The Future of the GOP

Mike Dwyer

Mike Dwyer is a former writer and contributor at Ordinary Times.

Related Post Roulette

77 Responses

  1. E.D. Kain says:

    I think you’re pretty optimistic on the foreign policy / civil liberties front, frankly. We see things through rosy-colored glasses of our own making. I know I do.Report

    • Mike Dwyer in reply to E.D. Kain says:

      Wait until all of those returning troops start running for office. We have a whole generation of mostly right-leaning soldiers who probably have a very negative opinion of foreign entanglements.Report

      • Dan Miller in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

        The comment filter doesn’t like my Wikipedia link, apparently, but google for the biography of Rep. Allen West (R-FL).  I wouldn’t get your hopes up.Report

      • DarrenG in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

        Dan Miller is on to something.

        The problem is that the GOP is constantly purging anyone who questions the doctrine of endless wars and ever-increasing military size, leaving only the Allen West and Max Boot types behind.Report

      • “We have a whole generation of mostly right-leaning soldiers who probably have a very negative opinion of foreign entanglements.”

        Or alternatively, that have a negative opinion of the rules of engagement that go with occupations and nation-building.  Stopping Iran’s nuclear program doesn’t require putting boots on the ground.  Uranium enrichment requires prodigious amounts of electricity; reduce anything that might be a power plant or transmission system to rubble, and the enrichment program is stopped.  Stand-off high-altitude bombing and cruise missiles are capable of doing the job, if you don’t care about the collateral damage.  And by collateral, I mean not just the people killed directly, but those who die as a result of shutting down the hospitals, water treatment, etc.

        Not a recommendation; just an observation.Report

      • Kim in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

        … mostly right leaning soldiers? *eyeroll* military’s not right leaning. CIA and FBI are, but then again, they’re substantially more self-selecting.Report

  2. Tom Van Dyke says:

    Mr. Dwyer, people get more conservative as they grow older and have children.  I suppose some of the social liberalism will stick as they age, but it’s not a given that all things will remain the same.

    Also, the Hispanic and Asian votes may swing, and if so, social conservatism in GOP will get reinforcements.  As it stands now, Hispanics and  Asians who tend toward the “very religious” still vote Dem.

    Food for thought here:

    “Between June and August 2011, Gallup interviewed more than 78,000 adults, evenly divided between the two parties. Among Democrats, 52 percent say they “seldom” or “never” attend religious services; among Republicans, 61 percent go to church or synagogue once a month or more.

    Even more surprisingly, 54 percent of Democrats say today they are single; up sharply from the 48 percent of the donkey party who counted as unmarried before Obama’s election. For the GOP, on the other hand, the great bulk of its support (62 percent) continues to come from married adults.”


    • Mike Dwyer in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

      “Mr. Dwyer, people get more conservative as they grow older and have children.  I suppose some of the social liberalism will stick as they age, but it’s not a given that all things will remain the same.”

      I think this is true on a personal level but I think that more and more people are geting older and seeing the Game for what it is. Disillusionment with the political process breads libertarianism IMO. My conservatism peaked at 30 and has been moderating on some levels since. Although to be fair on certain issues (guns, abortion) I am just as militant oday as I was back then.Report

      • Tom Van Dyke in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

        I appreciate the concern, but instead of a “more progressive” GOP, how about a fiscally responsible Democratic Party?

        The last was Bill Clinton, and his Democratic Leadership Council is deaddeaddead.


        • Mike in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

          I appreciate the concern, but instead of a “more progressive” GOP, how about a fiscally responsible Democratic Party?

          What do you mean by “fiscally responsible”?

          Do you mean a Democratic Party not willing to engage in wishful thinking and idiocy like the Ryan Plan, based on numbers that have never happened historically? Oh wait, that kind of bullshit is from the GOP side.

          Do you mean a Democratic Party that’s willing to put everything on the table – cuts in government spending AND raises in taxes on those who can afford it? Oh wait, we already have that, you GOP fundamentalists just wouldn’t meet anyone equally, putting everything on the table.

