at the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and the repeal of the estate tax.  And Bush want to privatize social security, cut funding to most non-defense government programs, and give huge windfalls to business through things like his energy bill and tort reform.  How has there been any movement to the left by the GOP on economic issues?

If the GOP actually did inexplicable move left economically, I would probably vote for whichever party supported higher taxes on the wealthy.

No kidding, the GOP is clearly trying to bankrupt the federal government. You can't have any social programs if the federal government is broke.

Big spending, huge deficits, and wasting of money? This is hardly the small government conservatism that the Republican Party used to adhear to. I remember a time when the Republican Party actually cared about maintaining a balanced budget and cutting waste, now they are just doing things for expediency. The tax cuts are a good example of this. The cuts were mostly to raise the approval ratings for President Bush, nothing more. His economic policy has been nothing better than piecemeal for the entire four years he has now been in office. The Republican Party has ended almost any concerns for actually creating a government that is financially sound and have turned into a party that is continually spending. Social Security is, I believe, the last hurrah for the fiscal conservatism. It is already falling in popularity and I believe it wont be long before the Republican Party drops the issue completely. Tort reform, while you may believe only helps business, is actually very anti-elitist. It is in essence an attack against the "big city trial lawyers" preying upon the "common people". While that is probably not the main reason for its implementation tort reform is being sold to the people in very populistic rhetoric.

Also jfern why would a party intentionally try and bankrupt the government? Wouldn't that basically sound the death knell for that party since opponents could, from that day forward, portray that party as the party that can't handle the economy? Even if you were on a vengeful quest against social programs their are alot easier ways to dismantle those programs than put the electoral success of your party in jeopardy by completely bankrupting the government. While President Bush and Republicans in Congress have not handled the budget with any sort of restrait I believe that the willingness for Republicans to let the budget fall into such a deficit is more because of an attempt to gain more votes and get more of the American heartland into the GOP fold than to secretly bring down government social programs.

[Rob]

Very well said, Colin. I hope that there will be a true fiscal conservative running in 2008, Democrat or Republican.

[Colin]

Very well said, Colin. I hope that there will be a true fiscal conservative running in 2008, Democrat or Republican.

I hope so as well. I certainly hope that the Republican Party comes back into its right mind and goes back to believing in a small fiscally responsible government.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not while they're still in the back pocket of the religious right.

[A18]

Spending is the absolute only thing the GOP has moved left on economically. And the Democrats continue to say they aren't spending enough, so what can you do?

[FerrisBueller86]

If the partisan alignment shifts from liberal vs. conservative to libertarian vs. populist, then I would be a swing voter instead of part of the Democratic base.  As you can see from my political compass score, I'm firmly on the left side of both economic and social issues, so I don't consider myself to be particularly libertarian or populist.

I wonder what PBrunsel, dazzleman, and States Rights would do under this projected scenario.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hell no. I'm not voting for some bigotted warmongers just because they're not so hard right on economic issues. 1 out of 3 doesn't cut it.

[Democratic Hawk]

I am a populist, so you could see it could become natural for me to switch. 

But, wow, I don't see how I ever could become Republican and trade out on the party of Jackson.  I guess times have changed, but it's hard to ajust.

Coming from a long-line of Georgia Democrats since the era of Jackson, I echo your sentiments

My pre-Civil War ancestry, if anything, predisposes me to the Democratic Party and partly explains my antipathy towards the party of Lincoln. So it is doubtful, I transfer any allegiance to the GOP should it become more economically populist

That said I would support Republican candidates if the Demcratic candidate was abhorant to me. On foreign/defence policy, I'm probably closer to more Republicans than I am Democrats. As Democrats go, in this respect, I'm a Trumanite

Dave

[ian]

No.