The Atlantic - Latest Comments in The future of the GOP Cont.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Thomas R — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:59:36 -0000

They could go after gay-divorce. "No-fault divorce is just for us straights, if you gays want to be married so bad you're going to have to stick with it better than we do!" and then blame lawyers for wanting quicky gay-divorce. Also straights would still get to have their marriages be different in some way.

Not being precisely serious here.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Ubbabuknamuppnamummup — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:42:08 -0000

The Republicans *could* have locked in an African-American vote if they could find a coded language that speaks to the conservative factions of the African-American community while drawing in the moderate sections of the White community.

They've tried this, of course, with gay marriage and immigration, but all they've done is alienate moderate Whites with the former message, and all Latinos with the latter message.

In all fairness, what they're trying to do is like trying to make a cue ball go left and right at the same time.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

DaveinHackensack — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:08:36 -0000

The 'culture warrior' aspect of Pat Buchanan is only part of his message, and one he seems to have de-emphasized in recent years. Buchanan's essays in recent years have been populist, protectionist, and isolationist. He was against the war in Iraq, he is in favor of tariffs on foreign goods to protect domestic manufacturing, and he is nostalgic for the days when an American man could sleepwalk through high school and then get married and support a family on a high-paying manufacturing job.

What Buchanan seems to miss is that technology has probably had more to do with the decline in domestic manufacturing employment than foreign competition has. America manufactures more stuff now than ever before, it just doesn't require as many workers because our factories are so high-tech. The CEO of United Technologies, one of the great American manufacturing companies, gave an example of this in a CNBC interview last month. He mentioned that his company's Otis Elevator division was building 400% more elevators now than it built in 1992, and that this 400% increase in output only required a 24% increase in the size of the workforce.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

nutsokitty — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 11:20:02 -0000

Mike Paul is the future of the Republican Party. Too bad Buchanan (and Matthews for that matter) didn't see it. I think that Mike was on a good tack when he said that he was born in 1964, after Pat talked about Republican strategy at that time. Obama said in his interview with Atlantic earlier in the campaign that all of what happened in the sixties was before his time. It's time to get beyond all of this, and the Democrats are the first party to move forward. Will the Republicans follow, or stay in their old culture-war mindset.

Pat will continue to pound the culture-war meme because that is what he knows, and that got him where he is today. He continues to fight the previous battle.

Earth to Pat: A lot of people that voted in 1964 are now dead. That trend will continue, guaranteed.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Thomas R — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:22:10 -0000

"Are you trying to say that Julio's students are ignorant of current events or that he hasn't done a good job of teaching them?"

TR: Neither. Although generally speaking the majority of kids are ignorant of current events. Maybe you went to a much better High School than me, okay you probably did, but I'm skeptical most kids are all that interested in news. I'd say a good percent of adults aren't interested either.

Anyway what I'm saying is those kids probably have never met John McCain or know much about his political history. The idea that because High School kids said it it must be true is pretty silly. A class of white High School kids may believe some stupid things about Obama. This does not necessarily mean their teacher's no good or that they're actually dumb kids.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

JonF — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:30:46 -0000

Re: Replace McCain with some hardcore culture warrior and I would be shocked if the race would have tightened up.

Isn't that what Sarah Palin was for? What happened to all that rightwing gushing about how McCain had really reved up the GOP base with her as VP? Was she too moderate after all? Good grief, just how far out into the fever swamps do they need to go? Maybe Fred Phelps so they can sew up the Westboro Baptist vote?

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

GKM — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:58:29 -0000

Kind of a bummer you did Asher like that. He isn't a troll, just a contrarian. He has made some good points. I missed whatever it was that he said to set you off this time, Ta, but I don't think it's right to delete the dude wholesale. Just sayin'.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Randy — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:53:00 -0000

Thomas,

Are you trying to say that Julio's students are ignorant of current events or that he hasn't done a good job of teaching them? If those kids think McCain hates Mexicans, then McCain hates Mexicans. The kids are Mexican after all. They'd know.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Thomas R — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:36:24 -0000

"disavowing, and firing the media mouthpieces and far-right superstars who defend the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, defend torture, hate immigrants, vow to destroy programs that benefit minorities, say racist shit, and start stupid wars." tinisoli

TR: I agree. Well I don't think they have it in their power to fire them, freedom of speech and all means they'll get hired somewhere, but those people shouldn't ever be invited to any official conservative function again. They should be marginalized as much as possible. Now for some stuff concerning other posts.

And I don't think being the party of business and entrepeneurial spirit has to mean being bad to lower-class people. My Mom ran a store when we were basically living on strawberries and rice. To me Republicans could be the party for cottage industry, getting people to trade schools, or encouraging job training. I think it could adjust to being more amenable to the working poor without abandoning the idea that people should work and be as independent of the state as possible. Maybe that only appeals to white people as well though, I'm not sure.

Lastly to say John McCain hates Mexicans, as Randy indicates, is really implausible. He didn't do that bad with Hispanics in his own state and there's nothing in his history to indicate any hostility to them. This is the guy Tom Tancredo sent "nachos" to in order to bash him for being too pro-Mexican. He curried favors with the anti-immigrant Right because the Ann Coulters et alia spooked him with their threats of not voting if he won. It's deplorable, but it's more opportunistic than hateful.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

sv — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:55:35 -0000

wow... very interesting. i think what buchanan meant when he said "you got YOUR candidate" was that "you" (meaning blacks) got McCain, who he feels was "the most liberal candidate in the field" which is what he said right before the "your candidate" comment. It's disturbing to see him equate blackness with "L"iberalism, frankly, and this guy Mike Paul is exactly right -- it's why they've got to examine themselves and why they're not gonna win anything any time soon.

I was hoping he would articulate that the reason they need to examine themselves is to find out WHY minority voters don't feel comfortable with the Republican party. I was also disappointed that neither he nor Matthews called Buchanan out on his disgusting characterization of all Hispanic immigrants as basically welfare queens. It goes together with Buchanan's conflation of his version of cultural and actually racial whiteness with conservatism. Not only does that get conservatism completely wrong -- IT IS EXACTLY WHY MOST NON-WHITE PEOPLE IN AMERICA DO NOT FEEL WELCOME WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Regardless of ideology! They're not even TRYING to sell true conservatism to us because they think we're too selfish and lazy to buy it - and they think that based on our race! This is 2008! It makes me sad, frankly, because I am partial to the libertarian wing of that party and to the ideas of limited government, individual liberty and responsibility, low taxes, simple laws that are as unrestrictive as possible while preserving the public good, and other ideas which the Republican Party is supposed to stand for.

I don't want to paint the entire party as racist or to pretend that Pat Buchanan is entirely representative of Republicans; certainly most people I know who have voted Republican in the past, and I believe probably a majority in general, are not really more racist than those who haven't, and the same goes for many of their past candidates. But politically, not only do they not even try to understand us (I'm Indian, but I mean all non-whites), not just the differences but the similarities, but they actually tend to use wink-nod racist demagoguery to get racist white voters! Un-American even when whites were the vast majority, and simply political suicide going forward.

Sorry for the caps and the vehemence but I feel strongly about this. I'm a loyal, hard-working American and I take offense at being characterized otherwise on the basis of my race. Fuck Pat Buchanan - he's just dumb if he does not realize that this country would hardly exist, much less be the greatest powerhouse the world has ever seen, on the strength and work of Europe-descended people alone. Not even counting who did the literal heavy lifting.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Randy — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:53:17 -0000

Julio was right: John McCain hates Mexicans. Anyone who has been following the news knows that. Fred is ignorant for thinking otherwise. Bush hates Mexicans too. He even hates his nephew George P. Bush, who is half Mexican.

As long as Republicans keep hating on their own half-Mexican nephews, they shouldn't expect Hispanics to vote for them.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Gracie K. — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:04:24 -0000

Fake uncle Pat and the rest of the bloviators need to stop crying about the so called "Palin bounce". There was no such thing. McCain had a normal convention bounce, and it decayed faster than usual. Historically, convention bounces have taken about 6 weeks to level out. McCain's levelled out in around 2. It is likely that Palin had nothing to do with the initial bounce, but everything to do with the quick decay. Nate Silver posted a plethora of information about this back in September, but I still hear the talking heads yammer about the "Palin bounce". Someone needs to educate them. I nominate Maddow.

As for the Republicans and the changing demographics -- they are marginalizing themselves. The more they listen to the Buchanans and ignore the Pauls, the further their party will slide into irrelevance.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

mutakhalef — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:23:56 -0000

TNC, I appreciate you dumping the trolls. Thank you. At the same time, Julio's 100% right on Fred -- and it's good to be reminded that thousands of Freds sitting and seething at their keyboards sank immigration reform, which might have changed the picture for Republicans this year. That's one of the realities that's got Mike Paul concerned for the future of his party. Losing this big among Latinos was not inevitable.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Elvis Elvisberg — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:41:10 -0000

The Republican party is increasingly going to become the party of white people and the Dems are going to be the party of non whites.

Well, Obama just won 44% of whites. The GOP will be the party of tribalist white people. Not enough votes there.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Pesto — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:10:21 -0000

The GOP did so many things wrong in this campaign and in the years preceding it that you could pick any one of, say, a dozen major mistakes they've made and say, "This, here, is the key to the loss!"

I'm reminded of the parable of the blind men examining the elephant. The punch line, which I've just learned, is that none of them realize that the elephant is dead.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Deborah — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:52:44 -0000

Andy: Do we root for sensible people to prevail, just in case they wind up in charge? Or do we root for nutjobs to prevail, trusting that independents then won't vote Republican?

If I had more faith in my fellow Americans I'd be comfortable with the latter strategy....

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Tone — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:42:43 -0000

Reading lists for this subject:

"The Year of Magical Thinking" by Didion.

It's a memoir about grief but it fits well with the question of how does one accept something that is so encompassing and finite? For like grass that withers...

"Bleak House" by Dickens.

A novel about the destructive consumption of legacies by self-waged wars against those you should connect with. Only connect.

The truth behind perceptions is the adage that first impressions are hard to shake. For conservatives and Republicans, Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain gave the collective cry of "Maverick!" In the spirit of the cavalier in our country, we admire fighters. But what were they to fight? Themselves? Reformers? Bringing change to Washington is questionable when the public perception is that your party caused the muck in the first place. We all can't be Cassius.

The inevitability of shifts in people and thought shall not be ignored. The GOP needs their "Summa Logicae" with which to temper the tide of the disillusionment coupled with the shifts. Not reaching out to minorities is simply the symptom of the illogical assumption of the "majorities" to which they hold to. Demographics change and one must be flexible towards new pockets of plebis in whatever shape they possess. People talk of the symptoms that the GOP possesses but not the disease for which their needs a cure. The disease is mendacity. And the cure is a resolution that only intolerable complacency will seek to stop.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Deborah — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:29:38 -0000

Darn. I meant Derek and Julio. Sorry Julio, and welcome to the conversation.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Andy — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 08:23:50 -0000

I was very impressed with Mike Paul, having not been familiar with him before. It appears that some Republicans actually understand why their party is circling the drain.

Man, I hope they don't listen to him.

Here's his blog: http://www.mikepaulblog.com/blog/

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Deborah — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:54:20 -0000

To the points raised by Derek and Asher:

The Republicans have a hard time running on small government right now, given how it grew under Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2. Plus a fiscal policy of tax cuts combined with borrowing to fund guns and butter, especially for the wealthy. Individuals might shine, but as a group they have not exemplified any sort of fiscal responsibility or determination to make government smaller. Why should anyone believe that plank?

I also agree that a lot of minority groups are more socially conservative; the issue then is who actually delivers on social conservatism. Done anything to reduce the numbers of abortions? Or is that another talking plank that will see no action for the Republican's turn in office? You believe in traditional marriage? How many people on that stage have been divorced? "I believe in strong families, though I did dump my first set of kids. And I believe in families sitting down together and talking and having dinner together, even though I'm not on speaking terms with my own grown children." And besides, the country as a whole would like there to be fewer abortions, but the option available to them; they would like there to be more strong families, but no government intervention in their own family.

Small government and social conservatism haven't really worked together, as the libertarians keep pointing out--plenty of social conservatives fall into the libertarian camp, not the evangelical.

There's a piece in the New Yorker this week about the Obama campaign, and Axelrod, in analyzing possible general election opponents more than a year ago, decided that John McCain 2000 would be really, really hard to run against with "change." But he figured that if he won the nomination John would have made so many Faustian bargains that tying him to Bush would be easy. That's what happened with immigration--McCain rejected his own bill, and rightly lost all credit for having once been centrist on the issue. (O'Rourke represents a particular subset of Republicans and others who argue that anyone who will perform a triathlon to get here so they can pick lettuce is the kind of citizen we want.)

Besides, just as women don't vote only on abortion, Latinos don't vote only on immigration. But man did those various Republican venues this year manage to communicate (to O'Rourke's fury and disgust) that Republicans hate immigrants and hate all those people who look like they might be immigrants. The real damning of Allen's macaca moment to my ears was that he welcomed to Virginia and the USA a man born in Virginia and the USA--to George Allen, Republican spokesperson, all those brown people don't come from the real USA, don't know the real USA.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:28:48 -0000

Fred and Asher,

I'm deleting both of your comments on this blog from now on. I think I've been tolerant. The trolling is now officially over.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Bruce — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:50:15 -0000

Fred...you're as unhinged as Pat is. Attacking people based on what? your immense knowledge of what mexicans do and don't do? The party of "entrepeneurship"?? Can you please send me some of that prime shit you've been smoking?? The GOP hasn't talked about that since reagan. period. It's all culture-war, xenophobic "real america" bullshit...and btw...why did John MR Immigration Reform McCain not even vote for his own bill?? Probably because he didn't want to lose your vote. The problem isn't you per se, but the general notion of the republican party being about the white, exurban, christian values, nationalist party. It's probably the best description, it's not even about being a patriot any more, it's nationalism. And the core idea, that, we stick to these "principles" and the "furnurs" be damned if they don't like it.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

derek sutton — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:26:57 -0000

Just to clarify, here was McCain’s message to Hispanics:

“A. Do not fear me. I will not deport you. I will do everything I can to make sure you can stay in America.

B. Simultaneously, I will arrest the growth of government and make sure that no one receives handouts from the government. Small government!”

Obama’s message was:

“A. Do not fear me. I will not deport you. I will do everything I can to make sure you can stay in America.

B. I recognize that America is a difficult place for non-whites to get ahead. Elect me and I will put government to work helping you get a leg up.”

If you are Hispanic, who would you vote for? The Republican’s are screwed. How do they keep message “B” and still win elections with the population becoming more and more Hispanic? Buchanan wants to change message “A” in the hopes that he can preserve conservative votes. I think more and more Republican’s will listen to that message now that McCainism has been destroyed so thoroughly.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

derek sutton — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:19:33 -0000

Julio, if you reread my comment, I wrote, "Even if you agree with the second of these two messages in spirit, you’ll still be suspicious that the message is hiding an agenda."

I have zero doubt that Hispanics are hard working and distrustful of Government (insofar as the "Government" is represented by the INS). The message from Obama and the Dems isn't, "We are going to increase government so that INS is fully staffed and we are going to hunt your illegal ass down!" The message is, "we are the party that loves minorities and will always try to make things easier for you to be successful in America." The Republican's cannot compete with that using a traditionally understood conservative (law and order, less handouts, etc.) message.

The Republican party is increasingly going to become the party of white people and the Dems are going to be the party of non whites. I think this sucks, by the way, but it's the truth. If the Republicans are serious about winning elections (as opposed to doing what's best for their country) they should close the borders and deport as many nonwhite immigrants as possible.

You Dems who are in ecstasy over the election should be nervous. What's about to happen to the Republican party is going to be ugly.

Re: The future of the GOP Cont.

Guest — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:03:35 -0000

I think Herr Buchanan actually has a point.

Yes, he starts off with the nostalgic dreaming of every 70-ish semi-racist white man, just do what Nixon and Reagan did! Never mind the demographic changes anyone with sense knows about. Reagan, (Governor of California, signer of liberal abortion rights bill, divorced, non-church goer), might not pass the right-wing test today, I don't know. But Nixon?!? The right-wing of today would be calling him a Communist pinko Quaker.

But Buchanan telling Paul to go to Iowa with his Reform Republican Candidate is worth noting. The Iowa Republican Party is totally controlled by the Religious Right. No, really. The organization that used to be the Christian Coalition of Iowa is the most powerful GOP faction in the state. How do you think Huckabee won? Or didn't you hear about the story of longtime US Senator Chuck Grassley being denied a spot in the Iowa delegation for the RNC this year? Know why? He was the one leading the investigation into phony televangelists for the past year...he was also the one who told James Dobson to "shut his mouth" during the Harriet Myers fiasco. Grassley being an otherwise conservative stalwart didn't help him.

Paul is right for what he hinted to but didn't say. But he's also just spinning his wheels.