• 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!

Rebuilding from the Ruins of the GOP

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's time to start thinking about how to rebuild the center-right of American politics.

Rebuilding from the ruins of the GOP
By Michael Gerson

In the interest of fairness, I wish to raise an issue on which Donald Trump has been consistently and resoundingly right: The Republican Party is utterly pathetic.
During a decade of commentary, and in a career of government service before that, I have often argued that the GOP is better than its liberal stereotypes. It is a case I can no longer make, at least when it comes to presidential politics.
The Trump ascendancy is the triumph of anti-reason — of birtherism, of vaccine denialism, of suggestions that Justice Antonin Scalia was smothered with a pillow and that Hillary Clinton may have been involved in the death of Vince Foster. It is the triumph of nativism — of a political appeal based on hatred against migrants and Muslims. It is the triumph of white nationalism, which has moved inward from the fringes of Republican politics. It is the triumph of misogyny, demonstrated with words that require a disinfectant shower after hearing. It is the triumph of authoritarian impulses. Since the Constitution is “broken,” argued Maine Gov. Paul LePage, “we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country.”
Trump has made the party a laughingstock among the young, a toxic brand among minorities, an offense to many women, and a source of worry among U.S. allies and alarm among national security professionals. And this was before Trump pronounced himself unshackled from the style-cramping expectations of his establishment Republican captors. The main use of his newfound freedom has been to attack GOP leaders. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) has authored “bad budgets.” In what way? They were “very, very bad budgets,” Trump elucidated. He “wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole” with Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) — which, presumably, was the point of Trump’s five Vietnam deferments. . . .
 
Wow.

What a bunch of drama queen nonsense.

Trump is just a representation of the many millions of Americans who are simply sick and tired of business-as-usual Washington.
 
soot said:
Wow.

What a bunch of drama queen nonsense.

Trump is just a representation of the many millions of Americans who are simply sick and tired of business-as-usual Washington.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, I just wish a better standard bearer had been chosen.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's time to start thinking about how to rebuild the center-right of American politics.

Rebuilding from the ruins of the GOP
By Michael Gerson

In the interest of fairness, I wish to raise an issue on which Donald Trump has been consistently and resoundingly right: The Republican Party is utterly pathetic.
During a decade of commentary, and in a career of government service before that, I have often argued that the GOP is better than its liberal stereotypes. It is a case I can no longer make, at least when it comes to presidential politics.
The Trump ascendancy is the triumph of anti-reason — of birtherism, of vaccine denialism, of suggestions that Justice Antonin Scalia was smothered with a pillow and that Hillary Clinton may have been involved in the death of Vince Foster. It is the triumph of nativism — of a political appeal based on hatred against migrants and Muslims. It is the triumph of white nationalism, which has moved inward from the fringes of Republican politics. It is the triumph of misogyny, demonstrated with words that require a disinfectant shower after hearing. It is the triumph of authoritarian impulses. Since the Constitution is “broken,” argued Maine Gov. Paul LePage, “we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country.”
Trump has made the party a laughingstock among the young, a toxic brand among minorities, an offense to many women, and a source of worry among U.S. allies and alarm among national security professionals. And this was before Trump pronounced himself unshackled from the style-cramping expectations of his establishment Republican captors. The main use of his newfound freedom has been to attack GOP leaders. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) has authored “bad budgets.” In what way? They were “very, very bad budgets,” Trump elucidated. He “wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole” with Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) — which, presumably, was the point of Trump’s five Vietnam deferments. . . .
Click to expand...

That isn't a bad summing up. But I am less inclined to say that it is the party, than he is and would think more of the voters. They have supported the most pathetic parade of front runners one can imagine. All three, the Republican and both Democrats were eye popping. This was not primarily the parties as such. There were some good candidates initially. But the ones the voters chose are all each for their own reasons dangerous for the citizens and the nation.
 