          Please explain. What do you mean about a “financially responsible Democratic Party”?Report

          • Kim in reply to Mike says:

            He means a party that will do what he wants the Republicans to do. And you know it. 😉 His problem is that neither party is capable nor willing to do what he wants them to do.Report

        • North in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

          Dead? Hogwash, more like unnecessary since their entire position has pretty much become the default stance of the party over all. If you don’t believe me visit any liberal group and listen to the indignant and outraged shrieking.Report

    • “Mr. Dwyer, people get more conservative as they grow older and have children.  I suppose some of the social liberalism will stick as they age, but it’s not a given that all things will remain the same.”

      Just curious, but how do you respond to the observations that it’s quite difficult to find mothers with small children who favor libertarian-style conservatism?  Absent government-funded programs, most of us would be one developmentally-disabled child away from a lifetime of financial struggles.  Or facing a decade or more of such struggles if our elderly parent is the one who develops serious dementia.Report

      • Tom Van Dyke in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Mr. Cain, I assure you GOPers are against hungry children and dead grandmothers.  And especially against hungry dead grandmothers.   As for the libertarians, they can speak for themselves.  😉Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

          If children want to be hungry and grandmothers want to be dead, we shouldn’t stand in their way.Report

        • Tod Kelly in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

          Aren’t hungry dead grandmothers by definition zombies?Report

          • Tom Van Dyke in reply to Tod Kelly says:

            Just what I mean, Tod.  The GOP is anti-zombie; you could look it up.Report

            • Tod Kelly in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

              Tom, when will the super-rich hegemony of this country let the masses have access to wholesome, delicious brains?Report

              • BlaiseP in reply to Tod Kelly says:

                Wholesome delicious brains are in short supply these days.   Television and video games have induced an epidemic of flabulous catatonia.   You’d have to render it down like so much bacon.

                Dinner Guest: Hannibal, confess. What is this divine-looking amuse bouche?

                Hannibal Lecter: If I tell you, I’m afraid you won’t even try it.Report

              • Tom Van Dyke in reply to Tod Kelly says:

                You sussed us out, Tod.  Zombies compete with us for the yummy brains of the poor and weak.  That’s why we’re anti-zombie.  Some of our best friends are zombies, even some of our candidates.


                [Beat y’all to it.]Report

        • Jeff in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

          Facts are terrible things.  The GOP voted as a block against extended health coverage for children.  I haven’t heard a one come out against recission, although they’re all willing to blast “RomneyCare” “ObamaCare” as terrible on all fronts.

          Remember the flap over “death panels” — right there was your dead grandmothers.Report

          • mike in reply to Jeff says:

            Remember the flap over “death panels” — right there was your dead grandmothers.

            The flap about “death panels” was quite amusing. The GOP brainwashed masses were tricked into believing that “government panels will decide what care you get”… rather than the standard today, where whether or not you get care is decided based on actuarial tables created by panels of fat assholes who are so rich they’ll never have to worry about their own healthcare.

            But of course, if they changed the way it works, the Republicans would no longer get campaign kickbacks from the fat assholes who run the existing, quite real death panels that the insurance industry already has in place.Report

    • Kim in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:


      oh, people get more Conservative as they get older, do they? Try telling that to Markos, or half a dozen other bloggers on dailykos.

      The facts, they disagree with you. Google on “the first four elections you vote in” and how it predicts future behavior.Report

      • James Hanley in reply to Kim says:

        Google on “the first four elections you vote in” and how it predicts future behavior.

        Do that, and the only relevant hit is to this very thread.  Once again Kimmy throws up a brick.  And very disappointingly to me, since as a political scientist I actually would care about such findings.

        There should be a special “Kimmie” award, given out to the commenter who most egregiously fakes having a source for some claim.Report

    • Ryan Bonneville in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

      Mr. Dwyer, people get more conservative as they grow older and have children.

      I believe the literature on this indicates it is not true. Unless your claim is that, as the center shifts left (which it tends to do, especially on social policy), people whose positions have not changed over time tend to look more and more like conservatives given the new rubrics.

      Although, as indicated below, there is a lot of evidence that the first several elections in which one votes tend to be determinative of one’s voting behavior in the future.Report

    • Among Democrats, 52 percent say they “seldom” or “never” attend religious services; among Republicans, 61 percent go to church or synagogue once a month or more.

