The Republican Party this morning, on the day after losing an election, finds itself at a crossroads. It can blame external factors, like Hurricane Sandy or it can figure out if there is an internal problem. If you want to hear the former, just turn the radio dial today to any talk show. They’ll explain that in two years, the GOP will win the Senate and all will be peaches and cream again.
I’m more interested in the long term problem. As long as we have an electoral college, we’ll have a two party system. But, if one of the two parties finds itself far from the average voter nationally, they will lose consistently whenever a national election occurs. Look, for example, at what happened to the Democrats after 1972. If Watergate hadn’t happened, they would still be centered at the corner of Haight-Ashbury and Bleeker Streets. The GOP is now in a similar position. Because of federal gerrymandering of House elections, the Republican Party has a lock on the Congressional districts in the Deep South. Every state in the region gives one or two districts to African Americans; the rest go to the GOP.
Why is this a problem? The policy prescriptions are much different in this region than in the rest of the country. People tend to combine a set of economic and social policy preferences that are far different than typical voters elsewhere. Remember earlier in the campaign, Gallup or someone had a poll that looked at working class whites; they found that although the GOP was up overall in this demographic, the difference was almost completely contained in the South. In the rest of the country, the difference is pretty minimal. So, when the base of the party is located here, the policies advocated will be too far to the right to fit the other regions.
Think, for example, about gay marriage. Little emphasized among the other election results, gay marriage won in referenda in both Maine and Maryland. These places aren’t San Francisco and lower Manhattan. People under 50 in the rest of the country have figured out that letting other people get married doesn’t cause their own marriage to fall apart.
The GOP has a long term problem; every four years from now on, their base will become more geographically limited. By no later than the end of this decade, Texas will be a purple state politically. If the Republicans have to spend resources to defend the Lone Star State, then how can it win? Arizona will go the same path. Virginia and then North Carolina will become difficult to win.
So, what Republicans first of all should do is invite Marco Rubio, Susana Martinez, and any other Hispanics that hold major offices in the country to meet with the other political elites. Tell these people what policy choices they would recommend to increase the percentage of Hispanic voters. My guess is what they would recommend is move slightly to the left on some redistribution factors. For example, come out in favor of class affirmative action instead of basing it on race or gender. This helps the social conservative GOP base since these people have less income than the average person. It also causes a cleavage among the Democrats, since Obama claims that he favors this as well.
November 7th, 2012 at 6:26 am
What is needed is education. We are starting to see some inside the Black community realize that their affiliation with Democrats is a bad thing. Another four years of Obama might have the desired result in teaching people a lesson in reality. That government taxing and spending is not a solution to anything. That eventually, Socialism hits a brick wall. We Conservatives do not have to change a thing. Just prep for the coming whirlwind of the Great Culling!
November 7th, 2012 at 6:37 am
“We Conservatives do not have to change a thing.”
Andy, the GOP has to recognize that its view of conservatism is out of the mainstream of America. The conservatism of post-2000, fight as many wars as possible, cut taxes, and increase services and corporate subsidies, is not what conservatism used to be 20 or 30 years ago.
I don’t think that the last two elections are a rejection of conservatism as an ideology; instead, it is a rejection of this new brand.
November 7th, 2012 at 6:43 am
The GOP has to stop pandering to he religious right. It is now an environment where a historic standard-bearer, like Reagan, would never survive the primaries.
The Religious Right will still vote GOP, but perhaps not contribute as many dollars if they are not pandered to in future elections.
The whole “purity” demands of the Tea Party, Christian Coalition and Grover Norquist may have to change.
The country’s demographics have permanently changed.
November 7th, 2012 at 6:52 am
Buzz, one of the moves that can reduce the purity thing that I believe the GOP will do is move to open primaries. Once candidates have to cater to a wider voter mix, they will avoid taking positions that are unsustainable among the wider electorate.
November 7th, 2012 at 7:12 am
That would be a smart move, Arriba
November 7th, 2012 at 7:52 am
Arriba,
The Tea Party movement IS the rejection of the “new brand” of the Neo-Cons. They don’t want wars, at least those that are not declared as per the Constitution. Romney was an Establishment Republican. So under your plan of open primaries, the GOP just becomes even more Establishment. The GOP is purging itself thanks to the Tea Party. But it is a slow process and the clock is ticking as to whether or not success will come in time?
November 7th, 2012 at 7:59 am
Andy,
Maybe so; I hope that the Rove-Rush brand of neo-cons is dead. I became alarmed when Kelly Ayotte decided to become the third amigo, once st. joe had resigned his senate seat.
The Tea Party though, I think, is merely a reaction to Obama, otherwise it would have occurred during Bush2. I wish the tea party would say eliminate ag subsidies and oil subsidies and get rid of medicare part b and paid prescriptions. Then they could actually accomplish something.
November 7th, 2012 at 8:00 am
Yes, Buzz, the demographics have changed but it is not permanent. We’re just starting the Great Retirement Era where seniors will dominate for another 2-3 decades. For now, Obama and the Liberals have an edge, especially with godless single women who think life is just one big orgasm. But eventually, they will become unhappy, bitter hags and seek the Cylon god for forgiveness.
November 7th, 2012 at 8:05 am
As I wrote long ago in my comparison of the Tea Party movement with the ‘Truth Movement’ in 18th Century France, it takes awhile for people to become aroused. If you ask TP members what first sparked their interest in politics, most say the original 9/11 attacks. The Crash of 2008 and Obama were the tipping points for actually doing something.
