• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The looming GOP civil war -- whether Mitt wins or not

GarzaUK

British, Irish and everything in-between.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,688
Reaction score
631
Location
Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The looming GOP civil war -- whether Mitt wins or not - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Just thought I would post this interesting article. IMO it has been coming since the rise of the Tea Party, the struggle within the GOP between the pragmatists (moderates) and the idealists (far-right, social conservatives). Can a party as idealogically at odds as the GOP survive in a 21st century climate? How can the GOP start winning over Latinos, non-christains, non-believers and African Americans (demographics that are on the rise)?
 
Republicans would benefit more from blind partisanship like the Democrats.
 
The looming GOP civil war -- whether Mitt wins or not - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Just thought I would post this interesting article. IMO it has been coming since the rise of the Tea Party, the struggle within the GOP between the pragmatists (moderates) and the idealists (far-right, social conservatives). Can a party as idealogically at odds as the GOP survive in a 21st century climate? How can the GOP start winning over Latinos, non-christains, non-believers and African Americans (demographics that are on the rise)?

There probably be no civil war. Any strains of popular Tea Party-style conservatism that get into Congress will be quickly tamed by the "moderates."

How the GOP copes with its shrinking electorate I'm not sure.
 
Why is the fact that the far left has taken over the democratic party never talked about? Ever since Pelosi won her battle to take over the house leadership in 2004 the party has gotten more and more extreme. This year's party platform calls for unrestricted abortion at any time for any reason regardless of ability to pay. Way out of the mainstream. Traditional marraige is now viewed by the party as extreme despite the fact that 32 states have voted against gay marraige. The Catholic Church is being forced to violate their beliefs and pay for sterilizations, abortifacients and contraception. When a republican president sat in the White House dem party leadership tried to sabotage Iraq war success.
As far as winning over Latinos they have definitely reached out and are making an effort. Both US Hispanic Governors are republican including the first Hispanic female governor. Rubio is one of only 2 Hispanic Senators and republicans had 5 new Hispanic Congressional members elected in 2010. The only female Hispanic Congressional member is a republican.
 
Last edited:
I'm getting the sense that this author wasn't giving credit to those before him that noticed a "Civil war" looming within the Republican Party after George W. Bush's two terms were finished. This author is merely pointing out one aspect of the "civil war" that does not have to do with ideology, but rather focuses on demographics.

The "civil war" argument is somewhat overblown. It is quite cyclical and happens every 10-20 years. People just think that the "Reagan coalition" were peachy. Well, they weren't.
 
Last edited:
There probably be no civil war. Any strains of popular Tea Party-style conservatism that get into Congress will be quickly tamed by the "moderates."

How the GOP copes with its shrinking electorate I'm not sure.

This is not a dig, but can you name some true moderates in the Republican party today? I am referring to people like the late Frank Church or Congressman Obey from Wisconsin or the late John Anderson. Those people were/are IMHO true moderates. They knew that compromise was necessary for an effective government and were willing on most issues to cross over the aisle and shake hands.

I frankly have heard precise little of this going on.
 
Why is the fact that the far left has taken over the democratic party never talked about? Ever since Pelosi won her battle to take over the house leadership in 2004 the party has gotten more and more extreme. This year's party platform calls for unrestricted abortion at any time for any reason regardless of ability to pay. Way out of the mainstream. Traditional marraige is now viewed by the party as extreme despite the fact that 32 states have voted against gay marraige. The Catholic Church is being forced to violate their beliefs and pay for sterilizations, abortifacients and contraception. When a republican president sat in the White House dem party leadership tried to sabotage Iraq war success.
As far as winning over Latinos they have definitely reached out and are making an effort. Both US Hispanic Governors are republican including the first Hispanic female governor. Rubio is one of only 2 Hispanic Senators and republicans had 5 new Hispanic Congressional members elected in 2010. The only female Hispanic Congressional member is a republican.

My case in point.
 
Sounds to me like a bunch of Liberal Hacks yammering on about a political movement they don't belong to, oppose, and don't understand in the slightest....
 
The looming GOP civil war -- whether Mitt wins or not - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Just thought I would post this interesting article. IMO it has been coming since the rise of the Tea Party, the struggle within the GOP between the pragmatists (moderates) and the idealists (far-right, social conservatives). Can a party as idealogically at odds as the GOP survive in a 21st century climate? How can the GOP start winning over Latinos, non-christains, non-believers and African Americans (demographics that are on the rise)?

This Civil War has already been fought. The Far Right won, which is why there are no such creatures like 'moderate' Republicans. Moderate, to the Far Right, is a dirty word. They don't even use it any more. They prefer the term RINO, which applies to any Republican who believes in political compromise and who doesn't have a social agenda straight out of Leave It To Beaver.
 
My case in point.

Well, political scientists want to claim we have an increase in "partisans" in Congress and less self-identified (or otherwise) "moderates" which reach compromise. There is some truth in that analysis of theirs, but their empircal data generally doesn't take into consideration matters before the 1970s, or an evaluation of the intellectual disputes between each Party.
 
I don't see a 'civil war" looming. What I see is that the GOP must try and expand its base by dropping alot of its hyperbole and overblown rhetoric and stop filabustering for the sake of party ideology. They were not hired to play politics with our futures nor were the liberals. Both sides need to stop behaving like a bullying in a school yard brawl and or spoiled ass children who won't play fair or at all UNLESS THEY get their way. This is not what they were hired to do.

Until this happens the faith and confidence of the American people in thesee clowns will continue to slide . But a 5% there is not much further they can go.
 
Sounds to me like a bunch of Liberal Hacks yammering on about a political movement they don't belong to, oppose, and don't understand in the slightest....