      Aagh, there’s that horrible reporting again, the type BSK noted on another thread recently.  Reporting the numbers for two different things from two different groups, instead of reporting the numbers for the same thing from two different groups.  That should be reported as “52% of Democrats seldom or never go to religious services, while the corresponding number for Republicans is 39%,” or, “61% of Republicans go to religious service once a month or more, compared to 48% of Democrats who do.”  It’s so much clearer that way.

      That’s not a knock on Tom, who was just quoting what the numbskull reporter wrote.Report

  3. DensityDuck says:

    A newer GOP would indeed be more moderate.

    The problem is, the current Prog/Left agenda isn’t moderate.Report

  4. “On economics they are listening to the Paul Ryans and Eric Cantors of the Right.”

    That presumably means that conservatives support Medicare Part D, repeatedly raising the debt ceiling, invading & occupying foreign countries without regard to cost, Keynesian stimulus in economic slowdowns, and changes in tax policy that balloon the deficit. (Well, until the election of a non-GOP president rendered all previous actions, rhetoric, and ideology no longer operative).

    “I certainly don’t see enough conservatism in the Democratic party to remove the need for a reformed GOP. I see very little in the Democratic platform to satisfy mainline conservatives.”

    The Democratic Party is where you see old-fashioned “conservatives”– those who support incrementalist, empirical policies. People who liked Ronald Reagan because of his economic policies– people like Bruce Bartlett & David Stockman– have left or been excommunicated from the Republican Party.

    No one has explained the current political scene better than Bartlett, the architect of the 1981 Reagan tax cuts: “The Democratic Party is now the ‘adult’ party in American politics, willing to do what has to be done for the good of the country. The same cannot be said of Republicans, who seem unwilling to do anything that would interfere with their ambition to retake power so that they can reward their lobbyist friends with more give-aways from the public purse. … That leaves us facing political gridlock between the sensible but cowardly party and the greedy, sociopathic party. Not a pleasant choice for those of us in the sensible, lets-do-what-we-have-to-do-for-the-good-of-the-country independent centre.”Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to reflectionephemeral says:

      Well, let’s be clear here: The Democrats’ economic plan is to take large sums of money from an electorally insignificant minority and spend it on bribing the masses to reelect them. While this may be slightly different from the Republicans’ plan, which consists of borrowing money from an electorally insignifiant minority and spending it on bribing the masses to reelect them, I wouldn’t say that it’s more responsible, necessarily.Report

      • b-psycho in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        Taking involves force, though no interest.  Borrowing is voluntary, but in the case of government the paying it back part — since, y’know, debts have to be paid back eventually — involves force, plus interest.

        Pick your poison, I guess.Report

  5. Rufus F. says:

    If I were to describe what I think young Republicans will look like in 10 years I would suggest they will be moderate on social policy, mainline conservative on fiscal policy and libertarian on civil liberties and foreign policy. They will be pro-life but also believe people have a right to smoke weed in their own home. They’ll pretty much ignore gay marriage. They will believe in a strong world economy but be isolationist about wars and having our troops in foreign lands. If someone can show me how those kinds of people will see their interests served by the Democratic party, please do so.

    This does sound like a recipe for a really valuable Republican half of the political system. Now how do you get to that from the GOP you have now?Report

    • North in reply to Rufus F. says:

      A long string of electoral losses?Report

    • Will Truman in reply to Rufus F. says:

      Pre-9/11, the GOP was getting closer on the foreign policy front. In 2000, Bush ran on a humble foreign policy. Once foreign wars become more associated with International Peacekeeping and internationalism and less associated with Fighting The Enemies, I could see moving in that direction again (at least rhetorically – in practice, it’ll probably work like it does with Obama).

