• 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!

Choosing the best GOP national strategy

Should the GOP change or stay true to its principles?

  • The GOP should reinvent itself

    Votes: 20 69.0%
  • The GOP should stay true to its convictions

    Votes: 9 31.0%

  • Total voters
    29

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Most of the talking heads are suggesting, due to demographic trends the Republican Party is going to have to either face the real likelihood of not winning the White House anytime in the foreseeable future or change its positions and approaches. This with the understanding one of the definitions of conservative is opposition to change.

As I see it the GOP is at an impasse. It's going to either have to reinvent itself in order to appeal to a broader audience or its going to need to be true to its historical convictions while facing the reality that they are likely going to be a minority voice politically and no chance at the Oval Office. Going forward should the GOP modernize and change its character in efforts to win the ultimate prize, the White House or should the GOP remain true to its principles and let the chips fall where they may being most effective as a national opposition party in congress and impacting state and local governments?
 
Last edited:
Most of the talking heads are suggesting, due to demographic trends the Republican Party is going to have to either face the real likelihood of not winning the White House anytime in the foreseeable future or change its positions and approaches. This with the understanding one of the definitions of conservative is opposition to change.

As I see it tge GOP is at an impasse. It's going to either have to reinvent itself in order to appeal to a broader audience or its going to need to be true to its historical convictions while facing the reality that they are likely going to be a minority voice politically and no chance at the Oval Office. Going forward should the GOP modernize and change its character in efforts to win the ultimate prize, the White House or should the GOP remain true to its principles and let the chips fall where they may being most effective as a national opposition party in congress and impacting state and local governments?

Personally - and I'm probably the only Republican who thinks so - I think it would be interesting for the Republican Party to actually include some welfare state advocates into their big tent.

Back in the 90's, the GOP tried to run on a platform of "compassionate conservatism." Republicans ran on a platform of traditional family values, and, with people disgusted by President Clinton's sex scandals, they won a lot of elections that way.

However, family social values are not entirely compatible with the laissez-faire business attitudes that the Republican Party have had.

If we want parents to spend more time with their children to help raise them, government is needed to enforce regulations on worker hours to help them with that.

If we want to help single parents raise their children - whether it's for teen mothers, divorced mothers, or widowed mothers - we need to make sure those women can afford to.

If we want to end drug violence then we need to legalize the softer drugs and provide drug addicts with treatment rather than incarceration.

If we want to preserve the traditions of sportsmanship in hunting and fishing, then we need to preserve and conserve our pristine wilderness, which means environmental regulations.

If we want to expand that appreciation for nature, we need to promote our public parks, and utilize methods for people to partake in them, such as hosting concerts and plays.

If we want to promote education, then we need to provide funding to public agency that utilizes the internet to produce that media free for all people to download in order to educate themselves.

If we want to promote small businesses, then we should have government agencies, perhaps at the local level but with federal funding, that provide start-up loans to entrepreneurs so they can start their own businesses that private lenders aren't interested in.

If the GOP wants a more ethnically diverse membership, then they need to court educated immigrants as well as hard-working middle-class immigrants rather than keeping entry and citizenship restrictive.

Please note that I'm not saying that the GOP should rewrite it's platform to make ideas such as these their main platform. Rather, I think the GOP should stop trying to maintain an absurd sense of ideological purity and stop accusing others of being a "RINO" and expand those they can work with rather than demand people stay in lock-step with them.
 
It's time for the GOP to get out of the morality business even if it costs them the evangelical voter.

Instead, they could become the party of business and focus on rational strategies to lift up the worker and simplify the business procedures.
 
