• 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!

How to Revive the Republican Party

What Should the Republican Party Focus On?

  • Total voters
    29
F

FallingPianos

There has been a lot of talk recently about the soul-searching the republican party is doing, after its losses last election.

What do you think republicans need to focus on, in order to win back its appeal?

Fiscal Conservatism - balancing the budget, small government, ending corporate bailouts, ending certain social programs.

Social Conservatism - opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other hot button issues.

National Defense - increase military spending and recruitment, more aggressive international policies.

Nationalism - oppose multiculturalism, english as an official language, more immigration control.
 
Definitely not social conservatism or nationalism. There simply aren't enough of those voters to win elections...and those policies have the added kicker of alienating the rest of the electorate. Fiscal conservatism or national defense would be better to focus on...but only if they get some real ideas instead of utopian fantasies as to how society should work.

For example, with fiscal conservatism, instead of trying to eternally cut income taxes until they reach 0%, they should focus on practical ideas that will actually help society, such as school vouchers or entitlement reform.

With national defense, instead of focusing on insane ideas like refusing to talk with other nations and flipping the bird to our allies, they could focus on constructive ideas like a Concert of Democracies to sideline the UN Security Council, and the strengthening of free trade agreements.
 
Last edited:
I'd go with fiscal conservatism and social conservatism but by the latter I mean real social conservatism not the social authoritarianism of some on the religious right.

But what I'd suggest is the RNC purchase important conservative classics, particularly Burke's Reflections, and sent them out to as many party members as possible. Try and break the hold of Limbaugh, Hannity et al as the "theorists" of the Republican party.
 
FallingPianos said:
There has been a lot of talk recently about the soul-searching the republican party is doing, after its losses last election.

What do you think republicans need to focus on, in order to win back its appeal?

Fiscal Conservatism - balancing the budget, small government, ending corporate bailouts, ending certain social programs.Go back to the Dark Ages, like the Taliban ??

Social Conservatism - opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other hot button issues.Totally agree and support.., and I am not a Rebuplician.

National Defense - increase military spending and recruitment, more aggressive international policies. Nazi Germany ? and do not think it cannot happen again..

Nationalism - oppose multiculturalism, english as an official language fully agree, more immigration control.Partially agree, there a clever ways to do this...No to a silly wall.
Click to expand...

If the Republicians ever wish to win another election, they must be more moderate; and right now, they seem to have no true leader..
 
I say all four. Why the hell vote for a republican if he or she is going to do the same **** or almost the same **** the democrats are going to do? Why vote for democrat light or a RINO if you can vote for a democrat? Seems kind of pointless. Which is why I didn't vote for McCain. I do not want bipartisanship with people whose ideology I disagree with, I want him or her opposing the other parties on issues they are supposed to disagree on. If I vote for a someone who claims he or she is a conservative I do not want that person supporting liberal issues and selling this country out to globalism several months after he or she is in office. Bipartisanship is what losers whine about when their side loses. The only issues I want those I elected to office working with other parties on are issues that transcend party lines, for example fighting illegal immigration is one of those issues that transcend party lines.
 
I would say national defense and fiscal conservatism. We cannot afford to have completely liberal fiscal ideals, and neither should we have completely conservative fiscal theories; there has to be a balance.

On Nationalism - If opposing multiculturalism is part of this ideology, then its pretty stupid. Why oppose multiculturalism? Isn't the U.S. multicultural anyway?


On Social Conservatism - Its an old and slowly dying platform.

We are getting to a point where more and more issues will become progressive in nature and stay that way. For example, gay marriage. Whether you like it or not, we are slowly but surely getting to a state where same-sex marriage is legal everywhere.

Many conservative ideals are just holding the country back from "growing up." Slavery was supported by mostly supported by Reps and most Dems were against it. I don't know if slavery itself is conservative or liberal in nature, but it and even segregation seemed to be conservative bullet points.

Republicans need to concede some ideals that they have long tried to push.
 
On Social Conservatism - Its an old and slowly dying platform.

We are getting to a point where more and more issues will become progressive in nature and stay that way. For example, gay marriage. Whether you like it or not, we are slowly but surely getting to a state where same-sex marriage is legal everywhere.
Click to expand...
Yes it is rather looking like the dying age of the Roman empire but out of that grew the seeds of a strong, cohesive, communitarian society. Things go up and down and if we don't destroy or enslave ourselves we will see a return to community because in the end its absence will become unbearable, if it hasn't already.
 
Last edited:
Fiscal Conservativism: Everything mentioned, however, public works programs and social security are good, at least I think. Most welfare should be replaced by job...hunting...programs(I forget what those types of programs are called! :shock: )

Social conservativism: leave other things such as gay marriage and faith-based initiatives to the states and maybe even local politics. Abortion can be handle either-or on a federal or state level.