      I’m skeptical on the civil liberties front.Report

      • Rufus F. in reply to Will Truman says:

        You know why you should vote for Romney instead of Obama? Because he promises that, when he’s President, Iran will not get the nuclear bomb. You can’t be sure about that with Obama. Also, he’s going to double Guantanamo.Report

        • Will Truman in reply to Rufus F. says:

          Hey, wasn’t saying they were there right now. Only that it is quite possible. They’ve moved in that direction in the past. I could see them doing it again once War on Terror rhetoric stops working.Report

          • Kim in reply to Will Truman says:

            War on Terror is NOT rhetoric. it is fucking ECONOMIC policy. See Zandi, see McCain’s fucking economic stimulus plan. More War, More Stimulus. Inflate the hell out of our currency — Because it’s the only plan that WORKS. We’ve tried tons of other plans, but none of them Work.Report

      • Mike in reply to Will Truman says:

        Civil Liberties will continue to die as long as there are MPAA/RIAA goons buying off senators and congressment to try to pass copyright term extensions and garbage legislation like the DMCA, SOPA/PIPA, and ACTA-treaty.

        Civil Liberties will also continue to die as long as there are social conservatives willing to scream “but think of the children” when they want to pass the latest “we get to say what you can do between consenting adults in the privacy of your own bedroom” bullshit law.

        Civil Liberties will also continue to die when the same “but think of the children” is brought forth to censor yet another movie or TV show, or prohibit legal businesses from existing within X distance of a school or church, or to insist that the first amendment somehow does NOT prohibit government entities from spending taxpayer money on blatantly religious groupings, holidays, or events.

        As for the Pre-9/11 campaign with Bush, it was an interesting time. Bush’s line was that he was not interested in “nation building”, but it was in a larger context of general GOP mistrust of the UN and NATO, which I’d definitely define as isolationism. The GOP was still riding the highs they’d had accusing Clinton of “wagging the dog” during some of the military actions he’d ordered, and the GOP has always had a generally adversarial opinion of the UN in any event. The GOP generally likes the idea of the USA going in alone, not as part of the UN, unless in the context of a Democrat president ordering the US military to do something.Report

    • Mike Dwyer in reply to Rufus F. says:

      We’re already seeing a drifting towards isolationism on the Right. We’re a nation that has been givign it’s blood and treasure for a decade for a cause people mostly quit caring about a long time ago. War-weary voters don’t want troops dispatched to a new round of nation-building. Especially when you think about the need for nation-building here.Report

      • Tod Kelly in reply to Mike Dwyer says:

        “We’re already seeing a drifting towards isolationism on the Right.”

        Has someone told the Right this yet?  I think their email server might be down.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to Tod Kelly says:

          Maybe he meant they’re emotionally isolated.Report

        • Patrick Cahalan in reply to Tod Kelly says:

          I know a few boys who are back from multiple deployments.

          They and theirs are correlated pretty strongly with conservative political positions.  And they are fed up with interventionism.  And that’s not because there’s now a Democrat in the White House.  It’s because war sucks, and they’ve lived in it it for too long.

          This may not have made it up to the party leaders, but yeah, I think Mike is closer to the truth on this one than people might think he is.Report

          • Mike Dwyer in reply to Patrick Cahalan says:

            That’s my experience as well Pat. They are proud of the work they did over there but most of them seem convinced it won’t last – and have a strong opinion about similar efforts in the future.Report

  6. Herb says:

    If someone can show me how those kinds of people will see their interests served by the Democratic party, please do so.

    If an isolationist foreign policy, an end to the drug war, and moderating social policy is in their interest, what makes you think they’ll get it from the Republicans?

    That may be Ron Paul’s platform, but it’s not the platform of the Republican party. And if you’re still holding out hope that Ron Paul will influence the Republican platform in this direction, I can only ask one question: When is this going to happen? We are in the fourth decade of Paul’s political career. Aren’t we kind of waiting for Godot at this point?Report

  7. DarrenG says:

    I’ve been hearing this same argument from right-libertarians since I was in college in the 80s.

    The disconnect seems to be that the GOP is not organized to accept bottom-up change. Generation after generation it’s still the big money guys, big wars guys, and religious grifters who remain in charge.Report

    • Kim in reply to DarrenG says:

      Just one head has the right. The left has many heads, because they aren’t so authoritarian, and they understand the fundamental committee nature of a party.

