|
Post by erictheblue on Mar 9, 2009 13:04:47 GMT -5
This is more thought experiment than anything I have evidence for. Just some thoughts running around in my head...
I sometimes wonder how much longer the Republican party will survive in its current state. First, overall popularity of the GOP is in the toilet. But mostly, the GOP seems to have 2 bases, but those bases don't really have the same ideas.
Republican candidates feel the need to suck up to evangelicals to get elected. So they say they will overturn Roe v Wade, pass Constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, sponsor bills declaring the US to be a Christian nation, and the like. Once in office, however, these politicians seldom follow through - largely because they know they will never get those things passed. Instead, they focus their efforts on things the Republican party focuses on - fiscal conservativism, corporations, etc. (NOTE: While I disagree with such things, I understand that people sincerely believe those are the things that the US needs to do.)
At the end of the day, you have disgruntled and disillusioned evangelicals and happy Republicans. So what happens when evangelicals withdraw their support for the GOP because they realize Republican lawmakers will never follow through on campaign promises. (Not saying Democratic lawmakers always follow through, either!) When that happens, are their enough Republicans who do not base their political beliefs on religion to keep the party viable?
Thoughts?
|
|
Detrs
New Member
Master of l'esprit d'escalier.
Posts: 16
|
Post by Detrs on Mar 9, 2009 13:39:12 GMT -5
As wonderful as it would be for the party to vanish, I don't think that will happen.
I had a funny talk about this with some friend the other day.
"Screw, the two party system, man. I'm voting third party. I'm voting for the republicans!"
Wouldn't that be something?
|
|
|
Post by captainhooker on Mar 9, 2009 14:55:08 GMT -5
Evangelicals will always vote for the GOP out of default.
Coupled with their religious views is generally an intense nationalism and love of "Leave it to Beaver" era social policies, and they'll never stop believing in those things or believing that the GOP is working toward them and that the only thing in their way are the faggot pinko liberal democrats.
Or in other words, they will always vote AGAINST democrats.
|
|
brainy
Junior Member
Gay, atheist, psychologist. The fundie trifecta!
Posts: 63
|
Post by brainy on Mar 9, 2009 15:26:17 GMT -5
Evangelicals are losing a great deal of steam lately. So much so that they are less defined by values and more by what values they are against. They scurried around and located the GOP and chose to attach to it because it matches their 'beliefs' the closest, then their cognitive dissonance works overtime to justify the things that don't match their belief system. If the GOP fails, it won't be because the fundies jumped ship. If the GOP did happen to cease existing, the remaining fundies would just skitter around, eventually latching onto the underbelly of a new ideology further out on the fringe.
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Mar 9, 2009 15:30:55 GMT -5
Recall, Karl Rove was talking about a 'permanent Republican majority' as late as 2004. So things can change in a heartbeat, don't let your guard down.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Mar 9, 2009 16:19:53 GMT -5
Or in other words, they will always vote AGAINST democrats. But that doesn't mean they always vote FOR Republicans. Before McCain picked Palin as his running mate, there were assorted fundie politicians considering an independent run for the WH. The Republicans openly have (or at least, had) a long-term plan to run "suitable" candidates for local elections, slowly bringing them into national prominence. What's to stop evangelical groups from doing the same, regardless of who the Republicans run?
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 9, 2009 16:27:39 GMT -5
Recall, Karl Rove was talking about a 'permanent Republican majority' as late as 2004. So things can change in a heartbeat, don't let your guard down. Karl Rove is stil l talking about a permenant majority for the Republicans. Face it, his commentary is not burdened by anything close to truth.
|
|
|
Post by captainhooker on Mar 9, 2009 16:34:57 GMT -5
Or in other words, they will always vote AGAINST democrats. But that doesn't mean they always vote FOR Republicans. Before McCain picked Palin as his running mate, there were assorted fundie politicians considering an independent run for the WH. The Republicans openly have (or at least, had) a long-term plan to run "suitable" candidates for local elections, slowly bringing them into national prominence. What's to stop evangelical groups from doing the same, regardless of who the Republicans run? The 0% success record of all third party candidates for national office.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Mar 9, 2009 16:47:20 GMT -5
But that doesn't mean they always vote FOR Republicans. Before McCain picked Palin as his running mate, there were assorted fundie politicians considering an independent run for the WH. The Republicans openly have (or at least, had) a long-term plan to run "suitable" candidates for local elections, slowly bringing them into national prominence. What's to stop evangelical groups from doing the same, regardless of who the Republicans run? The 0% success record of all third party candidates for national office. Sorry, I didn't make myself clear... The idea is that they start candidates for local elections, then as they become better and better known, run them for higher and higher office. Without the evangelicals backing up Republican candidates (voting for their own instead), Republican candidates are less likely to get elected themselves - and maybe turning them into a "3rd party." (When was the last time you voted for a Whig?)
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 9, 2009 17:44:59 GMT -5
People may not want to hear this, but the GOP and DNC need one another.
Any time you have a republic in which there's only one sufficiently strong political party, then the nation is pretty well doomed to become a dictatorship by default (a la Mexico for several decades) since the dominant party is almost guaranteed to win everything.
Instead, you need at least two strong political parties; the presence of both will serve as a check against total takeover.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 9, 2009 17:49:32 GMT -5
The GOP, like a bad smell, isn't going away. The GOP has many RICH supporters. As long as the GOP defends the super-rich, it's not going to go away anytime soon. As to electability, they are going to have to rethink their ideology a bit, although I suspect that what they will do is go populist, rather than any real change in their ideologies, and they will continue to pander to the religious right because they think that they need them to win. That combination needs to be overcome, since the fear factor of 9/11 has faded.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Mar 9, 2009 18:08:59 GMT -5
It would be quite interesting if there were a sudden shift to the Constitution party.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 9, 2009 19:55:39 GMT -5
People may not want to hear this, but the GOP and DNC need one another. Any time you have a republic in which there's only one sufficiently strong political party, then the nation is pretty well doomed to become a dictatorship by default (a la Mexico for several decades) since the dominant party is almost guaranteed to win everything. Instead, you need at least two strong political parties; the presence of both will serve as a check against total takeover. If the GOP went under, another party would come in to take its place (hopefully one that is somewhat more sane.) It's happened before.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Mar 9, 2009 20:10:06 GMT -5
The Republicans have exactly the base that they worked so hard for: the super-rich, corporations, and sub-marginal religionists. Let 'em live with it.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 10, 2009 5:32:27 GMT -5
The GOP, like a bad smell, isn't going away. The GOP has many RICH supporters. As long as the GOP defends the super-rich, it's not going to go away anytime soon. As to electability, they are going to have to rethink their ideology a bit, although I suspect that what they will do is go populist, rather than any real change in their ideologies, and they will continue to pander to the religious right because they think that they need them to win. That combination needs to be overcome, since the fear factor of 9/11 has faded. Hummm... a right wing populist party. Why do I find that notion somewhat unsettling?
|
|