• 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
If they don't beleive the United States is the best place to live, why are they here?

Because it sure as hell beats being wherever they came from, for people from central and south america its the easiest developed country to travel to, and because the US has large immigrant communities that people can join.
 
I think that nationalism, or if we want to get into the definitions game, patriotism, can actually help the Republican Party reach to immigrants. As the son of one I can say at least from observations they tend to be more patriotic than average Americans; they don't take their freedom for granted.

Or maybe that's just Cubans.
 
A balanced party with near equal focus on fiscal, governmental, social, and militaristic issues with perhaps fiscal and governmental issues slightly out ahead.

Social conservatism should not be dropped or even truly "moderated", but instead pulled back in equal balance with other tenets of the philosophy so as not to be the dominating portin of it. Additionally, it should act with respect to the other pillars of the ideology so as not to run directly against its own philosophy.
 
The biggest element would be fiscal conservatism, we don't have a single real fiscally conservative party out there and we desperately need one. The other thing they need to do is distance themselves from the religious right and stop being the fundamentalist zealot party. They need to move toward a more centrist social policy and away from caring what people do in their bedrooms.
 
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?

The real Americans have always disliked and distrusted McCain. They didn't even like him in last year's election, even if they voted for him in self-defense against the Kenyan.

McCain...you know, junior partner of the Keating Five?

you know, architect and interferer in the so-called Tobacco Settlement?

you know, McCain, Mr. "Let's Give Our Country to the Mexican Invaders"?

you know, McCain, who opposed more of Bush's tax cuts?

McCain did a lot of Democrat work.
 
The real Americans have always disliked and distrusted McCain. They didn't even like him in last year's election, even if they voted for him in self-defense against the Kenyan.

McCain...you know, junior partner of the Keating Five?

you know, architect and interferer in the so-called Tobacco Settlement?

you know, McCain, Mr. "Let's Give Our Country to the Mexican Invaders"?

you know, McCain, who opposed more of Bush's tax cuts?

McCain did a lot of Democrat work.

lol thats the problem with the Republican party, if they have politicians that are just a reactionary force to the other side then no one will take them seriously. :p

and there must be something wrong with the voters if they are willing to stick with a politicians that they truely dislike...

Even though Obama sucks, at least people liked him when they cast a vote for him.


The Republican party needs to get some principles (even if they are wrong) to attract people.
 
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.
I agree but I think that has a lot more to do with the media, Hollywood and corporate liberalism than any deep felt need among the average person.


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.
Yes but those are quite specific demands, not easily covered by simply demanding "equal rights". What Conservatives do not need is to engage in generalised calls for equality.
 
The real Americans have always disliked and distrusted McCain. They didn't even like him in last year's election, even if they voted for him in self-defense against the Kenyan.

you know, McCain, Mr. "Let's Give Our Country to the Mexican Invaders"?

I'm so glad you aren't on our side of the aisle. :doh
 
I would point the readers to an interesting point of view expressed by Glenn Beck (yes, Beck!).

Picture a horizontal straight line. On the left end is 100% government or totalitarianism. On the right end is no government at all or anarchy.

The founders orignally designed a government that was just to the left of anarchy (the far right end of the line). It was governed by the Articles of Confederation. But that didn't work.

So they moved a bit to the left on the line, but still quite right of center, and drafted the Constitution. That is where we started.

It served us well for a while, but in the 1890s or early 1900s, under the progressive movement, the country began to creep leftward along the line. That creeping accelerated with the New Deal and continued leftward with the Great Society. It continues today with our apparent march toward socialism under Obama, until on that magic horizontal line, we now find ourselves well left of center on the line and trending toward totalitarianism.

As far as the two parties go, they are now basically at the same left of center point on the line (in other words, there ain't a damn bit of difference between them). To distinguish their cosmetic differences, you need to go to a vertical line. Put democrats or republicans on the top or bottom - your choice - it doesn't matter. Use it to distinguish their differences on social issues. The point is that they're on the same place on that horizontal plane.

To revive the republican party, it is going to have to redefine a point on that horizontal plane that is back to the right towards the Constitution. It need to establish and ennumerate goals for the size and scope of the federal government and reestablish what is more appropriate to be decided by the states. Some individual states, Texas for one, are realilzing that the powers of the federal government are way out of control and enacting legislation that bring them back in line with the original meaning of the Constitution.

The republicans have to once again recognize things like states rights (no racist connotations meant or accepted) and local school control and start to reject things like federal mandates that are not enumarated in the Constitution.

Only when republicans once again become the party of limited government, lower taxes and strong national defense will they have a chance at a party revival.
 
Limit the number of issues....
the more issues we have to argue about, the more fragmented the party becomes.
Leave the social issues to the states, forget about what the "majority" wants when it comes to sexual orientation issues. The courts have to decide on those issue, not the voters.
A stronger economy, establishing educational standards for the states to implement, and more domestic sources of energy are the 3 most important planks at the moment.
 
It served us well for a while, but in the 1890s or early 1900s, under the progressive movement, the country began to creep leftward along the line. That creeping accelerated with the New Deal and continued leftward with the Great Society. It continues today with our apparent march toward socialism under Obama, until on that magic horizontal line, we now find ourselves well left of center on the line and trending toward totalitarianism.
I've always sort of found it funny, most of the first progressives were racists. remember this guy? :

10b-Wilson.jpg


The progressives here on this board sure do, unfortunately, maybe not well enough.
 