We have been talking for years about the condition of the GOP, at least going back to Bush 43 and the 109th Congress. The last time Republicans had the White House and Congress at the same time leading up to the period of the financial meltdown, and arguably the more solid formation of the Tea Party faction.

While I tend to agree that the article is a bit of a drama queen piece, we do at least need to recognize that for Trump to be plausible on the GOP ticket in the first place means that Establishment Republicans are in very serious trouble.

It is clear that Establishment Republicans no longer have control over all the factions that make up the party despite the argument that the Tea Party themselves effectively sold out to that establishment. There is some merit to the article even if we all disagree on the reasons why the GOP is so splintered today (and perhaps amplified since the time of Bush 43.) What we also cannot discount is even with this GOP faction disarray, Obama has faced a Republican House going back to the 112th Congress and all Republican controlled 113th and 114th Congresses making things quite awkward up on the hill these days. There is very little reaching across the isle, and there is little evidence that Republicans and Democrats work together unless everyone gets what they want and stick us with the bill. My point is that can argue well that even though McCain and Romney had lackluster performances on the national stage for the White House, the GOP has still been reasonably successful holding onto Legislature.

To what end? Seems to me the GOP strategy of handling Obama will be extended to Hillary. I suspect the going assumption within the GOP pillars of power and influence are looking to that next 115th Congress as a means to throttle a likely Hillary win this November. Given the path to 270 estimates, it may be a landslide. If the GOP seems to be able to do anything in defense it is appealing to enough voters to hold a Congressional Seat, but not so well at dealing with a national candidate.

So what really happens to the GOP? Unsure. In 2008 the fear was an unknown in Obama, and the GOP ran with it going with a moderate coupled to another unknown (who turned out to be a bit of a media fueled political bomb.) In 2012 the right wing blowhards threw out the Growth and Opportunity Project after Romney's painful defeat that was solely designed to deal with the changing demographics in this nation (which is indisputable) and the obvious social liberal leans of the younger generation (which is also indisputable.) In 2016 we see Trump on the ticket and a literal split among the GOP in Congress today supporting him or running the hell away from him. That is all fact, and it illustrates well how much of a failure Republican Establishment has been.

I cannot say strongly enough that in the end some of the GOP is going with and supporting someone that for years supported liberal politicians for his own interests, does not appear to have a social conservative bone in his body, and proves at just about every appearance that he is an unprepared, narcissistic, egomaniac. His defense for treating women poorly is he is a star, his defense for dismissing other claims is they are not woman enough. The flip side of the fence is Hillary will end up being one of the biggest aristocratic, unpredictable, complete secrecy oriented, and arguably the best example of pay to play politicians to obtain the White House in my lifetime... at least. The fact that the GOP cannot elect someone to beat Hillary tells me the GOP is in that much trouble.

If Hillary wins that means that the last 32 years worth of Presidents will see 24 of those years handled by 2 families. And at one point there was a partial rally to run another Bush against Hillary, go on... tell me we are not an oligarchy.

I still suspect the future of the GOP is a serious split. A faction divide where "we are taxed enough and government is too big" ideologies divorces itself from establishment GOP and social conservatism factions looking to the 1940s and 1950s for answers. In the mean time the doorway is open for Trump and those like him to bully themselves onto the national ticket because the GOP is in that much trouble from infighting among factions.
 
OrphanSlug said:
We have been talking for years about the condition of the GOP, at least going back to Bush 43 and the 109th Congress. The last time Republicans had the White House and Congress at the same time leading up to the period of the financial meltdown, and arguably the more solid formation of the Tea Party faction.

While I tend to agree that the article is a bit of a drama queen piece, we do at least need to recognize that for Trump to be plausible on the GOP ticket in the first place means that Establishment Republicans are in very serious trouble.