National Defense: We already are going to have a 15+ trillion debt, yet we need to increase military spending, which already makes up probably THE largest portion of the budget? Hell no! Stem some of the funds for the useless "generation x" warfare and domestic surveillance toward higher salaries and retirements for soldiers.

and end the Iraq war....

Nationalism: Just better immigration policy ENFORCEMENT. Nothing else. Even then, it should be easier to become a naturalized citizen. Oh yea, and oppose globalization and this turn for "international law"(Who the hell thought it would be a good idea for france and germany to decide what we do with our laws? wth?).

I would have to research multiculturalism more to have a stance on it. I apologize, I come up short on this issue. I cry. :(

That would be the ideal republican party IMO. I know I know, far-right, right?
 
Last edited:
The very first thing they need to do is put a sock in John McCain's mouth and lock him away in a basement somewhere...

:doh
 
Wessexman said:
Send him on a fact finding mission to Austria....
Click to expand...

Or better yet... have him follow Arlen Specter to the Democrat side of the aisle. That would be the surest method of making sure the MSM never covers him again. Though he still might be able to muck things up over there.

:cool:
 
I voted fiscal conservatism. There are still a lot of people who believe that the function of government should be limited.

Social conservatism is a dying philosophy. The US is gradually becoming more liberal on issues such as GLBT rights and reproductive rights. This is especially noticeable when you look at the voting patterns of different age groups.

National defense might become important to a large number of Americans if another disaster happens, but right now it doesn't seem to be a high priority.

Nationalism alienates large segments of the population, especially as the US becomes more diverse.
 
Grateful Heart said:
Or better yet... have him follow Arlen Specter to the Democrat side of the aisle. That would be the surest method of making sure the MSM never covers him again. Though he still might be able to muck things up over there.

:cool:
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. We'd love to have him. We'll take Sue Collins and Olympia Snowe too if the Republicans don't want them.
 
Cilogy said:
On Social Conservatism - Its an old and slowly dying platform.
Click to expand...

With tens of millions of advocates.

We are getting to a point where more and more issues will become progressive in nature and stay that way. For example, gay marriage. Whether you like it or not, we are slowly but surely getting to a state where same-sex marriage is legal everywhere.
Click to expand...

Even though a large majority of citizens oppose it...

Many conservative ideals are just holding the country back from "growing up." Slavery was supported by mostly supported by Reps and most Dems were against it. I don't know if slavery itself is conservative or liberal in nature, but it and even segregation seemed to be conservative bullet points.
Click to expand...

Sorry, bigtime Fail. Lincoln was Republican; the party of slavery was actually the Democrat party.
Abraham Lincoln
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was the 16th President of the United States. He successfully led the country through its greatest internal crisis, the American Civil War, preserving the Union and ending slavery. As the war was drawing to a close, Lincoln became the first American president to be assassinated. Before his election in 1860 as the first Republican president,
Click to expand...

Regarding "seperate-but-equal", a higher percentage of Republicans voted FOR the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.
Wikipedia Civil Rights Act of 1964
By party
The original House version:[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Click to expand...

What a lot of people think they "know", as it turns out "just ain't so."

G.
 
Grateful Heart said:
Or better yet... have him follow Arlen Specter to the Democrat side of the aisle. That would be the surest method of making sure the MSM never covers him again. Though he still might be able to muck things up over there.

:cool:
Click to expand...
Damn, you didn't get my joke.

You wanted him locked in a basement and I said send him to Austria because of its recent history of basement detainees..get it.


I thought it was pretty funny.:2razz:
 
Wessexman said:
It is good to see a good measure of support for social conservatism in this poll. The Quest for community, to use Nisbet's phrasing, has not been abandoned yet it seems.
Click to expand...
When people say they oppose social conservativism, they usually mean the social conservativism as defined by GWB. GWB perverted what social conservativism really is.
 
Wessexman said:
Damn, you didn't get my joke.

You wanted him locked in a basement and I said send him to Austria because of its recent history of basement detainees..get it.


I thought it was pretty funny.:2razz:
Click to expand...

Ah... okay. I've intentionally avoided the Austrian basement story. Didn't make the connection. Had to google it.

:2wave:
 
Goshin said:
Cilogy said:
On Social Conservatism - Its an old and slowly dying platform.
Click to expand...

With tens of millions of advocates.

Cilogy said:
We are getting to a point where more and more issues will become progressive in nature and stay that way. For example, gay marriage. Whether you like it or not, we are slowly but surely getting to a state where same-sex marriage is legal everywhere.
Click to expand...