      (Listen to Obama giving a “sermon” to black voters sometime. It’s illuminating to see what he has to say on Father’s day).Report

  8. smarx says:

    This post the and previous one on diversity at the LoOG, has raised some questions for me.  One of the things that I think this blog lacks is analysis on foreign policy.  There’s a lot of talk on domestic policy, political philosophy, and what is going on the Middle East, but international relations in other parts of the world get is not usually covered.

    My questions for the commentariat relate on what a libertarian-leaning Republican response would be in East Asia if it was influenced by Ron Paul’s isolationism.

    What would the libertarian Republican response to the shift in military and economic power from the Atlantic to the Pacific? What would policy makers say to our allies in East and Southeast Asia who have asked for more US presence in the region to counter-ballance China’s influence (for example: China’s growing military, oil rights in the South China Sea, and the flow of manufactured goods)? What would happen to build up of US troops in Australia? How much would they reverse of Obama’s policy in the region?

    More generally, how would libertarian Republicans affect the Foreign Service Office (the arm of the State Department which handles US embassies abroad and foreign embassies domestically)?Report

    • Tod Kelly in reply to smarx says:

      smarx, if I may respond…

      As to your main point, I agree that we do lack in those areas.  I think that has more to do with the fact that none of the contributors has a lot of knowledge or expertise on those kind of foreign policy issues.  Or maybe we do, but they feel called to speak to other issues instead.

      As to your questions that follow, I don’t know that this is much of a libertarian blog per se.  We do have one or two libertarian contributors, but that’s out of a dozen or so.  If you want, I can forward a link to your comment to Jason to make sure he sees it.  He is the closest thing we have to a resident libertarian expert; he’s also pretty bright and likes to be challenged, and if he has the time I think might even post on your questions.

      The other possibility would be to do a quick guest post that asks and challenged the libertarian mindset about these issues.  I guarantee you you’ll get a huge response from all sides of the aisle.

      In either case, the questions are good – and deserve a forum.Report

      • smarx in reply to Tod Kelly says:

        Thanks for the reply.

        I figured that there weren’t many people here with international experience.  Although, I’ve read this blog long enough that there are commenter/bloggers from New Zealand and Singapore, another with a wife from outside the US, another who has lived in Japan, and another with military experience. There’s a chance someone might be able to comment on things in relation to the US and the world outside of it.

        On top of that there has been a lot of talk about Ron Paul, but not so much about his foreign policy other than short comments about his isolationist beliefs and ideas on getting rid of the Navy.

        Anyways, you can foward the link to Jason if you want. I might also foward you something for a blog post, but it depends on how much time I have.  I’ve read this blog for a while, but I rarely have time to get involved with the comment threads.Report

  9. BlaiseP says:

    Want to see the GOP of the future?   Look at the Tory Party in the UK today.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to BlaiseP says:

      See Also: Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party.Report

      • DarrenG in reply to Jaybird says:

        I’d be very interested to hear your and BlaiseP’s take on how they are likely to get there from here, given the drastically different incentive structures in place here versus the UK.

        Specifically, how do you see the GOP shrugging off the influence of Fox News and talk radio, and separately, the influence of huge amounts of corporate and lobbyist money?Report

        • Jaybird in reply to DarrenG says:

          It’s fairly easy to be pro-business and socially liberal… when you realize that being socially liberal is a great advertising campaign for new products.

          When socially conservative ceases to mean “no gay marriage” because the generation most likely to harbor that thought passes on and starts to mean “those two should really get married… they’re a bad influence”, we’ll have achieved a new equilibrium where all of the youngish progressives on this issue now find themselves middle-aged conservatives… but you know what? People trading goods and services for goods and services works the exact same way it worked in 2010, 1980, 1950, and 1920 all the way back.

          Being good for the family may change from decade to decade as families grow and shrink and morph. Good for business remains good for business.

          And once businessmen see that socially conservative is no longer good for business? The huge amounts of corporatist and lobbyist money will evaporate.Report

          • DarrenG in reply to Jaybird says:

            The details of social conservatism may change over time, but the GOP as a whole has developed a remarkably robust immune system against generational or populist change. I just don’t see them nearly abandoning the culture wars and religious right altogether the way the Tories have; their entire electoral ground game for nearly 2 generations now is built on it, after all.