It is clear that Establishment Republicans no longer have control over all the factions that make up the party despite the argument that the Tea Party themselves effectively sold out to that establishment. There is some merit to the article even if we all disagree on the reasons why the GOP is so splintered today (and perhaps amplified since the time of Bush 43.) What we also cannot discount is even with this GOP faction disarray, Obama has faced a Republican House going back to the 112th Congress and all Republican controlled 113th and 114th Congresses making things quite awkward up on the hill these days. There is very little reaching across the isle, and there is little evidence that Republicans and Democrats work together unless everyone gets what they want and stick us with the bill. My point is that can argue well that even though McCain and Romney had lackluster performances on the national stage for the White House, the GOP has still been reasonably successful holding onto Legislature.

To what end? Seems to me the GOP strategy of handling Obama will be extended to Hillary. I suspect the going assumption within the GOP pillars of power and influence are looking to that next 115th Congress as a means to throttle a likely Hillary win this November. Given the path to 270 estimates, it may be a landslide. If the GOP seems to be able to do anything in defense it is appealing to enough voters to hold a Congressional Seat, but not so well at dealing with a national candidate.

So what really happens to the GOP? Unsure. In 2008 the fear was an unknown in Obama, and the GOP ran with it going with a moderate coupled to another unknown (who turned out to be a bit of a media fueled political bomb.) In 2012 the right wing blowhards threw out the Growth and Opportunity Project after Romney's painful defeat that was solely designed to deal with the changing demographics in this nation (which is indisputable) and the obvious social liberal leans of the younger generation (which is also indisputable.) In 2016 we see Trump on the ticket and a literal split among the GOP in Congress today supporting him or running the hell away from him. That is all fact, and it illustrates well how much of a failure Republican Establishment has been.

I cannot say strongly enough that in the end some of the GOP is going with and supporting someone that for years supported liberal politicians for his own interests, does not appear to have a social conservative bone in his body, and proves at just about every appearance that he is an unprepared, narcissistic, egomaniac. His defense for treating women poorly is he is a star, his defense for dismissing other claims is they are not woman enough. The flip side of the fence is Hillary will end up being one of the biggest aristocratic, unpredictable, complete secrecy oriented, and arguably the best example of pay to play politicians to obtain the White House in my lifetime... at least. The fact that the GOP cannot elect someone to beat Hillary tells me the GOP is in that much trouble.

If Hillary wins that means that the last 32 years worth of Presidents will see 24 of those years handled by 2 families. And at one point there was a partial rally to run another Bush against Hillary, go on... tell me we are not an oligarchy.

I still suspect the future of the GOP is a serious split. A faction divide where "we are taxed enough and government is too big" ideologies divorces itself from establishment GOP and social conservatism factions looking to the 1940s and 1950s for answers. In the mean time the doorway is open for Trump and those like him to bully themselves onto the national ticket because the GOP is in that much trouble from infighting among factions.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with all of this but it's not unreasonable. The center-right of American politics has dissolved and been remade several times in our history. Federalists > Whigs > Free Soilers > Republicans > ?
 
soot said:
Wow.

What a bunch of drama queen nonsense.

Trump is just a representation of the many millions of Americans who are simply sick and tired of business-as-usual Washington.
Click to expand...

Moon said:
I agree with this, I just wish a better standard bearer had been chosen.
Click to expand...

Trump is a crude buffoon.
 
Another voice.

The GOP is history. What about the U.S.?By Fareed Zakaria

Politics is an enduring feature of human life, but political parties are mortal. This week we watched the beginning of the end of one of the United States’ great, illustrious parties. The Republican Party, as we knew it, is dying.
The death of a party is not so unusual. Scholars divide U.S. history according to six distinct party systems, each responding to a particular political era. Sometimes parties retain their names but morph ideologically, like the Democratic Party, which went from being Southern, pro-slavery and pro-Jim Crow to the opposite. On other occasions, parties collapse entirely, as did the Whig Party in the mid-19th century, torn apart by divisions over slavery. (In fact, in an interesting parallel, the fall of the Whigs was hastened by the rise of a party called the Know-Nothings, dedicated to stopping what was then seen as uncontrolled immigration.) Whatever the form of the Republican Party’s collapse, it will be messy.
Sunday’s debate may have been the watershed moment. As many commentators and some of his own strategists noted, it was pretty obvious what Donald Trump needed to do — apologize, be contrite, and then strike broad themes of change, bringing back jobs and putting the nation first. Ideally, he would have reached out to women — the group of voters he desperately needs to win the election.
Instead, Trump did the opposite. He minimized his behavior as “locker-room banter,” accused Bill Clinton of much worse and paraded the former president’s accusers at a news conference. Since then, things have spiraled downward. Trump’s strange, self-defeating strategy has led tospeculation that his real ambitions lie beyond the election, when he may set up a conservative media network to rival Fox News. . . .
 