I've always sort of found it funny, most of the first progressives were racists. remember this guy? :

10b-Wilson.jpg


The progressives here on this board sure do, unfortunately, maybe not well enough.

racist and elitest.....helped keep essential education from the masses...
 
I would point the readers to an interesting point of view expressed by Glenn Beck (yes, Beck!).

Picture a horizontal straight line. On the left end is 100% government or totalitarianism. On the right end is no government at all or anarchy.

The founders orignally designed a government that was just to the left of anarchy (the far right end of the line). It was governed by the Articles of Confederation. But that didn't work.

So they moved a bit to the left on the line, but still quite right of center, and drafted the Constitution. That is where we started.

It served us well for a while, but in the 1890s or early 1900s, under the progressive movement, the country began to creep leftward along the line. That creeping accelerated with the New Deal and continued leftward with the Great Society. It continues today with our apparent march toward socialism under Obama, until on that magic horizontal line, we now find ourselves well left of center on the line and trending toward totalitarianism.

As far as the two parties go, they are now basically at the same left of center point on the line (in other words, there ain't a damn bit of difference between them). To distinguish their cosmetic differences, you need to go to a vertical line. Put democrats or republicans on the top or bottom - your choice - it doesn't matter. Use it to distinguish their differences on social issues. The point is that they're on the same place on that horizontal plane.

To revive the republican party, it is going to have to redefine a point on that horizontal plane that is back to the right towards the Constitution. It need to establish and ennumerate goals for the size and scope of the federal government and reestablish what is more appropriate to be decided by the states. Some individual states, Texas for one, are realilzing that the powers of the federal government are way out of control and enacting legislation that bring them back in line with the original meaning of the Constitution.

The republicans have to once again recognize things like states rights (no racist connotations meant or accepted) and local school control and start to reject things like federal mandates that are not enumarated in the Constitution.

Only when republicans once again become the party of limited government, lower taxes and strong national defense will they have a chance at a party revival.

.... I don't like what Obama is doing but at least I have the perspective to see what is happening clearly...

authoritarianism does not equal socialism and that Obama won't be bringing us close to anything socialist or authoritarian. And I will just assume that you weren't equating your left/right spectrum with the spectrum used in politics.

I agree with your direction of the Republican party though.
 
People that can vote for Obama or any other jackass with a (D) after their name.

Saying anyone who votes for Obama is not America sounds kind of authoritarian to me. Just saying.


There is a difference from someone who is dumb enough to vote for Obama, but they really do like him, and people who don't like McCain but don't have the principles to not vote for him. They are both bad in different ways.

I agree that people who vote for someone just because of their party are harmful voters though, which puts alot of Republicans who voted for McCain under that catagory too.
 
It served us well for a while, but in the 1890s or early 1900s, under the progressive movement, the country began to creep leftward along the line. That creeping accelerated with the New Deal and continued leftward with the Great Society. It continues today with our apparent march toward socialism under Obama, until on that magic horizontal line, we now find ourselves well left of center on the line and trending toward totalitarianism.
.
I think there is truth in that, although you have it back to front if you are referring to left and rightwing because anarchists tend to be on the left.

It is worth pointing out that as Gabriel Kolko and Murray Rothbard showed it was sections of big business that were actually behind the drive for things like the progressive era reforms.
 
Saying anyone who votes for Obama is not America sounds kind of authoritarian to me. Just saying.


There is a difference from someone who is dumb enough to vote for Obama, but they really do like him, and people who don't like McCain but don't have the principles to not vote for him. They are both bad in different ways.

I agree that people who vote for someone just because of their party are harmful voters though, which puts alot of Republicans who voted for McCain under that catagory too.

There are many people (like me) who held their nose and voted for McCain because we saw enough of Obama to realize what he would do to the country. Yes, McCain would have been very status quo and had many positions antithecal to conservatives (like immigration), but overall the country would have been safe in his hands. We cannot say the same with Obama.

Many of us McCain voters have very high principles. We are just not stupid enough to sit home when faced with the prospect of a president like Obama.

Had we stayed home, Obama's "mandate" would have been even greater and lord knows what we might be facing now!
 
.... I don't like what Obama is doing but at least I have the perspective to see what is happening clearly...

authoritarianism does not equal socialism and that Obama won't be bringing us close to anything socialist or authoritarian. And I will just assume that you weren't equating your left/right spectrum with the spectrum used in politics.

I agree with your direction of the Republican party though.

I have to disagree with your picture of Obama. If nationalizing banks and taking control of private industries, coupled with "taxing the rich" so that taxes might be reduced or services increased for the non-rich isn't trending towards socialism, I'm not sure what is.

The spectrum was not my invention and, I believe, merely for illustrations sake. The line could have been vertical, diagonal or squiggly. The point was to illustrate that both parties have drifted (or consciously moved) to a point far from what the founders envisioned. And there ain't a dime's worth of difference between them when it comes to the power of the federal government.

The states have sit back idly by and let the federal government take powers that were enumerated to the states in the Constitution. Unless we get that horse (which has been loose in the pasture for 100 years) back in the barn, we're going to keep getting the crappy government that we have now.

One solution I have heard is the repeal of the 16th amendment (the income tax). The idea is to starve the beast. This would require two-thirds of the states (electors be damned) to call for a constitutional convention. It's never been done, but maybe now is the time.
 
People that can vote for Obama or any other jackass with a (D) after their name.
To paraphrase someone, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Cult members usually do what their Messiah tells them without question or even understanding why they do it. ;)


.
 
Back
Top Bottom