I am looking at the process continuing for another 2-3 election cycles, IF we have them! Hahahaha!
November 7th, 2012 at 8:16 am
Andy,
It’d be easier to believe this if, while Bush2 was doing all of his stuff, the Tea Party had begun somewhere, anywhere.
I had really high hopes for the tp until it got co-opted by Rove/Rush to become just the silly wing of the GOP.
If you believe that the tp would have arisen regardless of won in 08, feel free. There isn’t any empirical evidence for this, though.
Another web site that I used to go to often had a respected writer who advocated the idea that since bho was not american he would cancel the 12 election if he thought he might lose.
November 7th, 2012 at 8:21 am
Buzz;
“The country’s demographics have permanently changed.”
Yeah, theres so many people on the government tit its no wonder they couldnt afford Romney.
We are Greek
November 7th, 2012 at 8:24 am
Kloson @ # 5
Who could that be ?
November 7th, 2012 at 8:29 am
Yeah, micky, I hope that that isn’t the son of klo. I assume legislation was passed making it illegal for klo to breed.
November 7th, 2012 at 11:49 am
One of the main complaints in exit polls was the inability for bipartisan efforts.
The perception that the Tea Party is intractable on many issues may prove to be their electoral undoing.
The “no compromise” mantra may have appealed to purists during its imception, but that may no longer be a “marketable” concept.
A political party is, in essense, a brand, and if it doesn’t “sell,” it will fail to have any tangible impact.
November 7th, 2012 at 11:57 am
The loss of seats in the Senate and a perception that the Tea Party has been a factor in that result may isolate them in the Senate and erode some of their influence.
Did the Tea Party peak?
Now that the rapidly changing demographics have become part of the political conversation can a party that is viewed as exclusionary continue to grow?.
The GOP has to take steps to preclude it from becoming a “niche” brand that can only gain Governorships and House seats.
November 7th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Mitt runs a crappy campaign, the media circles the usual wagons, and all of a sudden the right needs to make all these changes ?
BS.
People such as us, liberal or conservative, who debate politics everyday are far more informed and aware of who we vote or and why.
The general public will vote on party lines simply as some kind of safety net to their ignorance.
Educating the general public on conservatism and the foundations that support it will do no good until this nation of junkies are in the gutter begging for change(small change). Or, God forbid terrorists kill another 3000 Americans with relative ease.
Then again, conservative principles are not all that detailed to where a huge amount of study is necessary.
People just dont want to put the energy and commitment into it thats needed.
As I tell my clients;
“If you put half as much energy into your sobriety as you did hunting for dope, you’ll succeed”
November 7th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Compromising our traditional Conservative values would make us worse off. There would be no difference bewteen us & them. It is immoral for queers to marry, hold hands, and kiss in public in front of children. I can care less what they do in the privacy of their own homes and agree with civil unions, but not marriage. Yes, I thought I was imagining things and dwelling too far into the possibility that the demographic is shrinking when it comes to what conservatism stands for nowadays, but now that you write about it it confirms what I was thinking and I agree. The only thing I can say is the current course the country is on is unsustainable and people will eventually look for an alternative when there finally is a failure to what obama is doing, but I think things will be too far gone by that time. I see all these different groups voting for what’s in their best interests, not what’s in the country’s best interest. As Dr. Michael Savage said, “We are all parasites who will kill the host.” Romney wasn’t a bad candidate, on the contrary he was a good one, with great ideas and probably had the wherewithal to carry them out, just that the majority wants to continue the way they have it, good, bad, or indifferent.
Perhaps all Republicans / Conservatives should move South, divide the Union, and call it a day. I can’t see compromising Conservative values for liberal ways. And if you fight against the country you are an anarchist or considered a domestic terrorist.
” –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
November 7th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
“Compromising our traditional Conservative values would make us worse off.”
Exactly.
If we have to trade in traditional true conservative fixits to adapt to an increasingly lazy society then we are no longer conservatives.
Society will wake up one day to the bitter realization that a stable nation requires sacrifice, work, and adherence to tried and true policies.
And yeah, by 2016 we may of reached the point of no return.
November 7th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Arriba, I think you’ve nailed it on figuring out what the GOP needs to do to win the Hispanic vote. That’s the first challenge, and the answer will be at least in part a pathway to citizenship.
Reagan was the guy who first granted amnesty, and it was a mistake because he didn’t bother fixing the long-term problem at the same time. What he did was (over the next generation) create far more Democrat voters than would otherwise be, and it can’t be undone now.
Ron and Andy, it’s not a matter of compromising conservative values. But it will be a matter of compromising on policy and prioritizing policy, since the GOP doesn’t hold as many cards now and demographics suggest even less tomorrow.
In Arriba’s specific example of gay marriage, like it or not it’s here to stay and isn’t a fight that can be won in the future but CAN continue to lose more young voters. And philosophically, gay marriage does not conflict with the primary conservative values of self-reliance and individual responsibility. So it’s not a matter of compromising core values.
November 8th, 2012 at 4:37 am
The country will never be the same unless we have a “sleeper” get elected. This truely is depressing. It will take another 100 years to get to where we want to go, look how long the Progressive Agenda has been in play, 100 years and they took baby steps. This is going to be an uphill battle unless the democrats fail miserably with the economy.