The Future of the Republican Party

Some thoughts.

It took forty years for Republicans to break the Democrat's majority. It took only fourteen for Democrats to completely retake the government. Clearly, the Republican Revolution was an illusion. 2008 was further, strong defeat of the Republicans and now, to survive, I believe they must rethink their philosophy, their policy, their playbook, and indeed, who they play with.

Philosophy & policy: Being the party for the rich doesn't seem to work. Focusing on the top 1% alienates the middle & working class. Perhaps they could consider an economic philosophy that favors helping everyone hold on to their money, keep the government lean, and not disproportionately favor such a tiny demographic.

I think the core philosophies of keeping what you earn, keeping government small, and being fiscally conservative are appealing to a wide demographic. They appeal to me--I am very fiscally conservative myself; however, I do believe in contributing my share to the betterment of everyone, which I believe the government has a responsibility to ensure.

When it comes to social conservatism, I thought it meant keeping government out of people's lives as much as possible, or to the extent that people desire; laissez-faire. Again, I would agree in many ways, and this also helps to keep government smaller. The Republican notion of social conservatism has been perverted, though, and I'll discuss that later.

Playbook: The 2008 election was a massive defeat of Republican strategy. Rovian politics is something this country should look back at and be ashamed of. Fear and deception are best suited to Machiavelli; Hope and integrity, I feel, best suited to America. It's easy to smear, debase, and attack one's character, but ad hominem arguments are considered a fallacy. They ignore the substance of an opponent's argument in favor of cheap-shots at the opponent's character--a weak and evasive tactic, the antithesis to straight-talk. This time we saw the truth of that, in how McCain used Bill Ayers, a man of limited acquaintance to Obama, to suggest Obama is in line with terrorists. Nothing stuck this time, and if you know what McCain's past holds, then you know just how much restraint Obama showed. Obama won with hope and integrity, and McCain's vitriolic campaign turned voters against him.

Who they play with: Namely, those who adhere to extremist religion. I don't call their beliefs social conservatism, I call them social intolerance. Evangelicals and other zealots have an antipathy for anyone who is different than them, who does not believe exactly as they do or do exactly as they do, and they aim to force everyone to be, think, and act like them. This, I suggest, is anti-American. America is proud to be the melting pot; a salad. This is a land of assimilation and sub-cultures; many peoples merging as one, many communities living together. It is in many ways the differences that make this America.

Republicans need to dump the zealots, quite simply. They may be a large voting block, but they are not enough to win the presidency alone, and catering to them too specifically or too enthusiastically alienates the broader electorate. I think we saw this in 2008, as well. It is possible to be socially conservative and have an appeal to the more religious among us while still appealing to the more moderate and liberal Republicans, and even to some conservative Democrats. It's just a matter of balancing the ship a bit and keeping the cargo from collecting exclusively on the extreme right side.

The zealots need to dump the Republicans, quite simply. Evangelicals talk about being afraid the Republicans will ditch them as I suggest above. The problem is, I do not think traditional Republicanism and Christian extremism are completely compatible. If the zealots are so powerful, why don't they form their own political party? I'll call it the Christianist Party. They could put all their fiscal and social policies under that umbrella and run their own presidential candidate. They would instantly split the vote three ways with a voting block immediately large enough to have a good shot. 25% is not enough in a two party system but only about 10% away from what would be needed to win in a three-way split.

Sarah Palin

Is Sarah Palin "the future of the party"? If anyone thinks that, then they have no clue why the Republican Party lost, or that they even lost. Palin exemplifies what the Republicans need to excise--not only is she Bush in a skirt, but she's a solid representative of the social intolerance movement. She was also one of the factors that helped bring down the McCain campaign.

Mark my words, unless she involves herself in more scandal up there and out of sight in Alaska, she will run for president in 2012. She won't win, she won't even get the nomination, but she is conceited enough to run.

That Dr. Phil Moment

Right now, the Republican Party doesn't even have a clear leader. Their revolution has utterly failed. The question I'll be interested to see answered in time is if they cling to the same old ways, or if they come together, see the error of their ways, and aim for a new, perhaps friendlier, revolution. If not, then I suggest, "You must be an idiot!"