Even though a large majority of citizens oppose it...
Click to expand...

overall, opponents of same-sex marriage are still the majority of the country, but their numbers are diminishing.

One poll released this month indicated that 42% of americans are in favor of same-sex marriage. Another poll indicated that 49% were in favor, while only 46% opposed it.

Just 10 years ago, only about 35% supported same-sex marriage.

People between 18 and 45 are more than twice as likely to support same-sex marriage than people over 65.

At the rate that public opinion is changing, I predict that 10 years from now, the majority of Americans will support full marriage equality.
 
FallingPianos said:
overall, opponents of same-sex marriage are still the majority of the country, but their numbers are diminishing.

One poll released this month indicated that 42% of americans are in favor of same-sex marriage. Another poll indicated that 49% were in favor, while only 46% opposed it.

Just 10 years ago, only about 35% supported same-sex marriage.

People between 18 and 45 are more than twice as likely to support same-sex marriage than people over 65.

At the rate that public opinion is changing, I predict that 10 years from now, the majority of Americans will support full marriage equality.
Click to expand...
Yes but how much is that due to pressure from the media and liberal establishment? That pressure is unlikely to change but what if it did? What if a more traditionalist media and culture did grow up to replace that of the MSM, Hollywood and corporate liberalism?

And as we have been through here many times. The term equality in such a generalised way is very vague when applied to the specifics of this debate. It has to be used narrowly as they lack the equality to marry people of their own sex they want to over 18 and who can give consent rather than having equal rights to do the same only to one of the opposite sex. Hardly a simple case of "full equality".
 
Last edited:
FallingPianos said:
overall, opponents of same-sex marriage are still the majority of the country, but their numbers are diminishing.
Click to expand...

True.

FallingPianos said:
People between 18 and 45 are more than twice as likely to support same-sex marriage than people over 65.

At the rate that public opinion is changing, I predict that 10 years from now, the majority of Americans will support full marriage equality.
Click to expand...

That's also probably true to a point. But what we need to keep in mind when looking at these age brackets is that opinions are not static throughout our lifetimes. Younger age brackets have always polled more liberal on most issues. Younger voters have always tended to vote Democratic. Yet somehow that 'over 65' crowd is always more conservative. Somewhere along the line... people do change their attitudes somewhat. The trends in positive opinion for gay issues have trended slowly upwards. But it's been quite slow. I expect there will be far more support for civil unions among future voters. Gay marriage will probably remain an issue for quite some time. President Obama has already backed off gays in the military. I think that's a very good indicator of how sensitive this issue really is, even among Democrats.

..
 
Last edited:
Grateful Heart said:
The very first thing they need to do is put a sock in John McCain's mouth and lock him away in a basement somewhere...

:doh
Click to expand...

Can I please have an explanation about why so many (obviously not that many, or else he wouldn't have been nominated) Republicans hate McCain so much? Without including McCain-Feingold in the answer?
 
Fiscal conservatism, of course. That means tax cuts and spending cuts.

Nationalism. Damn, it's embarassing to have our Kenyan National Madrassas Graduate president running around to every tin-pot dictator and every manure-pile country in Europe and APOLOGIZING.

We clearly need a President who's not embarassed to be an American (that means the next president we elect should be an American....hmmmm?) and a President that's willing to say, "well, if you don't like Americans, you don't like our money", and enforcing that.
 
earthworm said:
If the Republicians ever wish to win another election, they must be more moderate; and right now, they seem to have no true leader..
Click to expand...

I agree. The recent spate of Republicans we've suffered under have been WAY TOO FAR to the LEFT. The GOP needs to take huge steps to the right.
 
Wessexman said:
Yes but how much is that due to pressure from the media and liberal establishment? That pressure is unlikely to change but what if it did? What if a more traditionalist media and culture did grow up to replace that of the MSM, Hollywood and corporate liberalism?
Click to expand...

public opinion can change, however I think the momentum towards same-sex marriage is way to strong for that to be at all likely to happen.

Wessexman said:
And as we have been through here many times. The term equality in such a generalised way is very vague when applied to the specifics of this debate. It has to be used narrowly as they lack the equality to marry people of their own sex they want to over 18 and who can give consent rather than having equal rights to do the same only to one of the opposite sex. Hardly a simple case of "full equality".
Click to expand...

I don't think its that complicated. I want the same right to marry a woman that any man has. gay and bisexual men want the same right to marry a man that any woman has.

simply put, the right to marry should not depend on the sex of either partner.

an argument could be made that marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sex, rather than sexual orientation, but that would imply that the disproportionate affect they have on GLBT people was accidental, rather than the intentional and systematic method of excluding GLBT people that they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom