Osler's Razor

As a Republican strategist, I'm trashing my plan entitled "Relations with Argentina: The Path Back to the White House in 2012."
 

I think I'll go pick some raspberries. They will be easier to find than the last Republican standing.
 

The death of the Republican Party is wildly exaggerated--and mostly the product of wishful thinking.

The assertion that the party is under the influence of its extreme is also a canard. This is patently untrue--we just nominated John McCain for goodness sake--the moderate's moderate, whom the opposition shamelessly but successfully portrayed as right-wing nut.

Anyhow, we are the party of Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch and John Roberts and Sam Alito. I'll take it.

As for extremes dominating the mainstream--has anybody on this thread ever heard of Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, et al?

This is a momentary downturn in a long history of the two party system. Because the Democrats are in complete control, I am fairly confident that they are making the huge mistakes that accompany absolute power.

We will be having this same conversation in reverse at some point in the future--and, when the short-sighted pundits ask this question about the Democrats--I will give the same answer I did four years ago to the same question--"the Dems will be back."

At the end of every downturn is an upturn.

Looking at everything that is going on in Washington right now, does anybody really believe that a conservative party is not going to be back in vogue in the near future?
 

Agreed with AWF on most fronts. But rather than to the future, we could look back nary a few years, when the Dems lost control of the Senate (which they only had b/c of Jeffords' lovely move) during an extreme Right-wing president's term, and then put up a painfully weak candidate.

Disagreements:
John McCain did his own good job of being portrayed as a right-wing nut. He let himself be run by his party, rather than being the good moderate Repub he (mostly) has been. Seriously -- thought much of the Republican convention was an Onion parody.

John Roberts and Samuel Alito? Not moderate Republicans.


The real discussion to have is not whether the Republican party is over, but rather whether the religious right is over, or at least has finally lost any real clout. They got Palin pushed in, but that was perhaps their coffin-sealing move.

Obviously fiscal conservatives have an argument (that I disagree with); neocons and hawks have powerful emotions they can play towards that have long worked and will continue to do so; libertarians and small government Repubs will continue to play to American mythologies even as the country/world urbanizes and we recognize the benefits of some government intervention in the market and for social protections.

But it seems, though this is perhaps wishful thinking, that the moral minority/religious right is slipping away, and may continue to do so. People will continue to be religious, of course, but they will not be so unified in their political alignments as the nation and the world continue to become more complicated and intermeshed.
 

No, WF the party does seem to be wheezing along there. Y'all need a new Reagan, how you guys loved that man! How do you find that? Hmm. Hollywood. Hmmm. Republican? Hmmm. Bruce Willis? The Rock? Wait, isn't Clint Eastwood a Repub? Oh man...he could bring everybody to y'all's side!

You need a little flash. And not the Palin kind, guys.
 

All I know is that four years ago the same question was being asked of Democrats. They thought they couldn't lose in 2004. And when they did, I watched political pundits talk about the death of the Democratic party for weeks and months on end. What changed? Well, Bush continued to do the things he did prior to 2004, which continued to upset the people that those things tend to upset. The economy turned sour in 2007/2008, which is always a pretty good way to ensure dissatisfaction with the electorate. And the Democrats didn't nominate Hillary Clinton, and instead found a leader for the party that was likeable.

It isn't rocket science. Politics is timing and luck. Good ideas help, but more often than not it is a matter of attacking the missteps of your predecessors.

So, when will the Republicans be back? Well, I would expect them to pick up some seats in next years congressional elections because that is what always happens in the first congressional elections. And I expect that depending on how effective Obama's nationalization of everything plan is over the next two years, I would expect them to either pick up more seats in 2012, or flat out take back the presidency.

And why do I think these things? Because that is the way it has been in this country for about 230 years.
 

Osler-- you were quoted in the Washington Post today.
 

The short answer? Of course they will, just as soon as the Democrats screw up. History demands it.
 

They sure are mad at that guy for doing that thing. Whatever.
 

AWF, I don't think Pelosi or Frank counts as "extremist." I don't think people here have any idea what the actual far left is like, because we don't even have but one or two "real" leftist candidates for high office here. The Democrats are, at best, center-left.

Are the Republicans dead? No, but a defining feature of modern conservative thought is dying, and rightly so. The "religious right," or marriage of conservative economic thought with traditionalist social morality and public grandstanding is going away as the "old guard" that believes like that goes the way of the dinosaur.

I don't think conservative economic politics is going away, ever. I think right now the more libertarian-minded need to break away from the über-religious. I think that'll happen eventually. What I'm hoping is that this begins the decay of the two-party system into a multi-party one.
 