IMO, the GOP should stay to MOST of their convictions but find a way to deliver them better. No mentions of God endorsed rape, "severe" conservatives, "legitimate" rape, etc, etc The GOP needs to realize that it isn't so much their fiscal message or their national defense message. It's their social policies. It's their complete disregard for the environment.
They can stay to their platorms of pro-life. They just need to deliver it better. Stop focusing on the woman so much and focus on the babies. NO ONE can argue against a baby without coming of as callous and hateful. I would have loved to hear some of the Democrats responses to a Republican stating "The baby doesn't know nor can it help that it's the product of a rape" instead of "Well, if it's a legitimate rape...".
They need to get off the anti-gay thing. They lost it with DADT, they're going to eventually lose it with marriage. And for what? They are clinging to a false belief that they will lose the evangelical vote or something. I just don't believe that it would be a big deal to evangelicals. Do they believe that evangelicals would suddenly vote for Democrats? LOL, I hope not. If they do, the GOP is further off the mark that we all thought.
The GOP (especially the Tea Party) need to get away from the social dictation they preach while they state that they love freedom. Gov Romney totally personified this. He would talk on and on about freedom from this or freedom for that but then say gays can't be married, he supports DADT, the Patriot Act is good, etc. People see this as Gov Romney, and in turn the GOP, saying "We want monetary freedom but not freedom for your personal needs."
The GOP should get with the program and realize that something needs to be done about the illegals in our country. Self-deportation isn't the answer. It's not going to happen. They need to come up with a plan that would solve the problem of illegal immigrants here and make it so we don't have this problem again. Much like Pres Reagan tried to do but failed to do in the correct order. First fund the huge fence, the tighter security, the National Guard bases, then allow "amnesty" as it's called. Provide the illegal immigrants here a fast track to citizenship with a probation period. Who cares what the guy who's been in line for citizenship for 2 years thinks? It's not his country, it's ours. We need to do what's best for our country, not the poor guy in line. No one is self deporting, I can tell you that.
The GOP loves to be conservative everywhere but with the environment. They don't have to go Greenpeace or anything. Just add to the platform an encouragement to recycle, drive cars that get better MPG, conserve water, etc, etc. This isn't a betrayal of the free market. They should never endorse the dictation of what type of car someone should drive. But there is big difference in dictating something and advocating for it. The need to be HUGE advocates for the environment. They need to relate it to their constituents in a manner they will embarce such as how driving a car with higher MPG makes us less dependant upon the Arab nations. There are so many things the GOP could spin off of taking care of the environment that I believe many conservatives would embrace.
 
Last edited:
They need to run on Progressive Conservatism not far right bull****.
 
They need to run on Progressive Conservatism not far right bull****.

So basically what we need is progressives against progressives. I'm sure one of those sides will understand what the general welfare clause actually does, right?
 
So basically what we need is progressives against progressives. I'm sure one of those sides will understand what the general welfare clause actually does, right?

Maybe you can move American society forward with the rest of the world instead of lagging behind by a few decades. Also by doing that you move the Democrats to being actual Liberals or centre-left not Progressive Conservatives as they are now.
 
Maybe you can move American society forward with the rest of the world instead of lagging behind by a few decades.

You mean by putting in place things like Universal healthcare? I honestly had no idea we needed to be just like Mike, so enlighten me on this if you will.

Also by doing that you move the Democrats to being actual Liberals or centre-left not Progressive Conservatives as they are now.

Where exactly does that move the democrats?
 
You mean by putting in place things like Universal healthcare? I honestly had no idea we needed to be just like Mike, so enlighten me on this if you will.



Where exactly does that move the democrats?

Well first of all socially America is behind on social issues like gay marriage and abortion. Secondly what I mean is it would move the Democrats closer to social democracy.
 
well, first, the House is the most important branch of government unless you want to order a drone strike on somebody and the GOP held its majority there. Second, Obama lost support between 2008 and 2012 so I would not say the dems are trending that heavily as the inevitable winner. Third, 2016 will have no incumbent so that takes away another dem advantage. 4th, Romney won't be the nominee again and he was about as moderate as the GOP will put forth just because he bought the slot. and 5th, the GOP becoming the DNC Lite is not going to help them one iota IMHO.
 
Well first of all socially America is behind on social issues like gay marriage and abortion. Secondly what I mean is it would move the Democrats closer to social democracy.

Expanding state control over marriage is not moving forward. Republicans at the moment have no choice however to accept that position, but it would of been nice if they didn't shot their foot off so they could of picked up the position of separating marriage from government.

