RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
Posts: 17,015
Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52
|
 |
« on: January 17, 2019, 11:24:33 AM » |
|
1) I think both parties/ideologies are somewhat constrained in their ambition for electoral success by the time and atmosphere they're operating in. In a very polarized time like right now, they'll both play tug of war and make small gains (only to give them back up). However, in eras that decidedly seem to favor a certain ideological direction, that is when parties "build" their coalitions, IMO ... they then tend to try to do everything possible to keep these people together until something else big happens. In the 1920s, conservatism was winning because things were good, and more importantly there wasn't much of an appetite for increased government control of, well, most things. In the 1930s and 1940s, trust in government was forced to be high, and liberalism won the day. You see this with some Democrats in the 1920s sounding like "conservatives" and some Republicans in the 1930s sounding like "liberals" - they both had to. They both, of course, still occupied the space to the left and right of their opponents, respectively, but they HAD to shift their views to adapt to the national electorate's desires at the time. (This refers mostly to Presidential nominees, of course.) I think this simple truth makes it hard to answer this question. However, I will try under the guise of the following situation happening:
A decidedly progressive Democrat (though not one from the far left of the party ... so maybe a "standard liberal" who is forced to move way left but in a more authentic way than Hillary?) defeats Trump in 2020. Let's say he or she wins re-election in 2024, and a Republican is narrowly elected in 2028. Somewhere in this Republican's term, there is a pretty bad recession, ala 2008. A Democrat wins handily in 2032 and even more easily in 2036. By this time, Millennials can fully exert influence on the party, and we see a lot of very progressive economic reforms. We also see social reforms in a progressive direction, but that is going to matter less. At this point, I will try to predict what a GOP that wants to (and needs to) reinvent itself to get back into power should do:
2) A successful conservative party usually seems to come to power by pointing out to the electorate that the liberal or progressive reforms that happened "recently" (last few decades, let's say) were great and all, but they are no longer needed, and they have gone too far. This is why the GOP had some Congressional success toward the end of FDR's term, it's why Ike was able to win (his landslide was because he was Ike ... a more standard Republican would have won in 1952, as well) and it's why Nixon was able to win in 1968. This is all my opinion, of course, but the GOP does best when that is it's message; it then usually plateaus with a landslide when "things are going great," and then things swing back to a liberal direction. I am not one to believe in dumb "cyclical theory" and that type of noise, but I think that is a pretty good (if oversimplified) description of the "left-right dynamic" in this country. In the above scenario, where the Democrats have been in power and had their way, this would be my advice to the GOP:
- Rephrase economic CONSERVATISM as economic RESPONSIBILITY. This is what the GOP had a legitimate claim on during the New Deal Era; they weren't going to take away your Social Security, they were simply going to be better, more responsible stewards than the wasteful Democrats. If taxes need to be raised for a LEGITIMATE purpose, that is different than raising taxes for an ILLEGITIMATE purpose. Obviously, the distinction is up for debate, but the GOP has become too rigid on the issue of fiscal responsibility to the point where it's irresponsible and simply adhering to dogma. Right-wing fiscal dogma is easy to paint as "for the rich only," and it causes a lot of professionals who might be better off under us to vote Democratic, as it also leaves a huge void for *economically moderate Democrats* to fill which we should frankly be occupying.
- Rephrase social conservatism as resistance to radical change, not support for reactionary thought. It's all about defining "normal." Right now, the Democrats have done a decent job of phrasing themselves as "normal" and the GOP as antiquated. The GOP needs to support SLOWER social progress, not NO social progress.
- Make creative environmental initiatives our thing. Tax breaks for companies who are more green, for example. CONSERVATION should again be a part of CONSERVATISM. If you think all of these rural people aren't actual environmentalists (not the granola-y kind that care as much about what it *means* to be an environmentalist as they do actually protecting nature), then you have never spent any time in a rural community, IMO. Hunting and fishing and having a bonfire in a field aren't exactly the anti-animal and fumes-emitting dumb hick traditions that some Atlasians probably see them as; they're legitimate ways to connect with nature. Your average Republican would be MORE than open to protecting the environment if they didn't constantly see the weirdo hippies out in Denver talking about how dumb and evil you are for using a straw at a restaurant.
- Stop phrasing economic redistribution in terms of White vs. minority dog whistles, as some Republicans do. Taking more of "your hard-earned money" would hit home with plenty of affluent minorities if they didn't feel fundamentally unwanted (at best) or threatened (at worst) by many in the Republican Party. It's the big bad government that will waste your money and always wants more of it anyway vs. you, the hard-working taxpayer. Taxpayers come in all colors.
I'm no political genius, and that much is clear. But conservatism as it was presented by Dwight D. Eisenhower (adjusted for the times, most obviously) is far from outdated, and it will never be. You need to present a conservatism that works for everybody (well, for most people, anyway), regardless of their race or gender or where they live. There are obviously groups and geographical areas we'll never win, but there are plenty we "should" be winning but aren't. This would be a good first step, IMO. We don't need to become super pro-choice to win more women. We don't need to support total amnesty to win more Hispanic voters. We don't need to completely abandon references to God to win more secular voters. Leave the crazy and out-there strategies with liberalism and the Democratic Party where they belong; our space is to provide a modified, more responsible and better thought out alternative to pie in the sky ideas. Whether that is opposing blanket amnesty but being open to all legal immigration, opposing $15 nationwide minimum wage hikes overnight but acknowledging it needs raised and indexed to inflation or any number of other examples, that is what I believe conservatism should be. It can still stand for tradition, nationalism, liberty, private enterprise, etc. without coming off as reactionary.
|