            And “good for business” is an eternal verity? Hardly, even in GOP terms. Look at the evolution of conservatives’ views on economic issues just since Reagan. Then look at Eisenhower — he’d be considered too hostile to business to win a *Democratic* primary in 2012.

            And “corporatist and lobbyist money will evaporate?” Now I know you’re pulling my leg…Report

        • BlaiseP in reply to DarrenG says:

          You’re right, insofar as the forces which shape the UK are somewhat different than those which shape the USA.  But just how different are they?

          The economy is on hard times just now in both countries.  As Jaybird notes above, well-run social programs are an easy sell in these times.   Notice that adjective, well-run.  But all such programs, indeed any new laws of any sort, are worthless without bureaucracies to administer and enforce them.   Blackguarding the bureaucrats is usually a cheap shot:  witness all those agencies the GOP candidates want to shut down, especially Rick Perry’s Department of Um.   This isn’t to say reform isn’t possible or desirable.

          Both the USA and the UK have their share of demagogues.  American history gives us many examples of demagogues whose mouths outran their asses.   I should dust off my old essay on Westbrook Pegler and reshape it for these times.

          All demagogues conform to the model of Robespierre.   They all end up being dragged off to the guillotine after a few years.   The mills of the gods which grind slowly yet grind exceeding fine now have Fox News Corp between the millstones.   Glenn Beck’s a noisy has-been, in the model of Pegler.   Rush, hard to say what’s to become of him over time, he’s said so many ugly and untrue things and gotten away with them, it’s unclear how he can be brought down.

          Though they’re not as immediately obvious on the political radar, the fire-breathing preachers are their own sort of problem but they’re protected by the First Amendment.   Just today, the UK courts have ruled on Omar Othman, saying he can’t be deported.

          As for the storm surge of PAC money sewage bubbling up through the manhole covers of government, shit, I hardly know what to say.   It’s almost a force of nature.  Money will always equate to power.   Nor is lobbying an unalloyed evil:  the first lobbyist on record petitioned Congress to pay the pensions of Revolutionary War veterans.

          What can the GOP do about all this?   Look, what we really need is a fundamental reset of the political equation.  I keep saying it, I’ve said it for years, to the point where people must surely roll their eyes up into their heads when I say it yet again, we must oblige the Congress to do its damned job, especially the Senate.   Today’s soi-disant Conservatives ought to be chained to a desk and made to read Edmund Burke and the self-described Liberals should be force fed John Stuart Mill.   Both sides have made a dog’s dinner of meaningful political dialogue.  We drift ever closer to authoritarianism and statism, not because The Gummint has Evil Designs upon us but because they simply won’t govern.   If those reins hang loose long enough, some enterprising and photogenic dictator will seize them.Report

          • Jeff in reply to BlaiseP says:

            “Both sides have made a dog’s dinner of meaningful political dialogue.”

            Ah, the “both sides do it” nonsense strikes again.  The Dems (and moreso the liberals) have tried again and again to have a meaningful political dialogue, only to be shouted down as traitors (2001 to 2008) or soshulists (2008 to present).  Thanks but no thanks.  At this point, I say “You first” to any conservative wishing to have a dialogue — show me that it’s worth my time to engage you.

            So very few have met that challenge.Report

            • BlaiseP in reply to Jeff says:

              Oh bullshit.  Read the rest of the comment.   Do you think the Conservatives these days have any semblance of congruence with Burke or the Liberals with Mill?

              I’m not shouting anyone down as a traitor.   If I wanted to indulge in that sort of crap I’d be over at dKos, with all those other febrile maniacs, all greased and lying in a writhing pile of self-pity and Liberaler-than-Thou.   Conservatives aren’t traitors.   Nor are Liberals.

              Now I started this thread, saying the GOP would come to resemble the Tories in the UK.   I still think that’s true.  The Tories used to be in the pocket of Rupert Murdoch and lived each day in hopes he’d throw them some crumbs of approval.   They don’t live in fear of Rupert any more.   We can only hope the GOP exhibits the testicular fortitude they have lacked heretofore, standing up to the blowhards who’ve been punking them since the late 1970s.Report

            • BlaiseP in reply to Jeff says:

              And for what it’s worth, Keith Olbermann was a pretty good commentator right up until the moment he started thinking he was Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple.Report

        • Jonathan in reply to DarrenG says:

          Canada’s Conservative Party gets along quite well (too well, really) with Sun TV, which was modeled after Fox News (hence the nickname, “Fox News North”). Were the Republicans to emulate the Tories (and I have heard arguments that it’s already happening – just as I hear arguments that the Tories are merely following the Republicans and/or Tea Party), I can’t imagine there would be much friction with Fox News.Report

  10. Jeff says:

    “If someone can show me how those kinds of people will see their interests served by the Democratic party, please do so.”

    On another blog, someone posted:

    I would like to talk about (1) how we get out of Afghanistan, (2) how avoid a war with Iran, (3) getting rid of the TSA, the Patriot Act, NDAA, (4) closing foreign military bases and gitmo, (5) reducing the size of the military, (6) ending the “war on drugs”), (7) stopping the banksters from stealing any more money from taxpayers, (8) more transparency with the Fed, (9) reducing the deficit and the debt.

    With the possible exception of 8 and 9, these are FAR more likely to come from the Dems than from the GOP.    Paul was the only one talking about 1 through 6, and he has more baggage than the trunk car on the Orient Express.



    • Patrick Cahalan in reply to Jeff says:

      With the possible exception of 8 and 9, these are FAR more likely to come from the Dems than from the GOP.

      Really?  So when you have a Democratic President, a Democratic House, and a Democratic Senate, and (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) – hey, that one was even laughed at, and (7) all don’t happen anyway, what leads you to this conclusion?

      This is like Koz and his “The GOP is fundamentally more serious about cutting spending that the Dems” line.  They’re certainly more serious about talking about it.  Doing stuff seems to be the line in the sand, for both parties.Report

      • Jeff in reply to Patrick Cahalan says:

        There are Dems who are at least trying (Kusinich and Sanders, to name 2).  I didn’t say it was going to be this President or this Congress, just that movement on these issues is far more likely to come from the Left than from the Right.

        Progressives like myself are FAR more disappointed in what’s not been done over the past 4 years than folks in the middle or leaning to the right.  Obama does have some major accomplishments to his name, but the way he’s handled the stimulus, health care reform and Gitmo/detention is shameful.

        That said, I’ll vote for him with a light heart considering the a**holes that are running in the GOP.Report

  11. mike shupp says:

    “… young Republicans … in 10 years …  moderate on social policy, mainline conservative on fiscal policy and libertarian on civil liberties and foreign policy.”

    I rather doubt, somehow.  Right now, young conservatives are strong supporters of Ayn Rand-style libertarianism and (occasional) gold-buggery, rather wedded to the hypotheses that (a) the fate iof the economy is determined by our treatment of the sacred upper 1% of citizens, and that (b) young conservatives are sure to join that 1%.  Ten years from now, I suspect, that’s going to be a minority view.  A very small minority.

    Their attitude toward civil liberties may well be … disappointing.  Forget Arab terrorists, and remember Hispanic migrants.  There’s scope for hysteria here which will endure unto the end of days, and ordinary Republicans really enjoy hating migrants, particular those who don’t speak English.

    And American attitudes toward foreign policy are probably going to run aground on foreigners’ attitudes towards America.  I don’t think the rest of the world is going to be so supportive the next time the US picks out a smaller nation for a fight; I don’t think other nations will be so eager to show support for our ideals that they contribute their own troops and votes in the UN.  I don’t think the US is going to get a free pass on global warming issues in future trade discussions; I don’t expect international negotiators to immediately assume American financial regulators are without sin; I don’t think the rest of the world is going to demand that the US organize — and fund, and furnish troops for — military coalitions aimed at restraining Chinese or Indian or Tasmanian military efforts.

    I’m sure future Young Republicans will have Attitudes; it’s their Influence I doubt.




  12. Trystan Roux says:

    Really appreciate you sharing this article post. Awesome.Report