I will give you ALL this much, the caricature of the Republican Party that so many love to hate and rail against is dying.

This means at least two things:

1. The Party will, of course, adapt and be back.

2. GOP haters will need to come up with some other false stereotypes to get them through the night.

One more thing, so McCain really is a right-wing nut and San Fran Nan and Barney Frank and Henry Waxman really are moderates.

Got it. Thanks.
 

I don't think McCain is an extremist.
 

Definitely not: I think McCain is pretty moderate, but he let the dying wing of the party run his campaign.

Pelosi and Frank are not all that lefty though; I agree with Lane. Give Kucinich a try. Or maybe even Bernie Sanders. It's too easy to label the first female speaker and the first openly gay congressman of any power as "super left" -- don't fall into that easy trap. I give all of you, including the right wingers here, more credit than that.
 

Septimus:

Speaking of easy traps:

It is awfully easy to think opposition to Democratic policy is about identity politics.

I keep mentioning Henry Waxman (a very homely straight white guy)--and you keep omiting him from the list--is that because my assertion is harder to dismiss summarily with him included?

Let me add Charlie Rangel and John Conyers to the list. That way I can be a racist too.

If you don't consider these folks way left of the American mainstream, I just have to wonder about your perspective.

A few points:

McCain being run by the conservative wing is a Demo talking point that falls apart quickly under any critical analysis.

You all do yourselves a disservice by paroting that line.

In re the religious right:

The modern conservative movement was built on three elements: 1) market economics/individual liberty; 2) anti-communism; and 3) Edmund Burke/Russell Kirk style social conservatism.

The Jerry Falwell/Pat RObertson Religious Right was a late addition that never really fit in exactly right. Conservatives have been a party to an uneasy alliance with the Religious Right (as you all define it).

An Aside: the partnership with conservative Catholocism and Judaism is a permanent fixture of American politcs, however, and something very positive to build on.

But the GOP future is not anymore linked to the so-called Religious Right than its storied past was. It is a very small part of the equation--although it continues to be a favorite lightning rod for opponents.


Anyhow, the smart money is on GOP resurgence--but time will tell.

The key: be a conservative alternative with integrity.
 

AWF:
Fair enough on identity politics -- point rescinded. I don't really see either of them as all that extreme though, still. As for Waxman, I didn't include him just because I don't know as much about him.

I didn't realize that "McCain being run by the right wing" was a talking point. If it is, then it's one I agree with. John Kerry, for all I didn't like about him in 2004, nailed it in his speech about "candidate McCain' vs. "Senator McCain." I guess I'll parrot this one...
 

Septimus:

I really appreciate your oft demonstrated willingness to hear me on my points.

Thanks for that; it is an exceedingly rare and refreshing virtue among people who debate politics.

In re McCain and his corruption by Karl Rove (that is how the story is usually told) being Democratic Party talking points:

Yes. Big time. This was boilerplate and it was everywhere.

I am not a fan of John Kerry. He is the gift that keeps on giving for the Republican Party. I applaud President Obama for his skillful use of Kerry. When Kerry sold his sold his soul to carry water for candidate Obama, I am convinced that Kerry thought he was going to get something big in return (and my guess is that it was Secretary of State). I love it that the President had the foresight to give State to Hillary and leave Kerry shilling for him on the Senate Foreign Relations committee.

Remember, this is the same John Kerry who offered the VP to John McCain. But JK would have you believe that McCain (the person, in truth, who will spit in your eye and risk everything on principle--reckless, yes, but not an spineless opportunist), completely changed during the course of four years so that he could curry favor with conservatives and become president.

Not in this lifetime.

Having said that, I would love to hear your case in re McCain and his alleged transformation sometime.
 

Not that anyone is still reading this thread (with the possible exception of Septimus and Prof. Osler), and not that anybody really cares what I think, but the one thing I forgot to answer:

When?

2014

The Dems ought to lose a few seats in the House in 2010--but nothing significant.

The economy ought to turn up a bit between now and 2012, which means the President will be able to run a "Morning in America" campaign.

IMHO, whoever runs for president in 2012 as the GOP nominee is a sacrificial lamb.

One conventional pick (and the most likely person): Mitt Romney

One wild card (quite unlikely but a person who might actually make a decent run at the President in the fall): Rick Perry

The first real chance at a Republican resurgence is 2014--when the wheels begin to come off with all the big spending plans, tax increases, and unfunded liabilities.

You ought to see the GOP come back big in Congress in that midterm--with a chance to gain a majority in one or both houses.

2016 ought to be a good year for a GOP presidential run.