Jack Hays said:
Trump is a crude buffoon.
Click to expand...

That may very well be so.

I'll concede that he is crude; whether or not a man who has sat at the helm of a multi-billion dollar trans-national real estate empire for a couple decades is a buffoon is a completely subjective opinion, one I happen not to share.

But all the garbage about birtherism, vaccine denialism, hatred of Mexicans and Muslims, blah, blah, blah, is just that - garbage.

It's taking perfectly rational comments and opinions on his part, perhaps crudely put, sending them through the political spin machine, and spitting shrieking, histrionic nonsense out the other side.
 
soot said:
Wow.

What a bunch of drama queen nonsense.

Trump is just a representation of the many millions of Americans who are simply sick and tired of business-as-usual Washington.
Click to expand...

You're confusing the original motivations of Trump supporters (which, by the way, I consider to be super relevant and sympathetic) with what they ultimately allowed themselves to be defined by after aligning themselves with Trump. Trump knew full well that blue collar rural Americans' plight was that their way of life and economy were disintegrating, but he exploited the undercurrents of their xenophobic sentiments instead because those emotions are infinitely easier to exploit. The result is that his supporters allowed themselves, unintentionally I'm sure, to be gathered up into a White Nationalist movement.
 
The GOP lost sight of what it's ultimate job is: making America a better place for Americans. Party's always jockey for power, but the GOP has been naked about putting party first, which has resulted in an absolute dearth of ideas about how to make the lives of Americans better. Health care is a real and very serious issue, but what have they offered? The expense of education is real and serious: what have they offered? Energy resources: what have they offered? Job creation? What have they offered besides "Bringing [maufacturing] jobs back to America" when they know that's not going to happen.

They have instead appealed to the lowest in the American body politic; fear, anger, ignorance. They have offered nothing to move the country forward. And now the only place they can move to is back towards the center, which means moving to the left. Instead of fighting the Democrats when they moved to capture the right of center, the GOP retreated right and recruited the dregs to make up for the lost numbers. But that fetid well has been scrape dry.

So now they've painted themselves into a corner. They can still save themselves, but they're going to have to move left to do it.
 
Cardinal said:
You're confusing the original motivations of Trump supporters (which, by the way, I consider to be super relevant and sympathetic) with what they ultimately allowed themselves to be defined by after aligning themselves with Trump. Trump knew full well that blue collar rural Americans' plight was that their way of life and economy were disintegrating, but he exploited the undercurrents of their xenophobic sentiments instead because those emotions are infinitely easier to exploit. The result is that his supporters allowed themselves, unintentionally I'm sure, to be gathered up into a White Nationalist movement.
Click to expand...

His supporters didn't allow much of anything.

His opponents and detractors painted his supporters as a White Nationalist movement.

Opposing things like unfettered illegal immigration, lopsided import/export relationships, and the acceptance of hundreds of thousands of unvetted Islamic refugees isn't nativist, protectionist, or hateful.

It's simple common sense.
 
soot said:
His supporters didn't allow much of anything.

His opponents and detractors painted his supporters as a White Nationalist movement.

Opposing things like unfettered illegal immigration, lopsided import/export relationships, and the acceptance of hundreds of thousands of unvetted Islamic refugees isn't nativist, protectionist, or hateful.

It's simple common sense.
Click to expand...

