Political Discussions
The Republican Party's Future?
Posted by libertycast1 • 9/17/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: conservative, Democrat, idealist, Liberal, libertarian, merger, politics, realist, republican
So I am curious what other think about the future of the Republican party will look like?
From a basic academic standpoint - This debate is specifically concerns the effectiveness of conservatism in a gradually growing democratic world. It is ovious that democracy will change from culture to culture and that some will never be democracy however democracy is growing at a gradual rate.
With almost half of the world being at least somewhat democratic when compared to other counterparts war between democracy is esp. rare. Never mind the little scuffles and what not. When it comes to full blown war democracies generally do not fight each other. They trade.
Being that the case the liberal (liberalism in economics not in american party) dominates the international political economy while conservatism dominates international security.
The bigger part of that picture is idealist vs realist views. idealist is more liberal and realist is more conservative.
Any political scientist is going to tell you that realism is most effective in democracy when placed against autocracies. The problem with that in America is lack of interaction with autocracies versus democracies. With this it appears more that the conservative view of realism is growing less effective in international relations. Obviously it has it's place and purpose, but when not in conflict with autocratic governments does the party want to increasingly sit on the sidelines to wait their turn or will they evolve.
Okay...
In my view there are only two options the Republican party will either collapse or see a merger later on. The principle has to change though they will obviously fight it as to not pose weakness and risk strengthening the democratic party. This will come late in the game when the party will either collapse or become too weak and void itself in the political ring. From a business standpoint I think the republican party will find a merger to strengthen it's base and make positive changes. I do not believe that the Republican party will be an exception to Der verges Law and it will either be replaced or find a merger. So who will they merger with though? Hard to say because you don't really know when things will come to this point. But in view of the status quo (if it remains similar) I think a merger will come with the Libertarian party. The conservative political economic view is severely flawed and the Libertarian party can get some voice in the world of congress and will merger for the resources and connections. I still think there will be in party fighting over foreign policy, but over all I think most things will becomes streamlined.
User Comments
-
Your argument seems to rest on the idea that conservatives are inherently realist and liberals idealist, but this is really not true. Sure, Gingrich and Bush 41 were most definitely realists, as were Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Cheney, but Reagan was an idealist, and the most successful one of our era, and Kennedy was in many ways more conservative then liberal, he was basically what you call a right elitist or paleoconservative, and so for that matter were Palin, Rand, Buckley and Giuliani. Likewise, yes, LBJ, Carter, and FDR were idealists, but some, like Gore, Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Margaret Atwood, Ken Kesey and Rahm Emmanuel are most definitely realists.
Consevatism will have or have not a political future depending upon who wins the battle culturally and how. My guess is, they do, as if anything the outrage of the past few months and the rapid decay in Obama's approval rating comes partially from the reassertion of core American values. As for the Republican Party, it can change its platform again just as it has done many times in the history of this Republic. Our election process (electoral college and 50%+1 victory) is rigged for there to be a two-party system and a two-party system there will be.-
"Our election process (electoral college and 50%+1 victory) is rigged for there to be a two-party system and a two-party system there will be."
This is Der verges Law.
"Your argument seems to rest on the idea that conservatives are inherently realist and liberals idealist, but this is really not true. "
If I implied that this is absolute then that is my mistake. Though in a general sense it is true. Conservatism and Realism and then Liberalism and Idealism naturally work well together. I did not mean to imply that this is absolute or undebatable; only that this is genrally true as in groupings they are natural fits. -
Understood, and thanks for explaining that. Don't feel guilty though, I do sometimes read things more extreme then they are; I guess I just have that hyperbolic thought process. I think that's mostly the product of today though, because they're nothing especially idealistic about authoritarian or collectivist liberalism, and nothing especially realist about hyper individualist libertarianish or populist conservatism. Individualism, Taoism, and Cultural Preservation are the primary links between conservatism and idealism, while Pragmatism, Utilitarianism, and Counterindividualism are the primary links between Liberalism and realism.
-
-
I think that for the republican party to be vital, they need to take a stand against crony-capitalism and protctionism, and be for free markets--a classical laissez-fair model, rather than perpetuating our deregulated mercantilist system.
On social issues, they need to be more pragmatic and less moralistic. I agree with the OP that they need to embrace some of the Libertarian/Hayekian/Goldwaterian aspects of conservatism.
With regard to the role of government, they need to be for a sensible federal system. Not only when it is convenient, but all the time. That the Federal Gov't needs to act more as a mitagator than an activist entity.-
I agree with pretty much all of these but I'd add one more: They need to add civil rights to their agenda, and protecting the legal and moral rights of those for whom discrimination is levied against. I know part of the attraction of Palin is that for a while she managed to do that, and most of the places where they would lose some votes by this strategy are so red-to-the-bone that they could easilly lose 5% at least to 10% tops and still have complete supremacy. That way, you can bring a little more heart and justice in to the idea and breathe some life in to it. Of course, I think the crony-capitalism one is already out the window as a result of Obama's Authoritarian (and sometimes quasi-kleptocratic) liberalism, much as Nixon's southern strategy turned the Democrats in to the party of Civil Rights even though Nixon's party still had California and the West in the bag with a competitive presence in the Northeast and Midwest.
-
@Agit8r: To do as you suggest in your last paragraph, the GOP would also have to cease their anti-government rhetoric and their Democrat=Socialist rhetoric. They would need to do as the Democrats sometimes do and talk about smart government. -
@clioandme: "They would need to do as the Democrats sometimes do and talk about smart government." Or alternatively smart society and culture, or the poor and smart economics, or individualism. These would work as well.
-
But they are running for office. They are running for positions in government. They should have a plan to make that work. I don't want them telling me what to do in terms of culture. That would be about culture wars again. No thank you.
-
@clioandme: I understand what you're saying, but what is done in the halls of government has a clear effect on such things and that should be taken in to account. It is sheer folly to assume government is an island, and a folly that conservatives have successfully exploited when tried by folks like Obama for as long as their have been conservatives. And these "culture wars" would be less about the Christian right and more about the American spirit.
-
No one called government an island. Be that as it may, are you sure you aren't channeling Obama in your last sentence?
-
He tries, and he does so partially because he agrees with me, but part of the reason his approval ratings are slipping is because the charade is coming down and the real values behind Obama's decision making are becoming all too apparent. It suited him well for a run, but now that this gimmick has run it's course the Emperor will have to find new clothes.
-
@Mark
Actually I was saying that they would have a leg to stand on if they were consistent. If one moment you are bashing interventionism, and the next moment you talk about your administration "creating jobs," pretty soon people start realizing that providing specific incentives, corporate welfare, etc, to "create jobs" reeks as badly (or worse) of planned economy as your opposition -
Gottcha.
-
@Agit8r: Absolutely, something the economic wing of the right has been warning them about for years. Also, they need to do something to address the aspect of financial liberalism that hurts the poor the most, city zoning laws which, by decree, stifle industry and commerce to keep some rich guys home high in price.
-
zoning and planning, when attended to vigilantly can be an effective part of democracy. Unfortunately this doesn't tend to happen.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