As for abortion, they have no reason to move away from their position on that. They need to stop saying crazy **** and stop putting up crazy ass invasive bills, but the pro-life position is a good position.

Social democracy on the other hand is just a transition movement to socialism. Democrats are already doing that.
 
Expanding state control over marriage is not moving forward. Republicans at the moment have no choice however to accept that position, but it would of been nice if they didn't shot their foot off so they could of picked up the position of separating marriage from government.

As for abortion, they have no reason to move away from their position on that. They need to stop saying crazy **** and stop putting up crazy ass invasive bills, but the pro-life position is a good position.

Social democracy on the other hand is just a transition movement to socialism. Democrats are already doing that.

Weird usually equal rights is moving forward and pro-life is a good position to have, if your a redneck. What your thinking of is democratic socialism not social democracy.
 
Weird usually equal rights is moving forward and pro-life is a good position to have, if your a redneck. What your thinking of is democratic socialism not social democracy.

wikipedia said:
Social democracy is a political ideology that considers itself to be a form of reformist democratic socialism. It advocates for a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism.

Eduard Bernstein was also the founder of the movement and as you might be aware he was a socialist.

Equal rights could be gained in marriage without direct government involvement in the marriage process. People can decide to have a private contract in marriage or not in my system.

The pro-life position is about the value of human life and yes that is a great position to have.
 
Last edited:
Eduard Bernstein was also the founder of the movement and as you might be aware he was a socialist.

Equal rights could be gained in marriage without direct government involvement in the marriage process. People can decide to have a private contract in marriage or not in my system.

The pro-life position is about the value of human life and yes that is a great position to have.
I guess you for got the part where it the ideology of social democracy changed to it's modern form after the 1940s. It's too bad that isn't what marriage now is it, I also disagree with your definition of marriage. Pro-life is a great position to have as long as you stay far away from my country and don't like women's rights.
 
Last edited:
I guess you for got the part where it the ideology of social democracy changed to it's modern form after the 1940s.

Its modern form is what I described.

It's too bad that isn't what marriage now is it, I also disagree with your definition of marriage.

I didn't provide you a definition of marriage and the first part of your sentence doesn't make any sense.

Pro-life is a great position to have as long as you stay far away from my country.

Yes, that is not really a counter argument, is it?

Oh and I shouldn't have said Eduard was a socialist since he is still alive and still a socialist.
 
Last edited:
Its modern form is what I described.



I didn't provide you a definition of marriage and the first part of your sentence doesn't make any sense.



Yes, that is not really a counter argument, is it?

No that's what it's old form was, it's new form has no goal of achieving socialism. I don't see the Scandinavian countries becoming socialist do you? You said:
Equal rights could be gained in marriage without direct government involvement in the marriage process.
I meant that isn't what marriage is though and to achieve equality you must allow gay marriage. Secondly I believe it is always a woman's right and the pro-life viewpoint makes no sense. Here they are considered looney apparently America hasn't caught up.
 
My advice to the party:

1. Reasonable pro-life positions are fine, but there should be no more Akins in any major race.

2. People have sex. Get over it.

3. You can't just look at the small number of people in certain groups and think that means you can write them off or, even worse, use them as scapegoats. For example, gays are a very small minority in this country, but they have family and friends who vote and donate. Republicans are losing a lot of votes by being intolerant.

4. There are a lot of professionals who should be voting GOP, but are turned off by some of the more extreme rhetoric on the social side. Tone. It. Down.

5. Appearance, style, and charisma are everything in today's political world. John McCain should never have even been considered for that reason alone. Romney was better, but I think the next nominee should be even stronger in that area.

6. We cannot be viewed as the anti-science party. In certain local elections in specific regions of the country, creationists and "young Earthers" are going to win and there is really nothing anyone can do about it, but for Pete's sake, the guys running for the big seats need to get with it and have intelligent answers ready when the media asks them about science.

7. No more Bushes running for President, please. The name is toxic at that level.
 
No that's what it's old form was, it's new form has no goal of achieving socialism. I don't see the Scandinavian countries becoming socialist do you?