Your post suggests a worse implication, which is that they willingly allowed themselves to be repackaged as a White Nationalist movement. And your description of them is essentially the equivalent of every ultranationalist jingoistic movement today.
 
Cardinal said:
Your post suggests a worse implication, which is that they willingly allowed themselves to be repackaged as a White Nationalist movement. And your description of them is essentially the equivalent of every ultranationalist jingoistic movement today.
Click to expand...

I don't think willingness has anything thing to do with it.

The MSM and every social justice warrior with a social media account are going to do what they're going to do.

There isn't a whole heck of a lot that Joe Sixpack can do about it.

I, for one, just roll my eyes about it.

Haters gonna hate, and all that.

I think that enough folks see past the smoke and mirrors that at the end of the day Trump is going to squeak through to an EC victory.
 
soot said:
I don't think willingness has anything thing to do with it. .
Click to expand...

That's too bad, because as I said they have a legitimate gripe at their core, and every time they make it about xenophobism they take that very valid concern and delegitimize it. They have turned themselves into the very cartoon characters the left claimed they were.

soot said:
The MSM and every social justice warrior with a social media account are going to do what they're going to do.

There isn't a whole heck of a lot that Joe Sixpack can do about it.

I, for one, just roll my eyes about it.

Haters gonna hate, and all that.

I think that enough folks see past the smoke and mirrors that at the end of the day Trump is going to squeak through to an EC victory.
Click to expand...

November 9th is gonna be a hard day for you.
 
soot said:
I'll concede that he is crude; whether or not a man who has sat at the helm of a multi-billion dollar trans-national real estate empire for a couple decades is a buffoon is a completely subjective opinion, one I happen not to share.

But all the garbage about birtherism, vaccine denialism, hatred of Mexicans and Muslims, blah, blah, blah, is just that - garbage.

It's taking perfectly rational comments and opinions on his part, perhaps crudely put, sending them through the political spin machine, and spitting shrieking, histrionic nonsense out the other side.
Click to expand...

Lots of buffoons get rich. Wealth isn't important one way or the other.

The birtherism, vaccine denialism, hatred of Mexicans and Muslims, etc. are not "garbage;" they are what Trump is, among other things like ignorant of foreign affairs.
 
Trump elucidated. He “wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole” with Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) — which, presumably, was the point of Trump’s five Vietnam deferments. . . .[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Howdy Jack, Trump lost me when he attacked out POW's that were held in Hanoi as if they were lousy soldiers because they got caught. Hillary has always been poison to me and will be to this country thanks to those who thought making a statement more important than winning in November. We can thank them for a Hillary Clinton presidency as almost any other nominee would have beaten her.

Trump is all that Micheal states and more. As for rebuilding the party, that may not be as hard or take as long as some expect. It may all depend on who takes charge or which path they choose to take. Continue down the Trump path if Trump remains a Republican which I doubt. That is not his history. The Republican base which stands at 27% of the electorate today will shrink below 20% and another party will arise to challenge Clinton and the Democrats.

But the Republican Party may go back to what they started in 2012. The outreach to Hispanic, Romney by receiving only 27% of the Hispanic vote the GOP realized they couldn't win the presidency without more Hispanics. They begun a program to attract more and it seemed to be paying off in 2014 when 36% of Hispanics voted for Republican congressional and senate candidates. Without a Donald Trump, Rubio would have been an excellent candidate to carry on that outreach, if not the top of the ticket, then as VP. Can you imagine what a Kasich/Rubio or even a Kasich/Martinez ticket would have accomplished. Susanna Martinez is the Republican governor of New Mexico, a deep blue state with a lot of Hispanics.