Well, you are two thirds correct. We don't belong to it and we oppose it. However, we understand exactly what it is about. Which is why we don't belong to it and why we oppose it. Rednecks running around with their assault rifles proclaiming they are part of a new movement just doesn't make it for us.
 
This Civil War has already been fought. The Far Right won, which is why there are no such creatures like 'moderate' Republicans. Moderate, to the Far Right, is a dirty word. They don't even use it any more. They prefer the term RINO, which applies to any Republican who believes in political compromise and who doesn't have a social agenda straight out of Leave It To Beaver.

Temporarily, I would say. These inner-Party disputes frequently occur. That's why the author was correct to take a look, however cursory it was, at the Goldwater v. Rockefeller arguments that reached into the 1970s. I would also suggest people look at the early and late 1980s to get a better understanding for how foreign affairs and aspects of domestic policy began to change within the Party. It is worth noting that the moderate temperament within the Party is quite low in comparison with the Rockefeller Republicans, but we should be careful in giving a wide prognosis such as to say "moderate creatures" do not exist in the Republican Party.
 
Well, political scientists want to claim we have an increase in "partisans" in Congress and less self-identified (or otherwise) "moderates" which reach compromise. There is some truth in that analysis of theirs, but their empircal data generally doesn't take into consideration matters before the 1970s, or an evaluation of the intellectual disputes between each Party.

I am a bit confused how does this fit into the grid lock of today?
 
I am a bit confused how does this fit into the grid lock of today?

Well, that was the heart of the discussion. A number of political scientists started taking polling data and other bits of analysis over Congress from the past several years and concluded that the moderates in both parties had nearly evaporated, leaving a dramatic number of self-identified partisans. The authors then make the argument it is hard to have much in the way of compromise without those moderates working to pull the poles closer together on certain issues. I think there is much to that, but there's other things that are left unexplained, particularly why we seem to think that things are "worse" than in the past, when they provide no real look at the past, nor do they really seem to explain what makes a "moderate" a moderate.
 
I don't see a 'civil war" looming. What I see is that the GOP must try and expand its base by dropping alot of its hyperbole and overblown rhetoric and stop filabustering for the sake of party ideology. They were not hired to play politics with our futures nor were the liberals. Both sides need to stop behaving like a bullying in a school yard brawl and or spoiled ass children who won't play fair or at all UNLESS THEY get their way. This is not what they were hired to do.

Until this happens the faith and confidence of the American people in thesee clowns will continue to slide . But a 5% there is not much further they can go.

The GOP will either adapt to a changing world or it will become irrelevant. It's a simple matter of demographics.
 
Well, that was the heart of the discussion. A number of political scientists started taking polling data and other bits of analysis over Congress from the past several years and concluded that the moderates in both parties had nearly evaporated, leaving a dramatic number of self-identified partisans. The authors then make the argument it is hard to have much in the way of compromise without those moderates working to pull the poles closer together on certain issues. I think there is much to that, but there's other things that are left unexplained, particularly why we seem to think that things are "worse" than in the past, when they provide no real look at the past.

This is a bit off topic but do you remember Frank Church or John Anderson. Did you think they were moderate cons?
 
The GOP will either adapt to a changing world or it will become irrelevant. It's a simple matter of demographics.

Hardly. Demographics are only one good chunk of the puzzle.
 
The GOP will either adapt to a changing world or it will become irrelevant. It's a simple matter of demographics.

Nothing stays the same forever. Just look at the pole shift that happened in the mid 19th century. If you lived then (ca 1865) you would be a Republican.
 
It is just fantasy wishing by Politico. Tiresome too.
 
Wishful thinking and a lame attempt at self- fulfilling prophesy.


I am still a registered Democrat. I used to proudly call myself a “Liberal”.


I would be proud still to be grouped together with the Liberals the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, or J.F. Kennedy.


But the radical Obama BLT / Socialist wing of the Democratic Party has moved way too far to the Left to get my support in any way. I’d sooner vote forever Republican than support these radicals.


If I don’t help defeat Obama and his ever increasing Government Institutionalize Racial Discrimination, I’ll find myself a hated and hunted “Designated Criminal” for my birth skin tone in my own country.


There is no future for any politician who supports Racial Preferences.


If there is a Political Party in 2012 which is in Civil War against itself, it is the Democrats.


-
 
This is a bit off topic but do you remember Frank Church or John Anderson. Did you think they were moderate cons?

I admit I am not well familiar (more familiar with Rockefeller, Jackson) with these individuals. From a quick glance Church doesn't strike as a conservative-anything for the times, really, but seems on certain matters he could in fact be viewed as the moderate liberal. Anderson was probably more of your moderate conservative.
 
The looming GOP civil war -- whether Mitt wins or not - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Just thought I would post this interesting article. IMO it has been coming since the rise of the Tea Party, the struggle within the GOP between the pragmatists (moderates) and the idealists (far-right, social conservatives). Can a party as idealogically at odds as the GOP survive in a 21st century climate? How can the GOP start winning over Latinos, non-christains, non-believers and African Americans (demographics that are on the rise)?

There are some serious issues that the right is going to have to deal with. The first is the lesson from the first debate:

Romney didn't surge in the polls because he was a strong conservative voice in the first debate. Romney surged in the polls because he abandoned the strong conservative stance he had taken in the two years leading up to the debate. The country does not want right wing ideology, especially when it comes to social issues.

But the right wing refuses to acknowledge this. They sit in a self imposed ideological bubble and absolutely refuse to listen to anything that disagrees with what they believe in. They believe that everyone thinks like them because they don't listen to anyone who doesn't.

Put in economic terms, this is a positive reinforcing cycle. As the GOP becomes more extreme they continue to drop independents and moderates. As they drop independents and moderates, the extremists make up a bigger portion of the GOP, pushing the GOP even further to the right.
 
Back
Top Bottom