I don't believe that is the old form, but if you think it is please feel free to offer up what it is today.

I meant that isn't what marriage is though and to achieve equality you must allow gay marriage.

That is allowing gay marriage and marriage by itself has nothing to do with a government contract.

Secondly I believe it is always a woman's right and the pro-life viewpoint makes no sense. Here they are considered looney apparently America hasn't caught up.

She has the right to kill her own offspring then?
 
Why should the GOP become lesser liberals? I say they stick it out or go down swinging.
 
I'm in college and everyone I know supports the Dems, for one of two reasons:

1. Obama is cooler than anyone the Repubs have on the table.
2. Social issues.

If the GOP just dumped the Bible-thumping bull**** (speaking as a fairly devout Catholic) and found a national candidate with some charisma, they'd have a LOT more young voters than they do now.
 
Why should the GOP become lesser liberals? I say they stick it out or go down swinging.

I have to agree with you there. It has always been my policy to stick to what I believe in. I don't see anything to gain by losing who you are and what you stand for. All I see is that you just let your opponent destroy you by destroying yourself.
 
Maybe you can move American society forward with the rest of the world instead of lagging behind by a few decades. Also by doing that you move the Democrats to being actual Liberals or centre-left not Progressive Conservatives as they are now.

If I wanted America to be like every other developed western country in the world, I'd move my ass to one of those other developed western countries.

One of the things that makes me love this country, want to see it remain great, and want to remain in it is because it has it's own history, it's own governmental philosophy, and it's own direction that one can easily discern through a reasoned understanding and reading of our history. Attempting to be more like "The rest of the world" is the very thing that I don't want to see and is what has continued to chip away from what America once represented
 
The GOP should stick to general Conservative Principles but do three main things with them....

1. Stop ignorantly believing that the POLICIES it's long held are what define conservatism. Re-evalute your policy stances, but do not let that re-evaluation go outside the scope of conservative principle.

2. Stop putting such emphasis and focus on the social principles of the ideology specifically through wedge issues and allowing them to override over portions of the ideology.

3. Stop thinking that explaining how your ideology will help specific groups to those specific groups is "pandering".

Understand that dropping something from 70% to 30% is going to have a massively different impact than from 30% to 25%. Realize that if a person doesn't see a fetus as being the full equivilent of a "baby" that every emotional twaddle argument you put out there isn't going to have any effect. Realize that every 4 years the "young" people you have such disdain for in terms of their views are moving closer and closer into that "regular voter" age, and their social principles are not going to magically change. Understand the realities of the web2.0 world we live in, and the status of the media, and find ways to function within it rather than ignorantly assuming you'll just get people to ignore it.
 
Personally, I believe that the GOP needs to reinvent itself BY returning to its Values since the party currently does not have an over-arching Philosophy or set of Morals/Values to speak of.

I defy any individual here at DP to tell me what the Republican Party actually stands for? What are their Core Values, which belong to the leadership of the party, their candidates, and their members. I don't believe it can be done.

To that end the GOP needs to determine what its core values are, and begin the process of weeding out the people who do not or cannot accept, live by, and promote those ideals and values. Right now the GOP has no real platform. It looks like and MC Escher painting, or the Winchester House in California.... by which I mean that it has no rhyme or reason to anything it does, says, or claims to believe in. No two candidates from the party promote the same platform. Nobody actually lives up to the values they claim to espouse. It's like the mirror room in a carnival funhouse.

IF the GOP is ever to truly stand against the Democractic Party in any significant way, they are going to have to find a spine, some guts, a heart, and start cleaning house of those individuals who are not going to help them show the American Public that they are an ALTERNATIVE to the Democractic Party, not simply their shrimpy little brother who hangs onto their coat tails.
 
Obama's second term will doom the GOP to a role of trying to slow the inevitable slide towards socialism. The Dem's will have so many people sucking off the government tit that in four more years that they will never vote Republican again.It doesn't make me happy to say this but it is reality and it is our future.
 
Back
Top Bottom