The opportunity was there for a Republican president, the GOP blew it. Clinton will continue in her ways as president, providing more reasons why over half of all America dislike her. A Trumpless Republican Party can make good if not great gains in the midterms of 2018 and probably win the White House in 2020 with the right candidate and the right leadership within the GOP. But first, they must shed everything Trump. I hope he goes back to being a Democrat which he was three times before. With the right leadership, the GOP can quickly unite to challenge Hillary Clinton, that is with the right leadership and throwing Trump out the window.
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
Howdy Jack, Trump lost me when he attacked out POW's that were held in Hanoi as if they were lousy soldiers because they got caught. Hillary has always been poison to me and will be to this country thanks to those who thought making a statement more important than winning in November. We can thank them for a Hillary Clinton presidency as almost any other nominee would have beaten her.

Trump is all that Micheal states and more. As for rebuilding the party, that may not be as hard or take as long as some expect. It may all depend on who takes charge or which path they choose to take. Continue down the Trump path if Trump remains a Republican which I doubt. That is not his history. The Republican base which stands at 27% of the electorate today will shrink below 20% and another party will arise to challenge Clinton and the Democrats.

But the Republican Party may go back to what they started in 2012. The outreach to Hispanic, Romney by receiving only 27% of the Hispanic vote the GOP realized they couldn't win the presidency without more Hispanics. They begun a program to attract more and it seemed to be paying off in 2014 when 36% of Hispanics voted for Republican congressional and senate candidates. Without a Donald Trump, Rubio would have been an excellent candidate to carry on that outreach, if not the top of the ticket, then as VP. Can you imagine what a Kasich/Rubio or even a Kasich/Martinez ticket would have accomplished. Suzanna Martinez is the Republican governor of New Mexico, a deep blue state with a lot of Hispanics.
Click to expand...

Excellent post, Pero. Related FYI: I had to abandon Gary Johnson when he said he would pardon Edward Snowden. That's a deal breaker for me. I'll vote for Evan McMullin instead.
 
Jack Hays said:
Excellent post, Pero. Related FYI: I had to abandon Gary Johnson when he said he would pardon Edward Snowden. That's a deal breaker for me. I'll vote for Evan McMullin instead.
Click to expand...

Far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter whom one votes for, as long as it isn't Trump or Hillary. Any vote for any other candidate is against the poison either of our two major parties would bring to America. An interest stat within the polls themselves shows that 55% of those voting for Trump, are more against Clinton than for Trump. The question was when you vote for Trump are you voting for him or against Hillary Clinton. 55% answered against Hillary.

On the other side 50% of those voting for Clinton are adamantly against Trump and not for Clinton. I those folks would take that anti Trump and Clinton vote to third party candidates, neither Clinton or Trump would win the White House. Think about that, 22% of the total electorate out of Clinton's 44% are voting for her only because they are against Trump. 21% of Trump's 39% are voting for him because they are against Clinton.That is 43% of the total electorate that is casting an anti vote. Add in Johnson's and Stein's 10% together because most of them detest both Clinton and Trump, that comes out to 53% of the total electorate is voting an anti vote. This leaves out approximately 7% that are undecided at this point. 53% of American either against Trump or Clinton or both.
 
Perotista said:
Far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter whom one votes for, as long as it isn't Trump or Hillary. Any vote for any other candidate is against the poison either of our two major parties would bring to America. An interest stat within the polls themselves shows that 55% of those voting for Trump, are more against Clinton than for Trump. The question was when you vote for Trump are you voting for him or against Hillary Clinton. 55% answered against Hillary.

On the other side 50% of those voting for Clinton are adamantly against Trump and not for Clinton. I those folks would take that anti Trump and Clinton vote to third party candidates, neither Clinton or Trump would win the White House. Think about that, 22% of the total electorate out of Clinton's 44% are voting for her only because they are against Trump. 21% of Trump's 39% are voting for him because they are against Clinton.That is 43% of the total electorate that is casting an anti vote. Add in Johnson's and Stein's 10% together because most of them detest both Clinton and Trump, that comes out to 53% of the total electorate is voting an anti vote. This leaves out approximately 7% that are undecided at this point. 53% of American either against Trump or Clinton or both.
Click to expand...

Fascinating stuff. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom